We'd like that, but if the creators here wanted it, they'd be using tech different than LLMs.

Imagine a filter so bad that "please die" gets past it.

"You do realize he won the popular vote too, right?"

Did he? Probably, but not quite convinced that that is certain yet.

There's still a very large number of votes yet to be counted to ascertain that, roughly five million in the state of California alone. (ref https://ancillary-proxy.atarimworker.io?url=https%3A%2F%2Felectionresults.sos.ca...)

And as the later counted votes, typically mail-in, typically Dem leaning, have continued to be counting Trump's popular vote count margin has dropped from about 12 million to what's now a bit over 3 million.

(I meant cache, not core, obviously.)

This is so different in different problem domains that I don't think the generalization is either useful nor valid.

But if you *can* overlap well, you absolutely should.

(In others, you just have way more data that needs operating on than RAM or core, and if the CPU can keep up, there's not much you can do to make the problem better.)

I seem to recall a stat from my work in digital television (before internet video was so common) that the average length of a hotel porn movie rental -- that is, how long someone actually watched it -- was nine minutes.

In terms of US law and strictly commercial speech, you'd be right (the Commerce Clause), but /. culture tends to focus on a broader philosophical sense of the term, rather than a particular national legal view.

As an aside, the study kicking off the parent article likely includes non-commercial unsolicited text messages--generally political begs, which would be more strongly protected by US law. Not my real point, though.

In the end, I am not in the broad ethical sense a "free speech fundamentalist", and I'm in fact skeptical of any sort of fundamentalism. The point of my previous comment is a backhanded shot at those who claim to be so, but who are not when it is slightly inconvenient to them. I believe strongly that free speech is an important value, but not one which does not have it's limits -- legitimate death threats, libel/slander, and other historical exceptions made in, say, US law mostly (not entirely, I feel) exist for good cause.

... and not one of them has defended spam as free speech.

Curious.

"Worse, surviving people could start to want a single payer system like the rest of the developed world."

Quibble: Quite a lot of the developed world has universal but not single-payer systems.

While it pushes against my intuition, the data looks as if the primary win is "truly universal", rather than "single-payer".

Take a look at cost, longevity, under-5-mortality across what you consider developed countries and see if you get the same result. (If not, that's cool, but take a look.)

I thought I was on Slashdot, not OANN.

You're joking, right?

Those observations looking for inner-system asteroids, tho.

"No disrespect to that professor, but he is pushing a theory that he invented and thinks that it is better than existing ML. "

Yes. I'd only add that he invented this theory in the 1980s, he's had some time to show it is, to coin a phrase, "A New Kind of Neurally Inspired Computing".

Yeah, exactly that.

I often get fewer than rated charges because of all the work I've done in polar areas, but even there you have a few in your pocket and are sometimes swapping a warm one for the one in the camera. It really isn't a big deal

Not getting the shot in focus, on the other hand... :)

Endorse the above answer.

(I'll natter on anyway, since I've been full-time at the photography as a second career for two decades now.)

The primary reason the pros I have worked with, and I, were slow to adopt mirrorless was AF performance.

The mirror allowed for separate AF circuitry ... not on the sensor--that design came from the film days. But that choice was helpful when digital came around too, because (a) putting specific AF sensors directly onto your image sensor runs some pretty difficult questions in not creating artifacts, and (b) trying to use the image sensor itself (and calculations) to know when something was in focus required quite a bit of data bandwidth, and also tends to warm the sensor (which creates noise.)

It's pretty remarkable to me that mirrorless AF works as well or better on the hardest AF problems (e.g., birds in flight) than DSLRs, but the general consensus of the smartest togs I've talked to is that it's reached that mark in the last year or two, and those folks have either already switched over or plan to the next time they update, nearly as a rule. I'm on team "next time I update", buy a few prints and I'll update sooner. ;-)

Power consumption is a drawback as well, but didn't appear to be the make-or-break for any of the photographers I have worked with, based on a few of them switching first to some Sony camera bodies that have pretty meh battery life. I heard complaints about this, but never regrets.

*shrug*.