Resources are ultimately finite, regardless of method of extraction. The poor people would get richer faster with better distribution and research supports basic reasoning that the pie would get bigger if distribution was better.
Not sure which resources you’re referring to that would be at their limit such that poor people can’t get any richer.
Also no, all the times the economic system has been built around optimizing distribution, production has dropped to almost zero. Under redistribution schemes, the poor tend to die horribly.
I reiterate: All resources are ultimately finite. There is however more than enough for all if extracted sustainably and shared somewhat equally. Under redistribution schemes, the poor stop being poor because having basic needs met increases social mobility. Also production increases because it is in many cases artificially restricted due to the consumers being too poor to buy the things they want and/or need.
Money is infinite though. The wealthy people know how to tap into all the manipulative ways of increasing their own wealth. What we need is education for everyone to know how to do this. But of course a problem with that is that if everyone is wealthy, no one is wealthy because wealth doesn’t exist without something to contrast it with, which are the poor financially-illiterate people who do all the hard labor which generates wealth for their CEOs. Which is why the wealthy people don’t want to educate poor people on financial literacy.
Mapping software that can give directions the way human navigator would.
When I’m driving in my own city, my mapping software should be intelligent enough to know that I am aware of most of the roads; it can track me.
I don’t need to hear
“Keep straight on Highway 101 West signs for Highway 101 West for 300m, then take exit 104 South signs for Highway 104 South, take exit 104A South signs for 104 South, merge onto Highway 104 South signs for 104 South. Go straight on Highway 104 South for 400m then take the left lane and turn left on route 40 Eastbound signs for route 40. Boodle-ding you are on the correct route. In 200m turn left onto route 40 Eastbound signs for route 40 Eastbound. Turn left onto route 40 Eastbound signs for route 40 Eastbound.”
… When what is needed in a realistic sense is the following:
“In 300m take the exit to 104 Southbound then after 400 m, turn left at the first set of lights onto route 40”
That would be a meaningful improvement. I moved - basically sight unseen - a year ago to a new town. Day one I needed every bit of turn by turn. Now, if I’m headed to any of the four or five places I bother to go, I just set up the map as a CYA and a simple “yep, make that turn you’re planning on” would be sufficient.
Then there’s a 90 minute trip i make every two weeks, that I know fairly well but not like I’d know a daily drive. The first hour is “Jump on 74 west, take exit for 57 south, and go a ways”. That part I have down cold obv.
After I get onto hwy 36 tho, damned if I can remember where the (poorly marked) left turn onto CR 1300 is.
Better still would be an adaptive mode. Leave me tf alone with my CCR playlist until I’m within a couple miles of that poorly marked turn. THEN help me out with a gentle reminder.
The hour or so of instructions prior to that point are wasted and would be pretty easy for AI to figure out I don’t need help on that part.
Sadly, that description was motivated by a direct experience I had a few days ago with Google maps.
But I’ve definitely had that other experience as well, where the next leg of the trip is to go straight for 20 minutes, and Google Maps chimes-in every 30 seconds to remind me to stay straight.
The most recent meaningful upgrade I have seen in the software is that instead of deciding to either play each piece of audio through the phone speaker or the Bluetooth, quite at random, it will now play things through the Bluetooth. Livin’ in 2024.
I’ve the that confusion, too. I saw someone saying AI shouldn’t be controversial because we’ve already had AI in video games for years. It’s a broad and blanket term encompassing many different technologies, but people act like it all means the same thing.
The fact that the battle against spending lots of money on groceries is to spend even more money in groceries. I hate that you’re right and we’re doomed.
Right, this is the worst part. The people who most desperately need to get cheaper groceries can’t afford to save money on groceries by buying in bulk. It’s shitty and sad.
Lol that’s not even close to real awkwardness of letting romantic feelings develop to crazy levels and end up friendzoned or worse. We need to be men and avoid falling a victim to our own naivety.
Also, that’s also why I said to distance from her, which includes not taking classes with her anymore.
Either she rejects and that’s a big turn off for the very obvious reason of her not wanting to be with OP (or it should be), or she accepts and it could be great. Nothing to lose.
Yeah. It’s super scary but it’s really the most optimal route. I fell in love with a friend, told her, she said she doesn’t feel the same way but we still remain friends and after a period of awkwardness it got back to the way it was before. We live in different parts of the world most of the year so nothing would really change one way or another, but still, it was easier to get things out in the open.
Just should tell her in a non-creepy casual way and it should be fine.
