Many modern theories in cognitive science posit that the brain’s objective is to be a kind of “prediction machine” to predict the incoming stream of sensory information from the top down, as well as processing it from the bottom up. This is sometimes referred to through the aphorism “perception is controlled hallucination”.
In a sense… yes! Although of course it’s thought to be across many modalities and time-scales, and not just text. Also a crucial piece of the picture is the Bayesian aspect - which also involves estimating one’s uncertainty over predictions. Further info: en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Predictive_coding
It’s also important to note the recent trends towards so-called “Embodied” and “4E cognition”, which emphasize the importance of being situated in a body, in an environment, with control over actions, as essential to explaining the nature of mental phenomena.
But yeah, it’s very exciting how in recent years we’ve begun to tap into the power of these kinds of self-supervised learning objectives for practical applications like Word2Vec and Large Language/Multimodal Models.
We can have robots with bodies that talk and form relationships with people now. Not deep intimate relationships, but simple things like maintaining conversations with people. You wouldn’t need much more software on top of the LLM to make a really functional person.
in which strategies are proposed to decouple the AI’s internal “world model” from its language capabilities, to facilitate hierarchical planning and mitigate hallucination.
If you’re talking about this thing, it serves two purposes. It is the hook that opens and closes the line (hangs up and picks up the phone), and it is used by this thing
That’s so it slides in and out on this other slanted lip on the handset instead of getting caught on it. You can take the handset off just by pulling it directly away from the wall.
Or one of these real old designs that didn’t even have a bell. It has a buzzer that’s barely audible (it might even just be the phone’s speaker, idk). Also, the microphone and the earpiece aren’t in a convenient handset.
This one is a replica made in probably the 1970s or 1980s. It’s funny, when it was made it was a replica of something vintage, but now it actually is vintage.
Interesting. I’ve never seen a phone like that. Usually the wall mounted versions of the Model 500 had a hook for the handset in the front of the base to hang the handset vertically. This one looks like a different company than Western Electric though. I’m guessing it’s a UK company, because it’s 999 for emergencies (or at least it’s not US). You’ve got me curious enough I feel like I’m about to go down a rabbit hole.
Edit: yep, it’s a UK company called GPO. This is their model 741:
Exactly this. It’s called a “hook” and when the phone is “off the hook” that’s the thing it is off of. Being off the hook means the phone is powered up and connected to the local loop. When the phone is “on hook” that means it is disconnected from the loop and awaiting the pulsed ring signal.
Desk phones have a reversible hook so that it keeps the button depressed when the phone is in the cradle but doesn’t catch when you attempt to pick it up.
On modem signals in the old days, the + was equivalent to “flashing” the hook, or quickly disconnecting and reconnecting to the loop, and the AT command H1 told the modem to go “on hook” while H0 told it to go “off hook”.
Back before the DTMF network, when everyone used pulse modulated phones, the “pulses” were caused by going in and off hook in a specific pattern. You could actually make a phone call from a rotary payphone by flashing the hook in the pattern that mimicked the rotary dial pulsing the line as it rotated back to home position.
In the really old days, the hand crank served much the same purpose, but actually supplied electricity to the local loop; when the phone was on hook (which was a big metal thing the earpiece sat in) someone else turning the crank would make all the phones on the loop ring; you picked up if the ring matched the number of rings for your extension.
One small clarification. There’s not really anything special to the pulses for pulse dialing. One pulse for the number 1, all the way to nine pulses for number 9, and then ten pulses for a number 0.
In the 80s there was a way to cheat phone booths in Germany: With a small tool that had an adjustment screw you could position the hook switch to an exact position where the phone booth had already connected the line but did not yet power up the rest of the machinery (including coin counters)
You could then call arbitrary nunbers by pulse dialing using the hook switch (the rotary dial was still powered down)
Basically a EU pulse dial version of phreaking.
My father, who died this year, used this a lot too make “free” calls in the 80s.
