To be fair, if you make a decentralized, leftist answer to Reddit’s inherent structural flaws, you’re going to attract leftists and people who are fans of decentralization.
Just because your ears can't hear a difference doesn't mean that there is none. I deal with this a lot when Japanese ask me for help and can't differentiate between certain sounds
Yeah in Japanese a few consonant sounds like ‘r’ and ‘l’ sounds or ‘h’/‘f’ or ‘s’/‘th’ or ‘z’/‘ð’ are basically heard as the same (an American ‘r’ might even sound like a weird ‘w’ to Japanese), and English has around 17 to 24 distinctive vowel sounds generally (based on quality) while Japanese has 5 plus vowel length and tones (pitch accent). As a result of the phonetic differences between the languages, it can be hard to hear or recreate the differences in sound quality (especially when it’s Japanese on the speaking/listening end, but Americans also sure have a terrible time trying to make Japanese sounds like the “n” or “r” or “ch”/“j” or “sh”/“zh” or “f” or “u”. they just perceive it as the same as the closest sounds in English)
In my experience, only God can hear the difference between Polish “dż” and “dź” / “cz” and “ć” (and the others)…
English also doesn't have gemination (small tsu) which does make a difference in Japanese as well. Hearing that in very quick Japanese for words I don't know can still be different. Same with vowel length. Once you know the word, it doesn't matter as much how someone says it, but when it's new vocab and the speaker is very quick, it can be tough.
I didn’t know the technical term gemination for っ, appreciate it. Can’t it manifest somewhat similarly to stops/plosives though? English doesn’t generally use those followed by the same consonant within the same word, but the phrase “port ten” is almost like the t consonant in itte, but with less of a pause in the middle. Contrast it with the word “portend” and you can see that we have a little bit more of a pause in “port ten”.
When I say "port ten" and ポッテン (with or without the long 'o') it seems I'm doing something different. Maybe a glottal stop and hard attack? I'm not actually a linguist though, so I could be very wrong.
They are all palatal sibilants in Japanese, while in English they’re palato-alveolar sibilants. Very hard difference for English speakers to hear, but the distinction is common enough to exist in many languages. And the “ch”/“j”/“sh”/“zh” sounds I speak of are just common variations of “t”/“d”/“s”/“z” that occur before “i” (they are spelled si -> shi, zi -> zhi/ji, ti -> chi, di -> ji).
Usually “zhi” isn’t spelled out in Rōmaji though, actually it’s often spelled “ji” even when they’re sometimes pronounced differently (so “zi” and “di” end up being spelled the same, perhaps confusingly, but most people pronounce them the same so it doesn’t really matter). But I think pronouncing them differently is more of an archaic, obsolete, ot dialectal thing anyways.
The “h” in “hi” also sounds different.
The spelling also changes in the same way before a syllable that starts with a “y” sound, e.g. syu -> shu or dyo -> jo.
Before “u” some consonants also change (hu -> fu, tu -> tsu, du -> dzu).
These sound changes don’t occur for all speakers/dialects, some don’t have a “shi” and just say “si” for example, but they are the most common and standard I believe.
No offense intended since I’m fully incapable of pronouncing tons of English words properly (fuck “squirrel” specifically), but as a Frenchman who has lived near Mulhouse for a few years and interacted with a lot of foreign students, what you said probably wasn’t close to being the exact same as that guy
To add to what that other person said, when you grow up your brain gets used to hearing the sounds common to your accent and you can even stop hearing the difference between certain sounds when someone speaks your language with a different accent!
In Quebec french there’s a big difference between the sound of “pré” and “prè” that doesn’t exist with some of the french accents in France and they’re unable to recreate that difference and might even be unable to hear it!
“Pré” and “prè” consistently sound distinctly different in most, dare I say almost all, accents in mainland France. The difference is the same with basically all words spelled with those vowels. “Ê” also sounds like a long “è” in most words for most people. “e” also sounds like “é” when before silent letters except for “t”, and sounds like “è” when before multiple letters or before “x” or before silent “t” or if it’s the last sound except for open monosyllabic words, and it sounds special or is silent elsewhere. “-ent” is always silent too. Obviously doesn’t apply to “en/em”, also special exception for “-er/-es”.
Maybe not in proper Quebecois, but I feel like most people here use the é/è sounds interchangably. Take “Il prétend” for example. It feels like that accent could be either é or è and people would still pronounce it the same.
