Not from Cali, not a programmer (though honestly I could be).

Fuck French toast because it is decadent but usually entirely to much.

Marry waffles because they are perfect and precious.

Kill pancakes.

Well, Pluto being reclassified as a dwarf planet doesn’t really have anything to do with the scientific method. “Planet” is a manmade concept, we just changed the definition for that classification to avoid having to add the dozens of bodies we discovered since Pluto that would have also met the old definition.

The piece of garlic bread I didn’t put away last night. Delightfully crunchy.

I like the way “myth” looks

If I could see any practice from my time working food service make it into the general population, it would be “Behind” and “Heard”.

Oh, she must hear the train coming

I dunno. Obviously individual LLMs are basically sophisticated parrots and are unlikely to develop to AGI on their own. However, a lot of work is being done in combining multiple specialized LLMs. As unlikely as it is for direct LLM improvement to lead to true AI, I think it’s not terribly unlikely that some particular assemblage of many specialized LLMs could achieve the complexity necessary for AGI.

I’ve heard that it means pints and quarts, referring to beers. I feel like I’ve also heard it was a typesetter thing.

Mixture of experts is the future of AI. Breakthroughs won’t come from bigger models, it’ll come from better coordinated conversations between models.

The same basic encounter can have different effects in different contexts.

Maybe clearing the bandits is how you find a stolen artifact that helps you clear the forbidden temple. Fighting the same enemy in a back alley has different consequences from doing it in the busy street. The ogre down path A might be mechanically identical to the one down path B, but they’re from rival tribes.

It can definitely be used incorrectly, but there are lots of ways for that non-choice to really be a meaningful choice.

I believe most religions started as good faith (no pun intended) attempts at roughly the same thing: contextualization of the metaphysical order of the universe.

Like the parable of the unseen elephant, God is a concept beyond true human perception, and every religion is like a man groping in darkness at one aspect of the bigger picture. When we approach the subject with a perspective informed by each of these outlooks, we develop a more diverse and comprehensive conceptualization of Order. Even better when we compare these outlooks to find overlap where most tend to agree.

They start out as discussions, but it only takes one party to turn that into an argument. Generally though, continuing the argument is more to convince onlookers than the argumentative party.

Yeah it’s reduction not elimination. Swearing all the time robs those words of their intensity.

Correct.

Scientists CAN prove unequivocally that the earth is a globe, there is no uncertainty and it is not an hypothesis.

Could be a weird confluence of spatial anomalies perfectly mimicking a “globe” to our tests. That’s not very likely at all, but it’s a non-zero uncertainty.

Science can’t “prove” anything. It is more accurate to say that it reduces the level of uncertainty of hypotheses, but that uncertainty can never be reduced to exactly zero.

I generally don’t get haircuts before and during winter, but once it heats up again I keep it short.

Hell, even I Robot, a movie that should have had a female lead, turned Calvin in to a supporting role to put a man in the lead.

That’s exactly the point, arbitrarily changing the characters is unsatisfying. I, Robot should have been about Calvin.

I eat kiwis with the skin, still wouldn’t eat the strawberry leaf