I mean, still what is significant? It seems you see the Napoleonic wars as such. Considering involvement of countries, the Crimean war had 4 great and 2 minor powers involved and lasted for 3 years. Granted the Crimean war was shorter and had less than the 6 great powers involved as were during the different coalition wars, with 1/4 the of the dead, but politically it was very significant and certainly not small nor regional in its effects.

That is factually incorrect, there have been many wars between the 1815 and 1914 that would qualify.

See the Crimean war 1853 or the German-French war 1870. With two or more great powers involved.

Or what is your definition?

Being pedantic it is added detail. As native Americans did it, even if they still do it, they could have originally/historically not done so.

And also are there tribes/larger groups of native americans that did stop doing it? Then that statement is even stronger

That does not need to be the case (seeing that you probably meant this in jest, I still will take it on). Assuming the cat is already a higher dimensional being, which I feel is valid as it can move between them.

Imagine a Cube going through a 2D plane. You would see a cross section of the cube depending on the angle it goes through. The same would be the case for a hypercube in 4D and 3D (different effect as different cross section though).

So I would argue the comic is correct.

True, ML and such fell under the umbrella term of AI before, but I feel that with most people using it mostly for LLMs (or things like diffusion models, etc.) right now, it has kinda lost that meaning to some extent…

Had some conversation with another commenter, I agree with you now. Cheers

Thanks for sharing that paper. I was indeed missing that information and now agree with your earlier statement.

I think them using magnetohydrodynamical black hole models as a base for the ML is a better approach than standard CLEAN though that the Japanese team used. However, both “only” approach reality.

deleted by creator

This is one team that disagrees out of many that agree.

To explain what you are seeing. The above image is the inverse Fourier transform (FT) of different frequencies of sinus waves that compose an image.

The very large baseline interferometer (VLBI) applied in the event horizon telescope (EHT) is using different telescopes all over the world, in a technique called interferometry, to achieve high enough resolutions to observe different frequencies in Fourier space that make up an image. If you observe all, you can recreate the full image perfectly. They did not, they observed for a long time and thus got a hefty amount of these “spatial” frequencies. Then they use techniques that limit the image to physical reality (e.g. no negative intensities/fluxes) and clean it from artefacts. Then transform it to image space (via the inverse FT)

Thereby, they get an actual image that approximates reality. There is no AI used at all. The researchers from Japan argued for different approach to the data, getting a slightly different inclination in that image. This may well be as the data is still too few to 100 % determine the shape, but looks more to me like they chose very different assumptions (which many other researchers do not agree with).

Edit: They did use ML for simulations to compare their sampling of the Fourier space to.

What do you mean AI? This is an interferometric Image reconstructed from information of the very large baseline interferometer (VLBI).

Edit: Although I wouldn’t call it AI, they used machine learning (ML) with simulations in their image reconstruction, so I agree

With heroic, GOG games work flawlessly, you can use both proton and wine with it. Also supports Epic Games and other games from launchers.

Native GOG launcher on Linux would be nice, too though

A hue of orange

Nitpick, oder than the federal republic of Germany yes, older than the German Empire founded in 1870, no

The distinction you make is fair. What I meant by active is as you describe “operating a vehicle”, pedestrians are active participants as well, but you arguably are more likely to cause harm when misusing vehicles than on foot.

I was generally speaking about cities where most of these fines/sentences happend. In rural areas it is harder in many countries, although bare extreme mountainous parts, Japan is generally OK here as well.

Though I believe in these parts you are not only less likely to cause harm when drunk driving + police is less likely to stop you as well.

Generally speaking, it is always possible to either plan well enough to be able not to operate a vehicle drunk, or to simply don’t drink if the former isn’t possible. Don’t you agree?

I gave Germany as an example, but this is the case for many countries. Japan, Germany, UK, some regions of Australia, etc.

Danke, zurück!

Not really, same in Germany if you are generally drunk in traffic (except by foot or public transport, i.e. an active participant) the same sober laws apply. So the incentive is not to do that when drunk. Also believe me when you lose your driving license completely you will care if you need it, and even if you don’t, fines hurt, too.

Japan is even harsher as you can go to prison directly, and if you are in their court system once (that is after only a fine or simple suspension) due to customs and cultural norms you will be found guilty with a chance of about 99 % (the Japanese court system is notoriously bad).

Alternatives to escalating by using a car can bet walking or taking the metro, the latter is easily possible in Japan, for instance. When the trains don’t run there are plenty cheap manga cafes or capsule hotels.

Same bei mir, aber Verteidigung der Doktorarbeit Anfang Januar

But neither can you discredit anything without evidence. The basis of science is falsifiability. That is, we have to be able to prove it wrong.

To be honest, I feel like what you describe in the second part (the monkey analogy) is more of a genetic algorithm than a machine learning one, but I get your point.

Quick side note, I wasn’t at all including a discussion about energy consumption and in that case ML based algorithms, whatever form they take, will mostly consume more energy (assuming not completely inefficient “classical” algorithms). I do admit, I am not sure how much more (especially after training), but at least the LLMs with their large vector/matrix based approaches eat a lot (I mean that in the case for cross-checking tokens in different vectors or such). Non LLM, ML, may be much more power efficient.

My main point, however, was that people only remember AI from ~2022 and forgot about things from before (e.g. non LLM, ML algorithms) that were actively used in code completion. Obviously, there are things like ruff, clang-tidy (as you rightfully mentioned) and more that can work without and machine learning. Although, I didn’t check if there literally is none, though I assume it.

On the point of game “AI”, as in AI opponents, I wasn’t talking of that at all (though since deep mind, they did tend to be a bit more ML based also, and better at games, see Starcraft 2, instead of cheating only to get an advantage)