The vowel sounds in “près” and “pré” are very clearly different, and the sound in “prêt” changes from “è” to “é” when in liaison because it always sounds like “è” at the end of words (and separately, in closed syllables) and always sounds like “é” in open syllables otherwise (liaison triggers a change in the syllable structure which changes the vowel here). This does not contradict what I said. You said “(pr)é” and “(pr)è” sound the same, nothing about “(pr)ê”.
Yep. I took a language psych class in college, and we saw some examples of this that were crazy, especially being one of the people that can’t hear the difference.
I can’t remember the example, but just imagine somebody saying the same word to you twice and then a third party telling you the first person just said two different words.
Maybe they are dogs! Maybe they are robot dogs! You Don’t KNOW!
BTW it’s less scary if you think most of these comments are written by morons. A “smart” bot comment (like an informative one) is still way better than a comment written by a human idiot.
These low effort and low quality comments used to be the norm when reddit was new. Eventually the community kinda wised up a bit and realized that you don’t need a “when does the narwhal bacon?” comment chain in every thread and heavily downvoted this sort of thing. Then the reverse happened and reddit become known for housing the internet’s most insufferable know-it-alls, contrarians, and pedants. I think it kinda still has that reputation a little bit, but maybe the metaphorical boomerang is swinging back around again? Either that, or like you said, bot infestation.
I had just dropped my son off at daycare. I needed a new heel for my shoe, so I decided to go to Morganville, which is what they called Shelbyville in those days. So I tied an onion to my belt, which was the style at the time. Now, to take the ferry cost a nickel, and in those days, nickels had pictures of bumblebees on 'em. Give me five bees for a quarter, you’d say. Ah, there’s an interesting story behind that nickel…
I’m don’t do very much bicycling, but I much prefer breathing next to EVs than ICE vehicles. Being forced to breath someone’s stinky exhaust when you’re breathing heavy from physical exertion sucks.
Also they’re all the time on the way when riding in cities, they take massive amount of space for 1 person transport. Not even talking about having to stop every block just to let cars go over the intersection
Breathing in Micro-rubber/micro-plastics from disintegrating car tires isn’t fixed at all by electrification.
I can also hear ICE cars approach from behind when I’m cycling, but that isn’t the case with electric vehicles (which might be using “autopilot” and can’t see me on the road). I’m not sure if that whirring sound is present outside of low speeds, but I certainly can’t hear it with wind crossing my ears. Sometimes tire noise is audible, but not always.
On the other hand, ICE drivers are more likely to intentionally try to hit me soooo
But in the comparison of tailpipe emissions (0.02 mg/km) vs tire emissions (36mg/km), I know which one I’m more worried about.
Nick Molden of Emissions Analytics seems to think that the heavier the vehicle, the worse the wear on tires seems to be (though it greatly depends on driving style and torque). That’d probably mean heavy EVs and SUVs are the worst for this.
Not that bicycles are completely clean- but there’s probably a time in the future to worry about bicycle microplastics- after the cars have been phased out.
We’re talking about personal subjective measures, so there isn’t an objective “right” or “wrong” answer, but there’s a bit of a double standard to your logic. Here’s what I’m seeing from your stance:
ICE vs EV = even though EVs better, its still a car so still not good enough so use third choice "bicycling"
EV tire pollution vs bicycle tire pollution = bicycles produce the same type of pollution but less of it, so its good enough
It seems like your logic should follow:
EV tire pollution vs bicycle tire pollution = bicycles produce the same type of pollution but less of it, but still not good enough so use third choice “walking”
You could argue “walking is too slow, while biking is faster and at least less destructive than worse alternatives for fast travel”. However, that would also seem to introduce “bicycling is too slow, while EV is faster and at least less destructive than worse ICE alternatives for fast travel”.
So you like bicycling, and there’s nothing wrong with that as it is purely subjective and there isn’t a wrong answer, but if you’re adhering to your logic, you should eschew bicycling for walking as its less destructive using an objective argument.
I’m not sure if a study exists for it, but I’d assume walking produces more microplastics/km than bicycling because of how soft shoe rubber is and how scrubby the action is. Who knows. There is a study I saw that said that walking produces more CO2 per km than cycling, but I’m not sure if this is parallel to microplastic emissions.
The logic will make sense if you think that tailpipe emissions are so litte, it’s almost not worth considering in comparison to tire emissions. So the next step is to say “so how do we limit the microplastics in the air and in the ground on a necessary part of transportation”- the answer is to make it smaller and lighter. And if you want to go distances that you can’t get to by bike, that’s where public transportation comes in.
