Sometimes, I just wanna remind myself how to use xargs for some command text replacement in a random one-liner on the terminal.
If I tried to do that with man... I'd have to read (in alphabetical order) the documentation for 6 different command flags. That's how far I'd go to read about the flag -- to actually use it, I'd have to experiment with the command flag until I figured out the actual syntax using my imagination.
Let's say instead that I am in a rush... so I'm skipping that time-consuming process and instead scrolling furhter down for some practical examples... one full page later I find a bunch! ... Except there's only 4 and none of them demonstrate what I need (the syntax is completely different). The docs wasted my time exactly when I most needed it NOT to do that. If I'd instead just googled "xargs replacement example", I would have gotten something I can copy/paste in seconds and could have gotten on with my life!
The moral of the story is this: Don't tell without showing. Don't show without telling. Do both if your goal is to be understood.
Once you have something working the way you like, make your own example and put it on a github repo named "today-i-learned". Then you can refer to it as your own documentation for yourself.
Yes, of course. We're all reasonable adults who are capable of acknowledging that services of value cost money.
It just so happens that weather is a phenomenon which affects all people and requires large, distributed, passive infrastructure to effectively manage. It's a classic case where the public option is bound to be more efficient in terms of absolute resource allocation.
On what basis do I assert that it's "bound" to be more efficient? Simple: weather affects the production, transportation, and logistics of virtually all goods. The costs of weather are therefore distributed equally across society regardless of government policy. Government is very good at delivering this specific type of centralized basic infrastructure in a cost-effective way (see also: roads), so if we're all paying for it together regardless this is a no-brainer policy.
I rarely feel this way about someone of Pope Francis' age and social position, but I've genuinely admired Francis as a thinker. He was a bona fide Jesuit, through and through. The next pope has big shoes to fill.
I have heard yesterday on some Catholic TV channel that Benedict had already done the theological clarification work during his mandate, and that Francis - who was already the runner-up to Benedict and knew he was likely to be next in line - knew his task would be more about preaching - thus his strong media game (and as he person it suited him well too, he seemed really approchable and outgoing).
Note that Antiqua et Nova was authored by the Church. With its profound philosophical tradition, the Church offers insights in this text that surpass anything ever written by Silicon Valley entrepreneurs.
I’ll also add that many of his admirers as well as his detractors exaggerated his virtues, his merits, and his flaws. He was both the victim of a media and film industry all too eager to spin him into the “progressive pope” — never shying away from quoting him out of context to push an agenda — and the issuer of problematic and ambiguous documents and off-the-cuff remarks that only served to generate confusion.
Intellectually, Benedict XVI and John Paul II were in a different league. As far as the Jesuits are concerned, I know that in the popular imagination, the Jesuits are imagined to be some kind of “progressive”, intellectually superior order, but historically, they were sort of the shock troops of the Church. They certainly have merits to their name. While they did become involved in education, they drew from the traditions of education in the Church. Education and scholarship, however, are not their charism. Compare that with the Dominicans, for example, who have teaching and education as their mission (Thomas Aquinas is probably their most famous member).
> But jesuits are historically linked to education and the sciences, this is a fact.
Isn't that what I said? I merely said it is not their charism, not their specialty. The point is that in the popular imagination, people elevate them above orders who not only have a better historical record, but whose mission is to educate, study, etc.
That isn't to downplay the good contributions of the Jesuits, but I can point you to Jesuits (who, as an order, are in poor shape these days, tbh) who would say the same thing. The popular imagination is simply ignorant or tendentious on this point in its exaggeration relative to the others.
Jesuit scholarship, especially in the last 100 years, is noteworthy for generating impressive literature while contributing close to nothing to the Church. See Rahner, Balthasar, de Lubac, Chardin... Garbage through and through
The "Experts" in MoE is less like a panel of doctors and more like having different brain regions with interlinked yet specialized functions.
The models get trained largely the same way as non-MoE models, except with specific parts of the model silo'd apart past a certain layer. The shared part of the model, prior to the splitting, is the "router". The router learns how to route as an AI would, so it's basically a black-box in terms of whatever internal structure emerges from this.
There actually is an outcome worse than a missed click: if too many viewers are abandoning your video within the first few minutes (i.e. before midrolls), you'll experience substantial downranking.
More or less, the art of making a successful video requires:
* An attention-grabbing thumbnail
* A curiosity-provoking title & premise
* A strong hook which convinces the viewer to put the screen down and let it run
* Editing which delivers the information at an engaging (yet monetizable) pace
* Packaging said information so that it is intelligibly balanced across the mediums (audio/text/video)
* ^^^ Doing this all in a style which still retains enough uniqueness to establish a repeat viewerbase
"The algorithm" is a system for efficiently delivering novel videos with these qualities to the audiences who will most eagerly consume them, which is an essential function for a platform with 2 billion monthly users. For every video on lowest-common-denominator celebrity junk, there's a dozen niche videos tailored to some ravenous subculture or other. Not all magazines are tabloids... but just about anyone can kill time with a tabloid, so that's what leads.
Unlike magazine stands, however, the platform will eventually learn to only show you the thumbnails for videos you'll want to finish watching. It's almost embarassing to share... but here's an example batch of 12 recommendations, almost all of which I'm likely to (eventually) click on and fully watch: https://i.imgur.com/dygfXXb.png
It requires all of these things, yes, but it also must deal with a topic approved by Google. So not offensive to an american coastal liberal type of person.