I think these two fields are very closely related and have some overlap. My favorite procgen algorithm, Wavefuncion Collapse, can be described using the framework of machine learning. It has hyperparameters, it has model parameters, it has training data and it does inference. These are all common aspects of modern “AI” techniques.
WFC is a full method of map generation. Monte Carlo is not afaik.
Edit: To answer your question, the original paper on WFC uses training data, hyperparameters, etc. They took a grid of pixels (training data), scanned it using a kernal of varying size (model parameter), and used that as the basis for the wavefunction probability model. I wouldn’t call it AI though because it doesn’t train or self-improve like ML does.
WFC is a full method of map generation. Monte Carlo is not afaik.
MC is a statistical method, it doesn’t have anything to do with map generation. If you apply it to map generation, you get a “full method of map generation”, and as far as I know that is what WFC is.
To answer your question, the original paper on WFC uses training data, hyperparameters, etc. They took a grid of pixels (training data), scanned it using a kernal of varying size (model parameter), and used that as the basis for the wavefunction probability model. I wouldn’t call it AI though because it doesn’t train or self-improve like ML does.
Could you share the paper? Everything I read about WFC is “you have tiles that are stitched together according to rules with a bit of randomness”, which is literally MC.
Ok so you are just talking about MC the statistical method. That doesn’t really make sense to me. Every random method will need to “roll the dice” and choose a random outcome like a MC simulation. The statement “this method of map generation is the same as Monte Carlo” (or anything similar, ik you didn’t say that exactly) is meaningless as far as I can tell. With that out of the way, WFC and every other random map generation method are either trivially MC (it randomly chooses results) or trivially not MC (it does anything more than that).
I don’t think WFC can be described as an example of a Monte Carlo method.
In a Monte Carlo experiment, you use randomness to approximate a solution, for example to solve an integral where you don’t have a closed form. The more you sample, the more accurate the result.
In WFC, the number of random experiments depends on your map size and is not variable.
Sorry, I should have been more specific - it’s an application of Markov Chain Monte Carlo. You define a chain and randomly evaluate it until you’re done - is there anything beyond this in WFC?
I’m not an expert on Monte Carlo methods, but reading the Wikipedia article on Markov Chain Monte Carlo, this doesn’t fit what WFC does for the reasons I mentioned above. In MCMC, your get a better result by taking more steps, in WFC, the number of steps is given by the map size, it can’t be changed.
I think the training (or fitting) process is comparable to how a support vector machine is trained. It’s not iterative like SGD in deep learning, it’s closer to the traditional machine learning techniques.
But I agree that this is a pretty academic discussion, it doesn’t matter much in practice.
Yes. Am Welsh. Coal fires are still pretty common in the South Wales valleys. My Grandfather still gets free coal deliveries every other month due to his time working in the pits.
Could ever have a lump sum or coal for life, he picked the coal as the cash payout was around £5000, which would cover the coal cost for about 3 years at the time. He’s been having that for over 30 years at this point, pretty good deal!
Omg Dakhabrakha’s baby is one of the most powerful songs I’ve ever heard. The lyrics are in Ukranian but can be vaguely understood from Russian and damn they hurt. You might’ve already seen but here is the English translation
Would asexuals really have that bad of a time in a country that is not that supportive of LGBT? I don’t think not wanting to have sex is seen as bad by people who dislike LGBT?
Any religious argument against LGBT folks works just as well on Ace folks. (Which is to say they don’t, but the people making the arguments think they do)
In my country especially (it’s Morocco), so many people think it’s a bad idea to not get married and not have children (which requires sex anyway) simply because it’s so engrained in our society to do that. Blame the state religion.
Idk why, but when I told my dad I wanna be celibate, he called me an atheist, which I’m not.
Also, asexualism is technically a part of LGBT, just in a very secondary manner. If people know about the full picture, they’ll start threatening you.
The advice People give in the comments it’s absolutely funny, it reeks of people who never leaves their house, or is women giving advice or some western Buddhist bullshit about letting go.
SHAME. Shame these selfish fucks every fucking second they are in the public. I want to see a 4 year old give musk the finger. I want to hear a 7 year old shout “SELFISH CUNT” at bezos. I want everyone they interact with who’s not on their payroll to roll their eyes and say “oh no everyone watch out, mr “I need to horde billions” is here. What do you fucking want?”
invective has always been a valuable tool against the arsehole polity.
They will not stop if they determine that the cost is outweighed by the benefit, that’s what makes them greedy. They need to be suitably punished or they’re just going to continue their ways.
asklemmy
Active
This magazine is from a federated server and may be incomplete. Browse more on the original instance.