I very much enjoy watching them do it on the show.

But it’s cool to know a machine exists for puff pastry, I’ll have to find a video of one later.

…then that’s as good a reason as any to go to the pastry shop. >=}

I understand so much more here than before I started watching The Great British Baking Show.

I’m thinking, 96 layers? Is that a lot? I need to go rewatch a puff pastry episode. 😰

True, and it upsets me because we can’t even get a baseline agreement from the masses to correct systemic inequality.

…yet, simultaneously we’re investing academic effort into correcting symptoms spawned by the problem (that many believe doesn’t exist).

To put this another way. Imagine you’re a car mechanic, someone brings you a 1980s vehicle, you diagnose that it is low on oil, and in response the customer says, “Oil isn’t real.” That’s an impasse, conversation not found, user too dumb to continue.

I suppose to wrap up my whole message in one closing statement : people who deny systematic inequality are braindead and for whatever reason, they were on my mind while reading this article.

I’ll be curious what they find out about removing these biases, how do we even define a racist-less model? We have nothing to compare it to… another tangent, nope, I’m done. Zz.

“Wow Johnson, no matter how much biased data we feed this thing it just keeps repeating biases from human society.”

Sample input from a systematically racist society (the entire world), get systematically racist output.

No shit. Fix society or “tune” your model, whatever that entails…

Obviously only one of these is feasible from a developer perspective.

Someone wasn’t prepared.

Anyone wanna play Tanaris at The Station?

This is my opinion. Timing intake is a low value, high effort task.

I’d rather first focus on high value, low effort tasks. Then low value, low effort tasks, then if I really want to optimize I’m finally at low value, high effort tasks.

By the time I reach those tasks it’s likely I’m beyond diminishing returns and I should apply my focus elsewhere.

The only additions I have :

1. What I ate yesterday is going to affect my workout more tha anything I can eat today.
2. Timing is relevant if it upsets your stomach during the workout, beyond that ignore it.

TLDR, stick to solving other high value tasks, meet your macros, forget about timing.

Amelie’s, Charlotte, NC. Used to go there all the time at night. 24/7 bakery, lounge, student study area.

The original building was torn down, which is sad, but I’ll always have the memories.

Yes, similar to the web of trust, there exists a web of trust for people based on reputation. Journalistic integrity, openness, scrutiny; these are just a few of the things that go away when experts go away.

People who dedicate their lives to truth should be recognized as such, and those who lie should be recognized as well. Outsourcing your information gathering to “randoms” just means that you will be swayed by whoever can afford the best bot farm.

And if you think you are unswayable, you are the perfect target.

Follow those who express curiosity, welcome questioning, and conduct themselves in good faith. It’s an iterative process, you don’t have to resolve it in a day.

It is a great time saver, the confederate flag serves a similar purpose.

It says, “I can’t wait to be disagreeable to you if you aren’t on my team.”

Occasionally I end up in the homes of one of these people, I keep to myself, keep everything professional and nothing more, yet they’ll prod at you to try to figure out what you think, aka “Are you on my team or are you the enemy?” It’s so exhausting. I just play dumb until I can get away.

Headphones are great for this.

I am kinda done with conversations where the respondee ignores everything said then repeats a baseless subjective response that obviously reflects their personal bias. You are only talking to yourself, there is no interaction occuring between you and I. Nonetheless I’ll reply once more and provide you with more questions that you will give no thought to. Maybe share a SpongeBob meme this time, people like SpongeBob memes.

I am aware of no publicly enforceable policy on child rearing outside of social services, which is poorly funded. Are you able to define, globally, for all parents the definition of what causes a child to be raised “right”? It’s rhetorical, of course you can’t because no one can.

Bringing up the parents and playing “the blame game” is inevitably going to lead us to a discussion about social support programs to help struggling families. However to me your comments seem like lazy concern trolling, you are “greatly concerned” about the parents, yet I assume will oppose all programs to help make their childrearing easier.

So let’s test my theory, since you are concerned about the parents involved, which social programs do you feel should be expanded in order to help those families?

But that is a bit of a hard question, I suggest ignoring everything I asked you and pasting a one-liner question, similar to how you replied to my previous comment. Lazy. Predictable. Boring.

I disagree. Setting aside my feelings on the policy, a behavior occurred, a policy was enacted, a behavior was changed. Making it objectively a policy issue.

Your desire for it not to be a policy issue seems to be the driving factor for why you don’t think it’s a policy issue. Seems like circular reasoning.

Maybe I’m missing something though, I’m open to elaboration on why curtailing misbehavior on public grounds with a policy is not a policy issue.

I must have been tired, not sure why I was aggressive, my bad.

.

Nope, just relatively. Though how do you want to define consciousness could change my nope to a yes. It’s all about the definition.

All I can see when I read this comment is a plaque to blind confidence. Don’t take it the wrong way, I don’t mean it as a wholly a bad thing… maybe 90% bad, 10% admiration. Confidence is powerful, but it works best when paired with other traits.

…but back to the thread, unless you’re involved in this topic at an academic level, can you explain the reasoning behind the confidence you appear to have in your perspective?

I didn’t see what the family was compensated for the bracelet in the article. Would seem odd to me if there is zero compensation.

Another one bites the dust.

I admit it, I once assumed Elon was a genius.
(events happen)
Okay, not a genius, but a good businessman.
(events happen)
Okay, a bad businessman, a good PR person.
(events happen)
Okay, a bad PR person, but not a Nazi.
(events happen)
Well fuck, he’s a Nazi supporting conspiracy theorist.

God damn, if I was that wrong about one person. I’m just gonna stop having opinions about famous people. It’s all smoke and mirrors.

.

Concentrating them into camps you say?

What a unique and novel historical event with no comparison. Wouldn’t wanna accidentally be antisemitic.

There is a more extreme version of doomerism which is accelerationism.

So sure, we may be doomed, and since no one is doing anything about it in time… fuck it, let’s speed things up. Build more coal, clear cut forests, kill every insect. Let’s show people how bad it can get and how fast. No one’s grandchild gets a future.

The nice thing about this worldview is that you wake up every morning to good news. New oil pipelines, shrinking aquifers to cool data centres, a couple dozen more extinct species, etc.

This belief system sees humans as a plague on the planet that is luckily self-healing. Good luck to the next wave of humans in 2-30 million years.

Sounds crazy right? Maybe, but since the only historical alternative is class violence, …and since that’s a no-no topic, we are left with the choice to accept a terminal diagnosis and just die like a good peon. We wouldn’t want to inconvenience rich people.

The same rich people who have been spending the past two decades building reinforced under-mountain bunkers and meeting with security advisors for tips on how to keep human security in line in a world where money has no value. But no, that’s just a hobby, they totally don’t think the world is in trouble.