Time to be[an] yourself!

I checked some info around. The film in question (ABF) is used in chips to electrically isolate multiple layers; it isn’t just for AI junk. And apparently this film is created by biochemical processes.

I am not sure but I think this film is formed by fermentation. It would be not too different from that white film you sometimes see over fermented food, produced by kham yeast. (Safe but foul-tasting BTW.) Usually you’d want to avoid that film to form, but you could theoretically tweak fermentation conditions to force it to appear, and perhaps even inoculate the fermentation with specific bacteria and/or yeasts to change its attributes. Then you’d harvest the film, process it, and package it.

If that is correct it actually makes sense Ajinomoto produces it. The production process is not too different from its core business, MSG:

• ferment a carbohydrate-rich substrate (sugar cane, yucca, maize), plus some nitrogen supplements
• innoculate it with a specific bacterium (Corynebacterium glutamicum)
• neutralise the glutamic acid into MSG, crystallise it, ship it

I believe both could be produced by other industries if necessary/desired. And the reason they don’t do it is simply economy of scale, and competition with an already established monopoly over both.

“Now that we don’t do that, you see these things on the internet where, ‘Don’t use ChatGPT, it’s 17 gallons of water for each query’ or whatever,” Altman said. “This is completely untrue, totally insane, no connection to reality.”

He knows he’s a con artist, he knows people know he’s a con artist, and yet he’s talking as if we were supposed to trust him to not be a con artist. That’s basically to call everyone stupid/gullible/trash by proxy.

He added that it’s “fair” to be concerned about “the energy consumption — not per query, but in total, because the world is now using so much AI.” In his view, this means the world needs to “move towards nuclear or wind and solar very quickly.”

Even before those huge datacentres, “don’t reduce consumption, increase production” is how we’re cooking the planet.

There’s no legal requirement for tech companies to disclose how much energy and water they use,

That’s something that could be fixed. At least in Europe, China, Japan; probably here in Latin America, too.

Altman also complained that many discussions about ChatGPT’s energy usage are “unfair,” especially when they focus on “how much energy it takes to train an AI model, relative to how much it costs a human to do one inference query.”

Whataboutism at its grossest.

The coin evidence dates the sanctuary to between about 80 and 171 AD, during the period of the Roman cohort fort in Kumpfmühl and the associated Danube settlement, before the establishment of the legionary camp at Regensburg.

This is interesting because it shows how widespread the “mystery cults” (like Mithraism) were back then.

Originally the Romans built a small fort in the place, near the Celtic settlement of Radasbona. But then by 171 Marcus Aurelius had it rebuilt to host the Italic Third Legion. And given legions back then had 5200 soldiers, this means the fort was considerably smaller than the necessary to hold 5k people; if it was just a bit smaller, they’d extend, not rebuild it.

For reference: in the 1st century it’s believed the city of Rome had ~1M inhabitants, and Alexandria had ~500k. The empire as a whole had, like, 60M? 75M? inhabitants. So even for the standards of back then, this sanctuary was found in the middle of nowhere, and yet there was social pressure to build a shrine for Mithras there.

the sanctuary provides valuable new evidence for the rituals and material culture of the enigmatic Mithras cult across the Roman world.

That’s important because we know practically nothing about the cult. The initiates swore an oath of secrecy, so written info from those times is rather scarce.

Who knows? Definitively worth trying! (…I’m not trying it.)

indications.

Yes but the text omits what is being indicated: directions. In Spanish I bet this is clear by context, but since I was trying to parse it from other Romance languages, the result was weird:

• IT - so Seymour got some instructions? (“Indicazioni” sounds way more abstract, as “indicating what you need to do”)
• PT - so they were there despite the recommendations? Then why is bald guy looking at Seymour with a “you dun goofed” face? (“Indicações” would imply “indicating a place as worth visiting”)

Just small language differences, you know.

“it’s what he did”/“it was her heart what he stole” - works like this.

Is it common to say that “que” in Spanish without any verb, like they did there?

I’ve seen people preparing sweet cakes with Parmesan cheese. I’ve eaten it. It’s actually really tasty, so… I hope the person who took this pic tasted their tea/chocolate/whatever before throwing it away.

I can kind of parse Spanish from other Romance languages, but some stuff throws me off track. Like that indicationes for “directions” (I had to check it in a dictionary), or the verbless que’s in the third panel.

But yeah, the joke is really clear.

Relevant to note I don’t speak Nahuatl. I parsed this info from Wiktionary + Wikipedia, it’s surprisingly easy to follow.