Just chiming in to mention electric bikes, which are faster than regular bikes, lighter than cars (thus less tire pollution), longer range than most people could reasonably bike, lower price point than evs, and cheaper to maintain than evs. It would be a reasonable alternative for short distance trips in cities and suburbs while cars are phased out in favor of other alternatives (buses, trains, trolleys, etc)
So you say because bisicles are not perfect we should just don’t give a shit?
The still produce way less tire pollution than cars.
You only have two tires instead of 4.
A bike has the fraction of the weight of a car.
The tires are relatively thin and small, while car tires are just monsters. Especially those of electric vehicles.
So accusing that guy of double standards is just wrong. The problems bikes have are negligle, compared of a lot of things we use on a daily basis. And btw the tire pollution isn’t the worst part of an ev, by far. The production of the battery alone produces more co2, uses more resources and produces more waste (especially a lot of chemical waste), than 10 bikes produce during their whole livespann.
So you say because bisicles are not perfect we should just don’t give a shit?
Nope, never said that.
Maybe this will illustrate my point better. I’ll use your words as the template:
So you say because walking is not perfect we should just don’t give a shit?
Shoes still produce way less tire pollution than bicycles.
<span style="color:#323232;">You only have ZERO tires instead of 2.
</span><span style="color:#323232;">A pair of shoes has the fraction of the weight of a bicycle.
</span><span style="color:#323232;">The soles are relatively thin and small, while bicycle tires are just monsters. Especially those of mountain bikes.
</span>
The problems shoes have are negligible, compared of a lot of things we use on a daily basis. And btw the tire pollution isn’t the worst part of an bicycles, by far. The production of the steel frame or carbon fiber resins alone produces more co2, uses more resources and produces more waste (especially a lot of chemical waste), than 10 pairs of shoes produce during their whole livespan.
So back to me: An argument against EVs with bicycles as the alternative also works as an argument against bicycles with walking as the alternative. That’s the double standard. Or to put it another way, if an argument against EVs (in this context) in favor of bicycles is valid, then that same argument against ICE in favor of EVs is valid.
Shoes still produce way less tire pollution than bicycles
Do you have a source for that? Because that doesn’t match my experience at all, especially if we measure by wear per mile. Plus, shoes are a lot more finicky than bike tires. If they’re not a good fit or if the wearer has bad walking habits, they’ll wear out prematurely and end up in a landfill with a lot of rubber left. I tend to wear out the balls of my feet, for example. To do the same with a bike tire you’d have to be downright abusive, locking brakes on pavement and stuff
If now you’re moving the goalposts to “wear per mile” then car tires win substantially over bicycle tires.
According to this source bicycle tires should be replaced after about 4,000 miles. source
Whereas according to this source an average car tire should last 50,000 miles source
The argument against bicycles vs cars, using tire wear as the metric, gets even worse when you introduce the cost of tires in bicycle vs car. You get many MANY more miles per tire per dollar on a car than you do on a bicycle.
I understand all the flaws in this comparison, but this is the metric which you introduced to be the problem to solve for.
I think that the wear per distance is the only metric that makes sense, given these are modes of transportation. To be totally honest with you though, I only skimmed the thread up until your comment, and the statement about shoes caught my eye, so I had to ask. So any sources on shoe wear? I’m not even trying to argue, I’ve just had this question for months because I’ve heard others make the same claim that shoes pollute less than bike tires.
If transportation is necessary, find ways to mitigate emissions as best as possible. If emissions are unavoidable, use the thing with least emissions (small-tired lightweight vehicles) until you research a solution to a tire material that isn’t harmful (which is being worked on I think). Busses mitigate a dozen or two cars. Local rail mitigates a few busses and a few hundred cars. Essentially, personal vehicles should be small and lightweight, and essential mass transit or city services should be large enough to serve an entire area.
Literally true; but also yes. A car that doesn’t look before turning is the same whether it’s ICE or EV. I’m a bus-and-walking guy, not a bike guy, but any car is a danger to me when I’m crossing the street. It’s not a problem we’re going to solve with batteries. Mass transit, raised crosswalks, narrowing roads, physical speed controls, and densified cities (to name a few) are all things we desperately need.
Those metal shutters, that black out the whole room? They have those in Portugal, Spain, most of the mid-southwest Mediterranean. France also. But they’re basically ubiquitous in Portugal. Pretty nifty actually.