So that’s how you used the old hand crank phones, I never know. I thought you turned the crank to get power into the phone and then told the person working the switch bord who you want is to talk to. And that when you were telling you sometimes needed to re turn the crank to get more power.
i had thought it cost 50+ usd to use photoshop lol, now that i checked its 21usd, which i’d say is still a lot compared to nothing, but you dont have to be rich
though for me and anyone else who lives in brazil, 21usd costs 103real, though youd think minimum wage would be higher to account for that, right? WRONG, its lower. so anyway, you have to be rich to use photoshop in brazil, and for some reason i thought the price for it was a lot higher
You should just say “if you prefer”. Even on Windows, I’d pick GIMP over Photoshop. There are some tools that I’m used to in GIMP, that aren’t available in PS. Tho, working on Linux and being FOSS are huge pros for me.
These days it’s barely even skills. Just select a box above the baby and use the generative AI feature to ask it for a spaceship and regenerate until it looks decent.
Back in my day we had to generate our realistic Photoshop jobs with our own blood, sweat, and tears.
Well the kid would need a friend. By any chance can someone convince a family of a billionaire preferably with only one kid and have a massive cave just under their mansion to walk down in a dark alleyway?
Yeah, is there a best method to starve them or something? How do we ensure humans such as their children don’t get caught in the crossfire while starving them?
Never said it was. In fact it is very much not. I’m just asking based on the principle of being able to hurt children, what their parents did/who they are has nothing to do with it.
I wasn’t trying to hurt children because of landlord/tenant parents I was trying to hurt children because I get to hurt children and that’s always a plus.
I am also completely puzzled by this. I even started imagining a situation where the landlord is so poor he is working as a waiter in a restaurant. Otherwise this doesn’t make any sense.
I’m a landlord and a school bus driver and I am poor as fuck. I bought a cheap house that needed a huge amount of renovation work, and I now rent it out while I live with my elderly parents. The rental income represents about a 50% increase over my salary (assuming nothing goes seriously wrong with the house) but I still make less than $40K. Not every landlord is the guy from Monopoly.
I’m a school bus driver and while it’s weird enough that we generally get tips (from the parents, not the kids of course) at Christmas and the end of the school year, a co-worker of mine last year handed out tip envelopes (like what garbage truck workers leave on the cans) to all the kids on his bus. At least he was suspended for doing this, as a bunch of the parents went apeshit.
Every year before Christmas, the garbage truck guys “helpfully” leave an envelope taped to your bin so you can leave them a Christmas tip. You’ve never seen one of these?
No, you generally put the money out with the bin on the morning it’s picked up (and it’s more like $20 to $50 lol). My neighborhood is quite safe but even here an envelope filled with cash wouldn’t last a week.
Nothing would happen if they didn’t get a tip. There’s a huge turnover in that job and none of the workers ever last more than a couple of months, so even if they had a grudge against you they’d be gone in no time.
There was a landlord on TikTok who essentially asked for tips. He had his friend play a renter that refused to tip him and argued that if waiters get tipped just for delivering the food to the table, the landlord totally deserves a tip for being available for calls and fixing stuff.
One giant shitstorm later and we end up with this meme and the landlord making a TikTok in which he said that it all was a joke.
Two questions immediately come to mind. 1) Would you buy the cyanide if it was on the list. 2) Where does one casually buy cyanide? I can’t imagine a case where I’d need some, but it would be handy to know if I ever did.
I know you used to be able to get it for pest control, but maybe not anymore. You could also make it the old-fashioned way with molten washing soda. It can be used to make Prussian blue, for one thing.
Obviously take all necessary precautions, especially keeping NaCN away from acids.
I hate Typescript for promising me that nobody can put cyanide on the list, but in reality it disallows ME from putting cyanide on the list, but everyone else from the outside is still allowed to do so by using the API which is plain JavaScript again
The main problem with JavaScript and TypeScript is that there is such a little entrybarrier to it, that way too many people use it without understanding it. The amount of times that we had major issues in production because someone doesn’t understand TypeScript is not countable anymore and our project went live only 4 months ago.