(For the non-possessed form, as in “a penis is an organ”, use “tepolli” instead. Wiktionary also mentions “tototl” bird being used with that meaning, kind of like English “cock”.)

That’s a language-dependent ambiguity; this sort of “noun¹ noun²” construction in English is actually rather vague, and it can be used multiple ways:

• material - e.g. fish fillet (the fillet is made of fish)
• purpose - e.g. fish knife (the knife is made to handle fish)
• destination - e.g. fish food (the food goes to the fish)
• inalienable possession - e.g. fish tail (the tail belongs to the fish, and removing it means removing part of the fish)
• alienable possession - e.g. fish bowl (the bowl “belongs” to the fish, but you could give it another bowl)
• etc.

As such I believe that in at least some languages it’s probably clear if you refer to chicken egg as “an egg coming from a chicken” or “an egg a chicken is born from”. Not that they’re going to use it with this expression though.

For reference. @cuerdo@lemmy.world used as an example “my penis”:

If I say “my penis”, it is likelier that I am talking about the one attached to me rather than the one I bought in the market.

In Nahuatl both would be distinguished: you’d call your genitals “notepollo” (inalienable possession), and the one you bought “notepol” (alienable possession). (Note: “no-” for the first person. For someone else’s dick use “mo-” when speaking with the person, i- when talking about them.)

Just language things, I guess.

You know what? That’s a great idea, I might actually try it. At least teach them how to meow in a specific way to ask for their treats.

If the parking was obstructing something else you can report it to enforcement for towing/ticketing or the owners of the lot.

Let’s say this was a public place. Now you need to go through all the bureaucracy to contact the relevant law enforcer. There’s a good chance they won’t fucking care, even if parking the car that way violates some law. Or alternatively there might be no law in place (even if there should be one), so there’s genuinely nothing you can do.

Now let’s say this was a privately owned place, like the parking lot of a supermarket. Do you genuinely think the owners care if their “esteemed customer” Karen’s car gets in the way of “some fucking cripples”? (Note: this sort of arsehole really, really likes to park their cars in spots for people with disabilities. Or often half of their car.)

In either case: congrats for wasting your time and solving jack shit!

And in both cases you’re relying on some higher up to do shit, when it’s actually more civil to tell the owner they’re doing shit wrong. As in, you know… leaving some message.

If it was not obstructing something else

i don’t reasonably expect someone to reach for pen and paper to leave a message in this case.

I read this reply as nothing but ego and lots of assumptions (shooting my brains out, wtf?)

If that’s the case you should at least try to develop basic reading comprehension.

I was clearly listing possible ways to handle this, and the possible outcomes. No, the odds the car owner is a violent piece of shit are not zero; waiting for them to say tête-à-tête “don’t do this, please” is not reasonable. And this is fucking obvious dammit.

I also genuinely think you don’t know what “ego” and “assumption” mean, otherwise you wouldn’t use either here. Just like you don’t know what “passive aggressivity” means.

Besides what Grumpy said (I agree with it): I think leaving a mildly rude written message was the best approach here, once you put yourself in the shoes of whoever wrote the message.

Odds are the car owner parked their car in a really obstructive way, making shit worse for everyone else. It got in your way, and it’ll most likely get in the way of other people too. So, what are you going to do?

• Nothing? You’re giving a free pass to some fucking Enzo/Valentina Karen, who’ll likely do this shit again, and again, and again, because they don’t fucking care about other people.
• Wait until the car owner arrives, and tell them something? You don’t know the owner. It’s possible they simply say “oh, I see, sorry!”, but the risk of actual violence is non-zero, they might pick up a gun and shoot your brains out.
• Leave a polite message, like “please don’t park your car this way, it inconveniences other people”? Remember, there’s a big chance the car owner is a Karen, they don’t give a fuck about other people.
• Leave a message telling them to off themselves? Now you’re going too far; not even a Karen deserves that.
• something else? Feel free to point it out.

So you leave a mocking message. That makes the person feel bad about themself, and highlight people dislike them because of their actions. That’s exactly what the person who wrote the message did.

Cops aren’t just bastards, they’re often dumb as bricks. No surprise they don’t know the difference between “content criticising Nazism” and “content praising Nazism”.

No condom. I’d sub the “please don’t reproduce” with “I’m glad people like you don’t reproduce” or something like this. To add injury.

