This makes way more sense than active suppression. If you don’t have an understanding of the context, then you can’t compress the memory. Every sound/sensation/image is unique and had to be remembered as a unique experience.

I’m saying that it makes no difference even if everyone did it. Denoising is trivial.

The noise you add won’t even register. No two people are going to half-ass it the same way, so if you average everyone’s responses, the correct answer comes out.

These lakes are formed when the cloud is saturated and gives us data precipitation.

Better that they tell us imo. If someone thinks that the people I care about don’t deserve to exist for reasons no one can control, I’d rather know and avoid giving them money than to help them quietly gain influence and power until they can eradicate these people themselves.

It’s a bit of a circular problem. Certain journals have a reputation of publishing higher quality work, so if you see where it’s published, you’re more likely to read it. Since it draws in readers, it leads to more citations. More citations means more people want to publish there, meaning that the journal gets to be more selective and gets to choose the cream of the crop. Thus maintaining their reputation of publishing higher quality work.

arXiv is standard in cs. We use this on conjunction with peer reviewed venues (also all free and volunteer run) and it’s been working out decently well for us. Other fields need to follow suit.

Question: What is it about spiders that you think generates that ick factor in people?

The mess of webs they leave behind and how you constantly have to pay attention to every surface you put weight on lest you end up with a splotch of spider guts to clean up.

It wins in the sense that you still have access to the software and code, and you have the option to either hire someone new to maintain it or switch to something else. Closed source proprietary software only leaves you with the latter choice.

An important component of the cost to consider is how long we expect a company to support a piece of software, and how much it would cost to migrate everything when they drop support. FOSS wins in this regard, especially if you can get a support contact with the devs.

This needs to have multiple levels of “openness” to distinguish between having access to the code, the dataset, a documented training procedure, and the final weights. I wouldn’t consider it fully open unless these are all available, but I still appreciate getting something over nothing, and I think that should be encouraged.

Shit takes time bro. We’re all trying not to starve to death here.

And if they do find it, it’ll all be kept hush hush, they’ll force an update on everyone with no explanation, some people will do everything in their power to refuse because they need to keep their legacy software running, and the exploit stays alive in the wild.

If you disagree with the article, I’d like to see something a bit more substantiated than “it’s bad”.

Punitive justice may not make sense without free will, but restorative and preventative justice still does.

I’ve always just used a bigger plate/bowl to cover things. They’re much easier to clean than any plastic lid.

The article focuses on the weight/BMI of their subjects and how going too high leads to increased risk of many other health problems. Problematic snacks they list include cookies, cakes, pies, crisps, breakfast cereal.

Criticism: I have the same issue with the way this work is presented as I usually do when this topic comes up, and it’s that there’s no such thing as an inherently (un)healthy meal/snack. It’s your diet as a whole that your body responds to, and dietary needs differ from one person to the next. For example, (considering only Calories since that’s the focus of the article) if you consume too much during the day, that’s not solely the fault of the cookie. Maybe you had a “healthy” salad for lunch, but if you reduced the amount of dressing used, that cookie would fit in perfectly fine.

I don’t mean to say that you would be incapable of imagining each of the details of a piece. What I mean is that at any given moment, you’re only paying attention to a small part of the piece while your brain fills in the rest with an approximation so it appears as if you hear the whole thing at once.

I feel like this could just be a result of your brain being very good at fooling you into thinking you perceive something when you don’t. It’s kind of like how you can “see” a huge landscape in very fine details, but really the only part you actually see well is the centre of your visual field.

Interesting read, but where’s the science?