Farid

I think the way you worded it doesn’t make it obvious that you’re criticizing the graph specifically and not the os, hence your downvotes. But yes, that graph is absolute mess.

🫡

Thanks. Now I can upvote it without my OCD torturing me.

Oh wait, that comma is using a different font weight! 👀
I’m joking, I’m not that far gone. Yet…

Does he mean to say that he stepped into shit or into a “shit Sherlock”? Because if it’s the former, there needs to be another comma:

No, shit, Sherlock.

I’ll have you know, that I have it on good authority (from the ever rational and totally not an echo chamber Hexbear) that the invasion is actually very successful and Russia is winning. By a lot!

No idea, that’s what I’ve been told, but Japanese engineers usually know what they are doing.

Afaik, the problem with buried cables is that in case of a flood or tsunami they might break, get exposed and electrocute someone.

For some reason your response didn’t trigger a notification. I wonder why. This is the first time that I know of when I didn’t get one.

Serious question, can a downsize of an image be considered a lossy compression method?

I came because Reddit’s a shitty company and due to the ban of 3rd party apps. Which group am I?

PipeWire is a server and user space API to deal with multimedia pipelines. This includes:

• Making available sources of video (such as from a capture devices or application provided streams) and multiplexing this with clients.
• Accessing sources of video for consumption.
• Generating graphs for audio and video processing.

Nodes in the graph can be implemented as separate processes, communicating with sockets and exchanging multimedia content using fd passing.

The oil lobby wouldn’t be specifically against cars from another region, they are against electric vehicles in general, whether they are produced domestically or otherwise. The primary benefactors from the tariffs are the US electric car manufacturers, who would lose profit over not being able to compete with subsidized cars. They are probably the ones who lobbied for them.

Whether you agree or not with their justification (or think that it’s not the real reason), they clearly have no justifications (or reasons) to impose tariffs on unsubsidized (or at least not as heavily subsidized) EU cars.

I don’t think the US would either. Their justification for tariffs on Chinese cars was that they were uncompetitively cheap due to subsidies. Doubt EU is gonna subsidize cars, at least as heavily as China.

What do you mean? Why would Europe impose tariffs on their own cars?

Am I the only one who doesn’t see a less buff John Cena in that photo?

I’m not redefining anything, I’m just pointing out that intelligence is not as narrow as most people assume, it’s a broad term that encompasses various gradations. It doesn’t need to be complex or human-like to qualify as intelligence.

A single if statement arguably isn’t intelligence, sure, but how many if statements is? Because at some point you can write a complex enough sequence of if statements that will exhibit intelligence. As I was saying in my other comments, where do we draw this line in the sand? If we use the definition from the link, which is:

The highest faculty of the mind, capacity for comprehending general truths.

Then 99% of animal species would not qualify as intelligent.

You may rightfully argue that term AI is too broad and that we could narrow it down to mean specifically “human-like” AI, but the truth is, that at this point, in computer science AI already refers to a wide range of systems, from basic decision-making algorithms to complex models like GPTs or neural networks.

My whole point is less about redefining intelligence and more about recognizing its spectrum, both in nature and in machines. But I don’t expect for everybody to agree, even the expert in the fields don’t.

Opponent players in games have been labeled AI for decades, so yeah, software engineers have been producing AI for a while. If a computer can play a game of chess against you, it has intelligence, a very narrowly scoped intelligence, which is artificial, but intelligence nonetheless.

I would put it differently. Sometimes words have two meanings, for example a layman’s understanding of it and a specialist’s understanding of the same word, which might mean something adjacent, but still different. For instance, the word “theory” in everyday language often means a guess or speculation, while in science, a “theory” is a well-substantiated explanation based on evidence.

Similarly, when a cognitive scientist talks about “intelligence”, they might be referring to something quite different from what a layperson understands by the term.

In a way, yes, if you frame it right. To simplify, you’re basically asking “is a calculator intelligent?”, right? While it’s an inanimate object, you could say that, in a way, it acquires knowledge from the buttons user presses and it applies knowledge to provide an output.

“But that’s not making decisions, it’s just circuits!”, you might say. To which I might reply “Who’s to say that you’re making decisions? For all we know, human brains might also just be very complicated circuits with no agency at all, just like the calculator!”.

IIRC, in his book The Singularity Is Near, Ray Kurzweil even assigns certain amount of intelligence to inanimate objects, such as rocks. A very low amount of course, and it might be a stretch, but still.

So yeah, it’s really hard to draw a line for intelligence, which is why there’s no firm definition and no consensus.