I don’t actually know, but if I were to guess, someone trying to use a Dendy or something as a cheap alternative to a test pattern generator?

I suppose if a bee collects nectar exclusively from camellia sinensis and bergamot blossoms, it would be an Earl Grey bee.

I think the story reboots every few games, so it’s not like say, the Mega Man games where every game is part of one big continuity. There’s a setting and recurring characters that’s built up over the years and that’s about it; everything else is specific to that game or subseries. Basically, the Bombermen (M/F), who may or may not be siblings, are some kind of space police from the planet Bomber and they have to fight a villain, usually but not always Bagura/Buggler, to protect the peace in the galaxy.

There is a bit of a rabbit hole (puddle, really) you can go into where some of the earlier games have a connection to the Lode Runner games, because Hudson Soft did the Famicom port of Lode Runner. What it boils down to is that Lode Runner used to be Bomber Man. This connection hasn’t really been relevant for a long time, but the fact that Lode Runner is a Galactic Commando may have influenced the current setting.

I have a collapsible silicone bucket with a lid for popcorn making that goes into the microwave. It’s easy to use, doesn’t require any fat, also serves as a bowl and you can just throw it into the dishwasher. Size-wise, it’s probably not that different from an air popper when collapsed, but it’s easier to find a spot for; mine is on top of the stack of roughly bowl-shaped things. And you could also use it as a bowl for other things, so it’s not necessarily single-purpose.

I’ve seen both in full. I’d say that the new series is never as bad as the old series at its worst, but also never as good as the old series at its best. As someone who like Urusei Yatsura, the new series was a decent watch, but it hasn’t replaced the old series for me.

My biggest complaint about the new series is that it never seems to really manage to convey that sense of chaos that’s central to Urusei Yatsura’s comedy as well as the old one. My second biggest complaint is that untz! untz! untz! BGM they like to play during fast-paced scenes (especially early on) that to me doesn’t really match up with the show’s timing.

I also generally prefer the old voice acting. Now, the new series has an all-star cast, and they’re all great voice actors that do a good job embodying the characters (though Kamimiya Hiroshi as Ataru took a while for me to get used to), but I think the old cast was more willing to go all the way for the sake of comedy, whereas the new cast seems more careful about walking the tightrope between exaggerated expression and breaking character. This comparison video someone made does a good job of demonstrating this, I think. That said, I can definitely imagine some people preferring the more naturalistic acting of the new cast compared to the more theatrical and stylised performance of the old.

I do like what the new series did with Lum’s hair. A kind of combination between her iconic green hair from the anime and the oil-like refraction her hair is implied to have in the manga. And just in general, the colour palette is very pleasant.

This was in elementary school. It was pretty cold, even inside, so I was blowing into the inside of my elbow to get warm air into my sweater. I’m not sure how, but I messed up the alignment or something and ended up making a loud fart noise. And without getting any opportunity to explain, I was made to stand in the hall.

I’m not sure that the comparison with the weather data works. Tweaking curves to more closely match the test data, and moving around a model’s probability space in the hope that it sufficiently increases the probability of outputting tokens that fixes the code’s problems, seem different enough to me that I don’t know whether the former working well says anything about how well the latter works.

If I understand what you’re describing correctly, the two models aren’t improving each other, like in adversarial learning, but the adversarial model is trying to get the generative model to zone in on output that produces the user’s desired behaviour based on the given test data. But that can only work as well as how much the adversarial model can be relied upon to actually perform the tasks needed to make this happen. So I think my point still stands that the objectivity of your measurements of the test results is only meaningful if the test results themselves are meaningful, which is not guaranteed given what’s doing the testing.

How complex is the adversarial model? If it’s anywhere near the generative model, I don’t think you can have actual meaningful numbers about its reliability that allow you to reason about how meaningful the test results it produces are.

Sorry, that still doesn’t really make sense to me. If you can’t trust the generative model to produce code that does what it’s supposed to do, then you also can’t trust the adversarial model to perform the tests needed to determine that the code does what it’s supposed to do. So if the results have no meaning, then the fact that you can objectively measure them also has no meaning.

Programmers are kind of weird in the context of this post, because we tend to pretty consistently think our job is simpler than it really is, despite constantly being proven wrong.

objectively testable by adversarial models

This is an odd thing to say. Adversarial models are still learning models and have all the limitations that implies, including objectivity being far from guaranteed.

That sounds more like tinkering around the edges to me. Whipping companies like Twitter into behaving, while it absolutely needs to happen, won’t fundamentally change anything about the dependency of Europe to those companies and the pressure the US can exert through that dependency.

