Yeah, that extremely purple paragraph about how the blog was documenting that liminal period where humans worked together with AI as partners was embarrassing.
The same wiki article says there is a limit to the capacity of synthesis by UVB due to the quantity of reagent 7-dehydrocholesterol produced in the skin, but I don't know the math on what amount of exposure would be required to hit that limit - presumably it (or something like it) is covered in the article above.
Some napkin math, then. About 25–50 μg 7-DHC / cm2 skin (Wiki). About 1.5 m^2 human skin area (google AI summary). About 35% skin exposed (R. Kift, linked earlier). 1.5 * 100 * 100 * 25 * .35 = 131250 μg. Need 50-250 μg of colecalciferol (2000-10000 IU). Anyone would likely get sunburn before running out of 7-DHC (excepting a low 7-DHC condition, or me getting the wrong numbers).
This study says "Findings include that small UV doses on a regular basis are more efficient for vitamin D synthesis than larger sub-erythemal doses", using a logarithmic model for blood calcifediol as a function of exposure.
But it doesn't address colecalciferol production and storage. Fat stores colecalciferol, and I don't know of any way to measure that directly. I would guess that further UVB exposure linearly produces colecalciferol (with linear DNA damage, minus DNA repair with time), but the liver and kidneys logarithmically produce calcifediol and calcitriol. Just a guess. Still more questions :)
I believe in A, I don't take a strong position on B, I am in coalition with people who believe in B and don't take a strong position on A, we both believe in C, D, E, and F, which some other people believe in with differing weights. Browbeating me about position B (or, the most useless kind of Internet banter, complaining about me and my hypocritical position on A+B to your friends who oppose both in a likewise contradictory way, in some venue I've never heard of) is not about making people reevaluate positions, it's about negative factionalism. The only reason it might not fit the familiar categorization of "fallacy" is that you would never use it in rational debate, either in arguing with another person or in reasoning out your own position.
>I believe in A, I don't take a strong position on B
But if A and B are opposed, then there is a question of why a strong position on A can be allowed with a weak position on B, if the reason for the strong position on A would also indicate a strong position against B.
The underlying argument being implied (but rarely ever directly stated) is to question if your reason for the strong position on A is really the reason you state, or if that is just the reason that sounds good but not the real reason for your belief.
In effect, that you don't apply the stated reason to B despite it fitting is the counter argument to why it doesn't actually support A.
If there is an inconsistency in arguments being applied, any formal discussion falls apart and people effectively take up positions simply because they like them, contradictions irrelevant. This generally isn't a good outcome for public discourse.
Perhaps I can interest you in the Firefox Mobile option: put a blue pip on the three dot menu and the "What's New" item that will never go away until you click on it.
What you are describing is a legislation of the attitude of the average careless driver in the United States. I should be able to drive however I want until or unless I kill someone, the car should be the thing that keeps me from killing people, and anyone who doesn't use the roadway like me should be responsible for preventing me from killing them.
Spot on, well said. Personally I think inattentive driving is a bigger problem than speeding, but by the time someone is justifying it for themselves by saying they're safer than everyone else, they've lost the plot.
In my experience, the only thing that really feels too fast in a car is going faster than you've become used to driving.
And yeah, how someone talks about cyclists is always a tell.
It's more complicated than that. KFX was not encrypted differently than AZW, it's just a proprietary format that no one else supports (AZW being more or less MOBI with some tweaks). The DRM and the format get conflated because the same enthusiasts who want to strip DRM tend to want ebooks in an archivable, portable, standard format that was not achievable with KFX (no other ebook readers care to implement the kind of features it supports, and the way it works is antithetical to coverting it to the more conventional formats). You could still download and strip DRM in versions of Kindle for PC that pulled the KFX format. Only recently did it get to the point that versions of the app supported by the DeDRM plugins weren't allowed to download new books.
I'm particularly fond of the senders who know there are nominally laws about spam, so they just label every piece of marketing and customer retention garbage as pertaining to your user account, or they layer some subscription-related language over a promotion al email. I uploaded photos to a printing service over a decade ago and long since unsubscribed from their marketing lists. Two months ago they started sending me bi-weekly "reminders" that my old photos would be purged soon but offering me a discount subscription to their cloud storage. They then sent me at least three weekly reminders. The thing is, none of the links in the email would send me to the page to download old information (which it turns out I had already done years ago, presumably on prompt of some other spam) or information on deleting that content myself.