For example, when you use nest.js and want to use a boolean value as a query parameter.
You see this code. You don’t see anything wrong with it. The architect looks at it in code review and doesn’t see anything wrong with it. But then you do a GET https://something.com/valueOfMyBoolean?myBoolean=false and you get “myBoolean is true” and if you do typeOf(myBoolean) you will see that, despite you declaring it twice, myBoolean is not a boolean but a string. But when running the unit-tests, myBoolean is a boolean.
I’ve never used TS, and I’m not exactly sure what nest.js even does, but building a TypeScript project on top of a JavaScript library not designed for it seems like asking for trouble. Is that standard practice?
If I really needed to use a JS library in TS, I’d have to build some sort of adapter between the two that crashes whenever the JS library (that doesn’t know anything about your types) breaks the typing rules. Anything else will inevitably lead to the above “fun” kind of bugs.
I don’t think that this would work, there are no types anymore during runtime because everything is translated into plain js on build. TypeScript only exists during development
This is more a condemnation of nest.js than ts. It seems great in theory. I like the architecture and the ability to share models and interfaces between front and backend, but it’s objectively makes everything more complicated. It adds layers of abstraction that should not be necessary and it’s such a niche/unpopular framework for backend systems that you generally have to jump through hoops to do anything moderately complex. Not only do new devs have to learn typescript to use it, they have to learn the nest architecture to know how to do things “the right way” and you still end up in situations like this which looks perfectly valid but isn’t. Typescript was never meant to be used for backend, and trying to make it do so and then complaining about it is like jogging while carrying a gun, shooting yourself in the foot, and blaming the gun.
Would have been way funnier to make it all “macaroni” or “pasta” and leave one tiny section for “spaghetti”, because somehow that’s the distinction people make.
Estimated update time is being updated please wait [Estimated update time is being updated please wait[Estimated update time is being updated please wait…] minutes] minutes
Fast Food workers aren’t trained to dehumanize the public and see them as a threat. Cops are. Cops are also trained to respond with violence and intimidation to any perceived threat to their authoritah.
I was once told that the American police forces chooses only people below a certain intellectual threshold to be cops so they wouldn’t think too much about or question orders gotten from their bosses 🤔 (dunno if it’s true)
There was a famous case where a single person was rejected, and the cited reason was his high IQ. The particular location had a policy of rejecting extreme IQ because evidence showed that IQ is correlated with job turnover. He sued them and lost because IQ is not a protected status in the US and because there was a cited non-prejudicial reason.
But of note, it doesn’t appear to be common enough that anyone has researched it as a statistic. It’s just that despite being run by the government, police departments have enough autonomy to set their own hiring policies as long as they are legal.
There’s a lot of genuine criticisms about the police. We should focus on those. Like their half-ass training and the laws/policies that lead to harmful behavior by them and garner well-earned mistrust.
I think the format of system, as framed around obedience to particular elite interests, and detachment from broader social interests, is completely a valid target of criticism.
Of course, arguments should be based on factually accurate premises.
I think the format of system, as framed around obedience to particular elite interests, and detachment from broader social interests, is completely a valid target of criticism.
I’m not sure what you mean in this sentence. Are you talking about the system of police applications and how they hire/train cops? Or are you talking about the overall problem where police serve laws which (not coincidentally) protect corporate interests?
If the former, I’m not sure I’d agree. If the latter, I agree 100%.
There are no explicit and uniform policies, and one as such, if it were real, likely would be well known.
However, even such a policy would seem unlikely to make much difference practically.
It is abundantly clear that the system reproduces itself by being good only to those who are good to the system.
Anyone who carries deeper curiosity, or inclination to question, the dominating systems of authority, power, and ideals, is unlikely to last long under an oath to protect them.
People that don’t care about their privacy is exactly what makes it so hard to just exist privately. I shouldn’t have to give up my rights because other people don’t care about them
It would certainly be an interesting show watching an armed man in a forest coming up to attackers and trying to hug them, telling how much he loves them and making friends.
lemmy.world
Top