AFAIK all modpacks are made for specific versions of Minecraft, so the current modpacks are completely unaffected. And even for future modpacks, the modpack creator doesn’t need to care too much about this, since it’ll affect the mods directly. (A modpack is, like the name says, just a pack of mods stitched together and glued with some configs.)

Plus popular modpacks are often for extremely old MC versions; for example a lot of people still run modpacks made for 1.16.5 (4yo), 1.12.2 (8yo), or even 1.7.10 (12yo).

“Switching from OpenGL to Vulkan will have an impact on the mods that currently use OpenGL for rendering, and we anticipate that updating from OpenGL to Vulkan will take modders more effort than the updates you undertake for each of our releases,” explains Mojang. “To start with, we recommend our modding community look at moving away from OpenGL usage.”

Question: how much does your typical content mod decide what’s going to be rendered? Is this something typically handled by Fabric/Quilt/[Neo]Forge?

Because I can quite guess OptiFine and the likes will need a lot of elbow grease, but I’m not sure about the rest.

My cats, in the meantime: train themselves to know when humans dispense food, everything else be damned!

I can’t rule out some might have “good intentions”. But more importantly, their intentions don’t really matter — it isn’t like you or me are going to know them.

Most of the people using AI to contribute are probably like the guy who got so upset his pet AI wasn’t allowed to contribute he likely promoted it to write a hit piece on the person who rejected it.

You’re talking about the guy in charge of the slopbot who wrote shaming Shambaugh, right? Even in the hypothesis the tool misbehaved and wrote that hit piece by itself, instead of him prompting it to write the hit piece, that guy should be still blamed for libelling someone else. He was the one in charge of the tool.

I apologise beforehand for the wall of text. To be frank I’m enjoying this discussion.

You know, I don’t think the “temporarily embarrassed millionaires” thing is true anymore. […]

I still notice a fair bit of that “we’re the best Nation! Gott mit uns [sorry, wrong Nazi country] God Bless Amurrrca! Everyone else is a bloody shitskin living in a mud hut” discourse when interacting with United-Statians online. Perhaps it isn’t as strong as before, like You said, but I don’t think it’s gone.

Then again I’ve lived in a homeless shelter and surround Myself with antirealists, so what do I know about the consciousness of white suburbia?

I live in a mostly-white suburbia but it’s in Latin America, so… take what I say about USA’s youth with a grain of salt. As in, I’m throwing in what I think, but I’m fully aware it might be wrong. Still worth saying IMO, though.

“you” as the pronoun for hypothetical people […]

Got it. I’ll do as You said and use “one”. (To be frank I used “one” for some time, mostly to distinguish between the personal and indeterminate, but plenty native speakers screeched at it, so… I kind of gave up. But it’s good to know I can use it with You, and potentially with other people who capitalise pronouns.)

I confess I don’t fully understand how increased assumptiveness should lead to an increased value placed on intentions as excuses for wrongdoing.

Let’s say intentions exist as an abstraction for a bunch of mental processes, related to planning and the predictions of the outcome of one’s own actions. For example, when someone plans to do something, the person has the “intention” of doing it. Or (reusing the example from Your blog), “author intent” as the set of experiences, thoughts, emotions etc. the author is trying to provoke on the reader. In practice that’s really close to what most use the word “intention” for.

But that’s all internal to someone’s mind. Only the person themself sometimes know their own intentions; nobody else does. At most others can guess it, based on what the person’s words or actions.

So, for one to act based on someone else’s actions, or to say something about them, one needs to either

• create multiple, mutually exclusive guesses about the other’s intentions, and carefully weight the odds of each being true; or
• act as if they knew the other’s intentions.

Your typical person won’t do the former. But they’ll do the later — and the later is what we call “to assume”, it’s to take what one doesn’t know as if one did.

So there’s where assumptiveness kicks in; for most people, it’s what even enables them to talk about intentions. Without assumptiveness, the value of intentions is the same of a ghost, it’s zero.

Granted, someone’s guesses might be more or less accurate depending on how much the person guessing knows the person they’re guessing the intentions off. But when you’re dealing with vulture capitalists across the globe, one knows as much about the person as one knows future lotteries, practically nothing. They’re a stranger, but they’re still talking carefully crafted words about their own intentions, and what they talk about their intentions is the only actual piece of info you have to guide your guess them. With the wrongdoings becoming more of a “no, I didn’t have the intention! My intentions was another!”

The result is that you have a bunch of bourgeois people likely bullshitting about their intentions, and people eating it for breakfast.