The kind of genetic engineering it would take for humans to be able to transform into other animals is very much in the realm of science-fiction, after all.

I have a FRITZ!Box 7583 and all I can really say about it is that it works well enough for me, using it at home. I haven’t really had any problems with it over the last 8 years.
That particular model also has a modem built-in, but they also sell models that are just purely routers.

It’s an inevitable outcome of its structure. With memes, it’s usually just the low-information image, which is typically visible from the post listing. There’s no article to read, no video to watch (or just a very short one), no question to think about, and you can upvote it straight from the post listing, so there’s not even a link to click. In other words, memes have a very low barrier-to-upvote compared to other types of posts, and as a result, are more likely to get upvotes and end up on the front page.

For serious conversation what you really want is a forum or only join communities on Lemmy where memes are frowned upon.

• Princess Tutu
• Legend of the Galactic Heroes (the original, though the newer Die Neue These is decent too)
• Mahoujin Guru Guru (1994 and 2017)
• King of Braves GaoGaiGar
• Slayers

“But the plans were on display…” “On display? I eventually had to go down to the cellar to find them.” “That’s the display department.” “With a flashlight.” “Ah, well, the lights had probably gone.” “So had the stairs.” “But look, you found the notice, didn’t you?” “Yes,” said Arthur, “yes I did. It was on display in the bottom of a locked filing cabinet stuck in a disused lavatory with a sign on the door saying ‘Beware of the Leopard.”

Despite the quality of their results going down in recent years and getting worse because of AI slop, the search engines I would miss the most in terms of type of service. Most alternative search engine still use the indices of Google and/or Bing and the ones that don’t, don’t have a very big index. I’m old enough to remember a time when search engines were plentiful, but terrible, and back then I actually made use of web directories, like Yahoo! at the time, more. A still-existant example would be Curlie, an heir to dmoz, and there are also more local sites like the Dutch Startpagina. Being more dependent on things like that would probably make my web usage more exploratory and less about trying to find a specific piece of information quickly. And I would also go directly to specific websites more often when I do need specific information. But there are also a few companies working on making a European search index and this happening would undoubted accelerate their efforts, so depending on how that works out, not much might change at all.

Streaming-wise, there are local streaming services for films and TV shows and they would undoubtedly expand their offerings with the loss of competition from American giants, but also, I never stopped buying BDs and DVDs (in fact I have a backlog). I never understood the appeal of music streaming, so I still buy music, sometimes even on CD. As for something like YouTube, Nebula is America-based, but it’s not “big tech”, so I would watch more of that. Niconico Douga isn’t what it used to be, but that might change without YouTube. And there would probably also be some movement towards federated video streaming.

I don’t actually make use of any of the big social media platforms. Technically, I have a LinkedIn account, but I don’t really use it and wouldn’t miss it. It’s not really social media, but I do use WhatsApp, but that being gone would just make it easier to convince friends and family to switch to something better.

Mimikyu

I was introduced to Mimikyu through this song and it was basically love at first sight. I even own a lifesize plushy that takes up half a seat on the couch.

It does have a USB port, but it’s better not to connect any weird devices to your PC. But if you have an old laptop or Raspberry Pi or something that you’re willing to potentially sacrifice (making sure it’s free of any personal data and not connected to any network), you could maybe find out what it’s describing itself as.

You can use a hammer to build a cupboard, or to bash someone’s skull in, but you can’t use it to make cupcakes with (well, not very effectively, anyway, or hygienically). My point is that each tool has a limited set of purposes it can really be used for and there’s no law of nature that states that all things considered “tools” always have more good purposes than bad, or that the benefits of the good purposes always outweigh the problems caused by the bad.

So it’s not good enough to flatten “AI” to the broader category of “tools” and say because something is considered to be generally true about the category as a whole, that means it’s also true for this specific case; you actually have to look critically at the specific case: who does it empower, in what way, to what extent? And frankly, the ability of the current paradigms of generative AI to empower good people to do good has been minimal to non-existent, whereas bad people have been greatly empowered to do bad. People who do not value truth and to whom the end justifies the means now have an infinite propaganda machine, those who do value truth do not. So the intentions of the people who made the AI isn’t even the biggest problem (though it does make things worse), it’s the intentions of the users. A community-made hammer is just as effective at bashing skulls in as one made by a greedy corporation.

I imagine his thinking went something like this: “If they build cycling infrastructure, it would attract casual cyclists. But I’d be zooming past them at several times their speed, which would be considered dangerous, so speed limits would be implemented and I wouldn’t be able to use public infrastructure as a practice track anymore.”