“you thought you did something there, didn’t you?”

  • 0 Posts
  • 103 Comments
Joined 10 months ago
cake
Cake day: September 25th, 2023

help-circle






  • Yeah, even if he is advising or contributing, the way he put it sounds very disingenuous like he’s trying to inflate the number for his argument. Which MIGHT mean there likely was not many with immediately recognizable significance in that time (don’t yell at me, I have not taken the time to verify this).

    Either way, the way he responded comes across as very “I’m published, you’re not, neener neener!” which is not a good look for anyone with a doctorates.

    Also, genuine question, how significant was the contribution of LeNet-5 to the field of deep learning vs Neocognitron?





  • You have it wrong, which really shows what you stand for:

    Cloudflare refused to block KiwiFarms as there was no evidence of criminal activity or violation of their policies, and doing so would tarnish their reputation in regards to free speech. They did stop hosting KiwiFarms, in September of 2022 (you can find their statement here) in response to a libelous pressure campaign ran by Keffals when she/they/it found out users were pulling out receipts of it engaging in lewd conversation with minors and providing them with DIY hormone replacement therapy kits without any medical oversight or parental consent.

    And KF did not attack Keffals out of nowhere, it was only after she started engaging with Chris-chan as she was attempting to use him to boost her own reputation at a time when he was already in a perilous mind.

    I’m not sure exactly where you got the “threatening trans people” from, that is the first I’ve heard of it. I know of one incident that is much more grave and potentially what you are referring to, but your reference leaves out almost the entire context of that one particular incident and there have been no repeats of it to my knowledge.

    I’m not a fan of KiwiFarms, but they did not earn their censorship. It was the result of a successful attempt by a revisionist career troll to cover their tracks when they realized their goose was about to get cooked, nothing more. If you truly stand for free speech, you would realize just how dangerous the precedent set by such an unreliable source as Keffals is.

    And yes, I realize that if my comment gains enough traction, it and its army will be at my throat and by no doubt have doxxed me in no time if they so choose. But that’s not going to keep me from preventing people like you from twisting the narrative.


  • If you don’t recognize the number, answer in a funny accent. That’s how you defeat the voice harvesters.

    ring ring Sombrero repair, como es?

    ring ring [deep voice] Investigations.

    ring ring HJECKIN?

    ring ring [high pitched voice] OOIIO BO IMA SO GLAD YE RANG DOLLINGA

    ring ring thinkyefurcullinpapajhonzzewoodyalacktatryourpapalopadoussoosageasperigusdoughdopoloostoday?

    ring ring [monkey noises]

    ring ring OOOOOHHHHHHHH COME ON EILEEN, I BEG OF YA PLEASE

    ring ring [raspy voice] Jerome?

    ring ring [dictation voice, right up against microphone] THANK YOU FOR FALLING KMART. PLEASE LET US KNOW WHAT YOU ARE CALLING ABOUT SO WE MAY DIRECT YOUR CALL

    ring ring [moaning so intense it would make Sarah Grey blush]

    ring ring WEAR MAH CHIL’ SUPPORT AT JEROME

    ring ring [play Gilbert Garfield directly into microphone]


  • And studies are scientific, but are not science itself. A study can be intentionally misleading in bad faith, but that doesn’t mean every researcher in that field is acting in bad faith, just the author, publisher, and perhaps reviewing peers.

    Anyone can right a paper. And if they right it on something obscure and bespoke enough, it can be difficult for someone to question their work. Doing so is the duty of peer reviewers, and sometimes these peers for whatever reason will fail to smell the bullshit or raise issue about smelling it. Then the honus is on the publisher to retract falsified papers.

    This is why citations are like gold to postdocs. It’s what builds their credibility, and that credibility is one of the most important aspects of the academic and scientific world.





  • Gabe has said multiple times he would never sell Valve to Microshaft.

    Every time I see these “rumors” I can’t help but think that they are a malicious tactic by Microshaft to try and influence their more longshot buyout offers-- Microshaft really really wants Valve, this has been known for at least a decade. And some overzealous young execs are foolishly ready to try and pressure Valve with these bullshit tactics, completely unaware of what dangerous game they are playing legally.

    I have no doubt in my mind Valve will never be sold to Microshaft or come anywhere close to it so long as Gabe or his confidants are at the helm. They are ex-Microsoft employees. They built Windows 3.0. They know it’s inner workings and failings very intimately and they only begrudgingly tolerate Windows because it’s the dominant market share. That’s the whole reason SteamOS and Steam Deck exist, to chip away at Microsoft’s attempts to monopolize PC gaming. And that’s exactly why Microsoft is hoarding IP and restricting their most prestigious titles, like Halo, to Windows through anticheat.

    Whoever is starting these rumors are either pathetically stupid and attention hungry or are spreading misinformation in a hail mary at the behest of Microshaft.


  • Bookmarking your comment so I can come back to it in a couple hours, if I hopefully remember to.

    But yes, almost. I don’t think the interrupt is necessary and the return isn’t under certain architectures. I have a doc on my computer somewhere where I was investigating what the absolute minimum was to make a turning complete machine and, to my recollection, there was only 4-6 instructions that were absolutely necessary. The ones I remember off the top of my head are NAND, MOV, JUMPIF, and then I believe I included NOP in accordance with some principle. RET and INT were convenience features in this design.


  • Non-misandry/-sexism version:

    A meme was made posing the humorous rhetoric of whether sex A would rather be stuck on an island with sex B or a bear. No distinction was made about the character of the sex B persona or the bear persona, it was left as a fill-in-the-blank for those who respond to rhetoric.

    Sex B largely understood this to be stereotyping and hate speech directed towards them at large without any distinction about whom the rhetoric was implying. Audience was then divided between those who recognize equality and sexism versus those who believe either only apply to marginalized groups

    with love, from an agender