Edit: This was driving me nuts, sorry, but I couldn’t find a single good image of what I mean. Here’s the best I could make the robot monkey do (YMMV):
It sounds like you’re describing “Persianas” – a term used in Portugal (and other Spanish or Portuguese-speaking countries) for a specific type of heavy-duty indoor blinds or shutters. These are not the thin metal or fabric blinds but rather thick, often horizontal slats that can be rolled down to cover windows or doors completely, providing excellent light blockage and insulation.
Funnily enough we call the small thin ones in the picture I posted “Persienner”.
They don’t provide any significant insulation but they can also cover the whole window and block light pretty well. Not perfectly, but good enough for most applications.
If they aren’t enough for you, you can have specific black out curtains that either roll down or slide in front of the window. I suspect black out curtains exist literally everywhere. I am just mentioning it for completeness sake.
I suspect black out curtains are especially common where they get sun 24/7 during the summer.
The worse part is now they’re built cheaply so the screen is only the bottom half. You can still open the top, or from both top and bottom for convection, but now you get bugs
Windows are the kind of thing that are generally built locally for multiple reasons. So your experience will vary greatly based on what the window factory in your area is doing.
Where I live, single hung windows (only one sash) are most common, so only one screen is needed. Double hung windows are less common because people don’t want to pay for the expense of the additional sash (a lot of springs and mechanisms needed for a sash). A screen is an expense too, but nowhere near the expense of an additional shaft. Possibly the intent was to allow for opening the top to making cleaning easier, but that’s usually accomplished by having the top “fixed” portion of the single hung window be able to tilt out because putting all the springs and mechanisms for an additional sash for a feature to make it easier to clean isn’t necessary.
Yeah… I worked at a window factory before. The calculations needed to figure out the tension needed on the springs so that it will counter the weight of the sash was fun.
That window design looks like it would never seal properly. Here in Germany any window from the last 30 years or more will not let any air in when its fully closed.
And how is it sealed on the sides and the top? European casement windows actually get pulled into the frame (and seals) all around the frame by rollers which move sideways along sloped ridges when you move the hinge to the closed position.
But will there still be air coming through when there is wind pushing on that side of the house?
I guess they are kind of complicated, but energy efficient windows make it possible to increase the window area and size without losing too much heat. Energy is also more expensive over here, which probably helps in that decision, as the cost of these windows can be easily recouped in a few years just by needing less energy to heat the house.
It seals. There’s a small recess underneath the window lined with weather stripping that when pressure is applied from closing the window and even locking it, it becomes air tight.
Double hung windows don’t seal quite as well as casement windows, but honestly, unless you’re going to the absolute best energy efficiency possible, like a net-zero house, then it’s really not a big difference. Any halfway decent quality, properly installed window won’t have any noticeable drafts. Plus, as others have mentioned, double hung windows are far cheaper than casement.
Oh those were interesting days. Driving out in the middle of the night to get underripe green sour fruit and eating this one weird chicken rice curry thing every day for a month because “it’s the best shit ever”.
Last time this made the rounds, it was said she didn’t know the dildo was there, a friend put it there as a prank. It was also said she deleted all her social media and whatnot afterwards too. I don’t have source and admit I can be totally off
Is an LLM machine learning? In ML you are usually predicting a value based on values in the training set. That’s not really what an LLM does it seems. Maybe it uses some ML under the hood.
In ML you are usually predicting a value based on values in the training set
No, that’s just a small part of ML: Supervised learning. There also is unsupervised learning, reinforcement learning and a whole bunch of other things in machine learning; It’s a way bigger field than just that.
And about your question: Yeah, LLMs are a prime example of machine learning. Very simplified, they use a kind of recurrent neural network to take inputs of arbitrary lengths and give outputs. They are trained on huge loads of data (text) to auto-complete the data (so that they get e.g. a sentence as input and give a second sentence that’s likely the next sentence in the data as output). E.g. “Today I went” as input could generate “to school.” as output.
ChatGPT is based on these LLMs like GPT-4 in the way that the start of the input data is commands in human language for the bot how to behave. (E.g. “You are called ChatGPT. You are not allowed to […]. You are helpful and friendly.”), then adding the user input. The LLM then generates what the chatbot described with the given characteristics would give as an output based on the training set and it’s returned as the output by ChatGPT.
That’s also why it falls in the area of data science. You develop a model based on available papers of similar tasks and refine the model and training with statistical methods.
lemmyshitpost
Top
This magazine is from a federated server and may be incomplete. Browse more on the original instance.