One popular channel who commentates on american police body cam footage, replaces the gunshot sounds with animal noises. It's ridiculous. Also no discussion or use of tobacco. Many times I've heard people refer to Adolf Hitler as "bad mustache man" for fear of getting censored or demonetised. One channel that discusses historical firearms, is censoring the 1933-1945 german reichsflag. And so on and so on. It's all so tiresome.
It's unfortunately not just YouTube but all social media. Self-censoring like "unalived" or 'k**ed" to avoid the wrath of the algorithm is becoming all too common.
Gaming was becoming less and less the domain of the tech-savvy crowd, strongly curbing the public's appetite for such host-it-yourself services. Teamspeak/Mumble were already dying at the hands of (inferior) free/easy chat platforms like Steam & Skype, so it's really no wonder that Discord was able to swoop in and clobber all of them by simply being free and featureful.
It's funny that you mention eggs because there's actually been a recent paper regarding sous vide, soft-boiling, and achieving the "ideal" egg texture through a novel boiling process (novel to me, anyway) which they've opted to call "periodic cooking": https://www.nature.com/articles/s44172-024-00334-w
There's a lot of cool diagrams which I'd encourage skimming that link for, but here's the basic rundown: the goal of the described process is to achieve a creamy yolk like what would be produced via sous vide whilst eliminating the unpleasant jammy eggwhite texture characteristic of that process. The recipe involves 30 minutes of carefully transferring an egg back and forth between two vessels repeatedly: one boiling, one room-temperature. You do that 16 times in exact two-minute intervals in order to achieve the "perfect" egg -- very simple and convenient for the modern home-cook in a hurry!
> Kids are almost teens now, but she gets zero support from them or her husband
This is a good analogy. Children are the people who they've been raised to become, so it stands to reason that people will give money and appreciation in the same ways that these things are originally given to them. These things are social constructs; we are inevitably taught how to use them by way of social dynamics. This is all to say that people love to support their darlings... but they've been socially conditioned to expect reciprocity in all transactions. That's how the sausage is made in content-based monetization -- you produce the actual product at a loss and then try to claw it back selling high-margin merchandise that nobody'd ever buy otherwise. The merch acts as social permission to finally do your part and pay the creators.
To risk stating the obvious: this is not a good thing and I think the majority of people would likewise agree. People should be fairly rewarded for their work and we should desire a culture which openly and freely encourages doing so. Culture, however, reflects society. The society we've created is transactional, so that's how people frame the spending of their money and efforts -- indeed, "spending" and "transaction" are practically interchangeable in our collective lexicon. Effort isn't strictly scarce in the same way eggs are, however, so we fail to value it.
> I don't know if this is the case around the world (probably is?) and I don't know what the solution is. It just sucks
It's not a total disaster... so we'll undoubtedly continue to ignore the cracks in the foundation. Martin still got paid good money for his efforts and it was good for him for a time. That podcast you like will sell enough t-shirts and get the rent paid on time, at least for a little while longer. This seems to be about as good as we've collectively agreed to make the world for the time being. A local maxima, so to speak: we've gotten stuck asking for more when less might do better. With a bit of luck and effort, however, we can still catch that pendulum when it eventually begins swinging in the other direction. That's my hope, anyway! For the time being I try to do the things I'd like to see become normal in a more decent world -- sharing generously, paying for the things I like, etc. -- because hopeless accelerationism is for chumps.
Not what people are asking for. What you're ruling out is the equivalent of expecting cryostasis subscribers to sue if there's ever a service interruption.
Conventional business models as currently implemented are fundamentally misaligned to the timescales associated with this product category. Products like these need a level of stability that can only be accomplished at the charter level of the corporation -- it needs to be fundamentally incapable of reneging on promises made.
Without that kind of reassurance, why should anyone trust this service with their links? The exchange is incredibly unequal. They receive full, permanent control of the content, access, and monetization of all things which I cite. I receive... a promise that my links will do what they already do, but maybe last longer.
Neither solution is really tenable. People vote where their money is and non-homeowners -- a minority in the U.S. -- are subject to externalities which prevent them from forming efficient voting blocks.
The most realistic path out of this situation is that homeownership becomes increasingly inaccessible to the point where it hurts more people than it helps (i.e.: when the majority of voters cannot afford to own property). This will take a long time on the macro scale, considering the current 65% homeownership rate and the generational nature of property transfers. The micro scale will change faster wherever unattainable homeownership is already the reality, but it will ultimately be bottlenecked by state-level legislation. City governments lack the resources/authority to meaningfully incentivize developers or otherwise remove obsolete building codes.
If I tried to do that with man... I'd have to read (in alphabetical order) the documentation for 6 different command flags. That's how far I'd go to read about the flag -- to actually use it, I'd have to experiment with the command flag until I figured out the actual syntax using my imagination.
Let's say instead that I am in a rush... so I'm skipping that time-consuming process and instead scrolling furhter down for some practical examples... one full page later I find a bunch! ... Except there's only 4 and none of them demonstrate what I need (the syntax is completely different). The docs wasted my time exactly when I most needed it NOT to do that. If I'd instead just googled "xargs replacement example", I would have gotten something I can copy/paste in seconds and could have gotten on with my life!
The moral of the story is this: Don't tell without showing. Don't show without telling. Do both if your goal is to be understood.