My experience has been that you basically restart the process of building a new social circle every few years. Life circumstances change. People move away. Some relationships grow apart. Some start families. So there’s always going to be others in the same boat as you looking for new connections.
Ah, I didn’t realize the moon could look bigger/smaller at different times. I thought you were saying that the moon is actually the same size as the sun or something like that.
that the moon’s apparent size is due to how close it is to earth (same for seasons and the sun)
Explain?
Also, what’s the size/proximity of seasons?
These lakes are formed when the cloud is saturated and gives us data precipitation.
That’s provided by the milk
I think the words you’re looking for is “sisyphean”.
This is probably why dentists recommend replacing them frequently.
To be fair, the same can be said about most forms of entertainment.
You don’t even need any indoctrination. Just compensate them better than everyone else and they’ll give their life for you. That’s the power of money.
What are these Manjaro controversies?
Ask yourself why you’re donating in the first place. Is it so that good journalism can continue to exist regardless of who gets to see it? Is it to give everyone access to good journalism regardless of their ability to pay? Is it so that the journalists can continue producing content for you to consume yourself? Maybe it’s something else?
If the company is no longer providing what you expect from them, then that’s a good reason to stop donating.
We’re assuming that you’re talking to someone who’s willing to have a discussion in good faith.
You’d first need to know why that isn’t a sufficiently solid answer. Are they looking for a perfect solution? Because I’m pretty sure there isn’t one. What we want is an improvement over the status quo, and sometimes an overall improvement necessitates a worse experience in certain areas.
We’ve been doing this in RL research with Minecraft as well (see MineDojo). An excerpt from the GitHub page:
MineDojo […] provides open access to an internet-scale knowledge base of 730K YouTube videos, 7K Wiki pages, 340K Reddit posts.
Again, no one has run into legal issues with this yet either, but this also isn’t as ubiquitous compared to Atari, nor has it been around for as long.
Did you mean to respond to a different comment? I have no idea what happened in the VP debate.
The very first response I gave said you just have to reframe state.
And I said “am augmented state space would make it Markovian”. Is that not what you meant by reframing the state? If not, then apologies for the misunderstanding. I do my best, but I understand that falls short sometimes.
Reinforcement learning research has been using Atari games as standard benchmarks for over a decade now and no one has faced legal issues yet.
I’m not familiar with the term “beam” in the context of LLMs, so that’s not factored into my argument in any way. LLMs generate text based on the history of tokens generated thus far, not just the last token. That is by definition non-Markovian. You can argue that an augmented state space would make it Markovian, but you can say that about any stochastic process. Once you start doing that, both become mathematically equivalent. Thinking about this a bit more, I don’t think it really makes sense to talk about a process being Markovian or not without a wider context, so I’ll let this one go.
nitpick that makes communication worse
How many readers do you think know what “Markov” means? How many would know what “stochastic” or “random” means? I’m willing to bet that the former is a strict subset of the latter.
It’s in reference to your complaint about the imprecision of “stochastic process”. I’m not disagreeing that molecular diffusion is a stochastic process. I’m saying that if you want to use “Markov process” to describe a non-Markovian stochastic process, then you no longer have the precision you’re looking for and now molecular diffusion also falls under your new definition of Markov process.
That’s basically like saying that typical smartphones are square because it’s close enough to rectangle and rectangle is too vague of a term. The point of more specific terms is to narrow down the set of possibilities. If you use “square” to mean the set of rectangles, then you lose the ability to do that and now both words are equally vague.
What? This guy has one of the strongest cult followings of any human being I’ve ever heard of. How is that low charisma?