The other classic of the genre is mailing list software that stores opt-out preferences separate of customer account data such that when they move to a different marketing service or their retention policy tolls out you start getting spam again, exactly 5 years after you opted out.
My local county is currently in a dispute with the local bar association because they want to upgrade the courthouse security cameras and the sheriff wants to add audio capabilities. This includes to parts of the building just outside the courtroom that counsel will frequently use for brief asides with their clients (due to lack of other private rooms). The county seems to favor adding the microphones and pinky swearing they won't use them and that public records requests won't be used to listen in on privileged communication, but it's obvious how difficult that would be to trust. They keep putting off a decision because they don't want to piss off the lawyers.
It is basically an unfair advantage, even if inadmissible in court. The state can find more facts even in illegal ways; and this assuming the government is fair rather than criminal. I have a hard time trusting governments who mistrust the public.
There should be no safety reason to require audio. The only reason for audio is later use for prosecution.
It's not just that they don't want to piss off the lawyers. If they don't provide a private location, then they may be forced to take continuances and recesses so those conversations can happen elsewhere as a condition of not infringing on the constitutional right to effective counsel.
Might be quicker to detect disturbances using audio too rather than video only, think of ShotSpotter. Sounds made up though and probably either a way to spy or chill speech.
What's the security reason they need this? How many times has a security camera failed to do its job because it didn't have audio? What crimes do they thing they are going to solve? Are people breaking into the courthouse wearing masks but screaming their own names?
I think one problem is, almost all security cameras are sold with audio these days. If the cameras have a mic, telling people "Oh, we turned the mic off in each camera" or "We don't record the audio" isn't very helpful.
There’s another problem with this because a camera with a mic cable cut would look from the outside exactly like a camera with mic cable intact, and maintenance is a thing, so eventually it’s bound to be replaced by a camera with a working mic either by mistake or “by mistake” on purpose. There’s a trust issue here since people who would be affected by the presence of a mic won’t be able to easily visually verify that it’s disabled.
I assume the sheriff would be totally fine with putting up signs in that area saying "audio and video recording in progress" then right? That would somewhat address the issue, and should be entirely uncontroversial to both sides.
That doesn't sound like a good compromise at all. First practically speaking, you can't just leave the court building to discuss with your client if they're in chains, and it's super inconvenient based on the layout of many courts. Second, this becomes the excuse for adding audio and video surveillance everywhere, with the excuse that you know about it, so it's okay. Third, considering audio can pick up things like jokes, irrational things said in anger, or just one's mumblings to oneself, it very quickly becomes the excuse to haul in anyone you don't like by misconstruing their words. The fact that it was brought by law enforcement tells you they are looking to use it against people.
It's so fundamentally terrifying that someone would consider that "totally fine".
Prosecutors will take breaks in their offices within the same building while the defense has to leave the building in order to have a private conversation, that sounds totally fair and reasonable.
The whole point of contention is that one of the spaces is, effectively, the only convenient places to have a quick, heretofore private, conversation. No one is confused over where the things are.
There are times when I want to argue that the solution is to make the question one of truth rather than guilt or innocence, but any solution runs up against human nature, my first experience of which was when playing sports and being told by my team mates that I should state that the ball fell on the side of the line which was advantageous to the team, rather than where it actually fell.
There's no leadership to curtail asinine behavior. Instead of forces of nature to strengthen the status quo of freedom, we get lowly politicians. Judges end up having to do all the work.
Did anyone seriously believe this was the AI's fault? The modern military use of LLMs is very clearly for the purpose of creating vaguely plausible targets while distancing any person from the decision to murder people. Surely if we cared at all about accomplishing a strategic goal we would have had a set of well documented targets ready to go. Instead the goal seems to be to drop as many bombs as possible, hope the computer's good enough that they mostly hit people who have relevance to things we don't like, and loudly proclaim that it's more important to kill people than it is to have any goal at all.
reply