nothing you’ve said is worth responding to in a novel way, see earlier comment.

“when they’re drunk at 8am”, he didnt say “we”

also note the other quotes in the article that similarly single out Crow.

see certain optical illusions in a way that other vision models cannot.

eh… but not in a way that is really like what humans see. which is the articles claim, but it makes a clasically cs approach to nuerology: zero effort to prove the quite substantial claim.

Word soup

that is most certainly not word soup. it’s also an accurate statement, though uncharitable to the authors claims.

Also, the detail in description of their “quantum” inspiration (an effect not unique to quantum mechanics in fact, at that level of description) reads like they skimmed wikipedia’s intro to xyz topic, whether or not the author understands the topics more deeply.

Removed by mod

The internet as the internet companies percieved it would look like and sold it as absolutely and completely vanished, yeah.

The internet is a funny analogue!

Because it experienced the dot com crash under almost the same sort of circumstances.

I mean I would and do in fact literally blame societal and familial problems when kids are brutal, unkind, or hurt others, and similarly blame societal and familial problems for when kids are not protected from brutal, unkind, and hurtful things.

Why are you saying the things you’re saying like a gotcha? Do you not feel that society has a significant impact on the behavior of youth?

Re: edit - you should actually read the article on what tone policing is in their conception and what is harmful about it, not all being called out for dickish replyguy behavior is tone policing. Frustration and aggression can be warranted, and is fine to express, but when all you’re doing is arguing with no cogent point (see: yelling into the void) and misinterpreting what someone is saying to the point of absurdity, aggression is being actively harmful to the discussion. That’s just being an ass for catharsis.

And again, the point was to point out that the person you’re responding to did not say what you claimed they did, and that the addition about labour was helpful. You can be as frustrated and aggressive as you want about that, but this whole discussion could’ve been in agreement, you both appear to agree with each other on the meat of the politics.

Huh?

I mean… you are literally instead of discussing the politics of the UK, actively choosing to be antagonistic.

And antagonistic in a way that I have literally no idea what you’re even trying to say, beyond wildly thrashing into the void.

Sounds like they were just hoping things would at least improve, which means not get actively worse nor remain strictly the same, but does not mean things become absolutely good and fixed. You’re the one putting “fundamental changes to how things are run” as their claim.

I found their comment quite helpful, and the content of the addition that labour may not do much better was also useful and fit in the framework they gave.

I don’t think the aggression was warranted or helpful, and only served to stagnate the discussion.

Because why solve trivial coding problem when experimental bad technology that won’t even work after a many fold increase in implementation time do trick?

As we all know, ai are the best and only solution to complex tasks such as rudimentary file management.

Honestly I was expecting far more downvotes. I posted the video with people like you in mind, who still can think critically are marks without the burden of misinformation and ideology. not being marks.

Ftfy

By the way, if you think you are not subject to ideology, I have several things to sell you.

For anyone else reading: everyone is subject to ideology. The moment you think you arent, that is when you are most trapped by it.

I mean I disagree about not sympathizing with folks somewhat trapped in a hostile software ecosystem, but surely “stand by your beliefs” is not unheard of.

At this point I can only determine you are arguing for the sake of arguing.

Much of what you said is very wrong but it’s not worth arguing about.

Or you know, reducing thermal load by using broadly more efficient capacitors allowing you to shove more current in the car. Or by meeting grid scale requirements for car charging by smoothing out the grid impact of a bunch of charging at once. Or any number of benefits.

Ultimately this certainly benefits car charging. It benefits all electronics. No you won’t be getting two second car charges with this.

Almost every electrical system on the planet uses capacitors. Especially high power systems. Of which evs are.

“No real point in mixing capacitors in with a large battery” ?? That’s done literally all the time for both filtering and for intermittent high power output. Like when I say almost every electrical system uses caps, I mean almost every electrical system.

More of an actual comment, good. More efficient capacitors in both speed and heat certainly helps in charging devices of all sizes. Of course it wouldn’t be charging large batteries in seconds, but that doesn’t mean no improvement.

Why do you feel that the researchers are wrong about their physics research?

Why would librewolf specifically advise that you minimize your extensions to decrease client uniqueness if it had no effect on client uniqueness? Someone’s misinformed, and I don’t think its librewolf.

With about a half an hour of reading documentation it became very clear a couple versions ago what work benches were, which were useful to me, and how to use them. That’s maybe longer than going from inventor to solidworks or visa versa, but hardly that bad. For a beginner it will be taking a long time anyway and there will be essentially no difference, except that you’ll learn a much more robust understanding of how parametric modeling works.