I have moderate-to-profound hearing loss and have worn hearing aids since I was 4. I currently have Oticon Opn1’s and have had Oticons since 2017 (and got new ones in 2022) and they are fabulous. I find the sound quality in noisy environments much better than any other aid I’ve had - much better perception of voices in restaurants, for example. I rarely have to fiddle with the volume control and in fact do not even use any other settings than the main program - I find that whatever the core program is doing tends to be basically what I want.
I also very much appreciate that they can natively connect to iPhones (this is also essentially the main reason I have an iPhone). This makes phone calls and music and podcasts very easy. (Whereas up until 2017, I used to dread phone calls.)
I actually tried Phonaks briefly in 2022 and hated them. Lots of controls to fiddle with (some with oddly unintuitive names), but that meant I was constantly trying to adjust it and was rarely able to just exist in the moment. I found them markedly worse in noisy environments - I basically couldn’t have a conversation in a restaurant.
My understanding of knot theory is limited to having watched a few YouTube videos and reading the first introductory chapters of a book. A neat topic, but not one I'm going to dig too deeply into.
> […] I want to take a different approach in this blog. I think we should dismiss this finding, simply because it is impossible. When we interpret how impossibly large the effect size is, anyone with even a modest understanding of psychology should be able to conclude that it is impossible that this data pattern is caused by a psychological mechanism.
> If hunger had an effect on our mental resources of this magnitude, our society would fall into minor chaos every day at 11:45. Or at the very least, our society would have organized itself around this incredibly strong effect of mental depletion. Just like manufacturers take size differences between men and women into account when producing items such as golf clubs or watches, we would stop teaching in the time before lunch, doctors would not schedule surgery, and driving before lunch would be illegal.
The lunch break literally a thing that exists because society is organized around hunger a food a lot.
People being somewhat harsher or less focused does not imply everything should stop. That is massive exaggeration. What happens is that organizations have lunch breaks and people have snacks so that effect is not too large.
The phrasing “bias against AI” seems to beg the question here. The article takes it for granted that people are wrong to say they’re more interested in stories written by people than by AI, because they can’t tell the difference if they’re misled.
Compare with a hypothetical study saying: people say they prefer true inspirational personal stories to fake inspirational personal stories. But if you lie to them, they think the fake ones are just as good!
Obviously, this would not prove that they are “wrong” or “biased”. The whole point of stories written by people is that a _person_ wrote it, based on their actual human thoughts and experiences.
All the study objectively shows is people prefer stories they believe are written by humans.
You might find a similar effect with attractive authors vs ugly authors. If you show people the photos they probably prefer stories they believe are written by attractive authors.
If we call that bias in the second case, why not call it bias in the first case?
> The whole point of stories written by people is that a _person_ wrote it, based on their actual human thoughts and experiences.
I thought the whole point of stories was that they were entertaining or had some pertinent message. Truth doesn't have to come from someone's thoughts or experiences. Would you reject a math proof if it was generated by an AI?
I imagine at the time of the printing press, someone argued "The whole point of stories is that a person wrote it"
I think there's a fundamental difference between a story and a math proof. A math proof is mostly there to give you new knowledge.
While a story definitely can do that, for many people, they're also about human connection. Even if the story isn't true, you feel like you're getting a look inside the author's brain by discovering how they weave storylines together. All the life experience they've head that lead them to write this story.
If I was instead told the story was written by AI, I would be far less interested in what data it was trained on to be able to produce this story, because I cannot relate to an AI having any "experience" whatsoever.
Depends on what kind of story is the one we are talking about. Fictional stories just have to be entertaining as you say it. Non-fictional stories have to be entertaining, but also true.
Nobody complains if it turns out that the poor moisture farmer boy from the edge of the galaxy didn't really actually blow up the space station of the evil space empire. It is not that kind of story.
But other types of stories purport to tell about something which really happened. There just being merely entertaining is not enough.
> I thought the whole point of stories was that they were entertaining or had some pertinent message.
I guess it depends on what you as a reader value. The thing that makes any art valuable to me is that it is a human communication. Art made by a machine is far less valuable because, by definition, it isn't a human communication.
Others can value art differently, and they aren't wrong for doing so. That's part of what makes art special, that different people value aspects of it differently.
> Would you reject a math proof if it was generated by an AI?
That's an entirely different thing. A math proof isn't art, nor is it intended to be.
> The thing that makes any art valuable to me is that it is a human communication. Art made by a machine is far less valuable because, by definition, it isn't a human communication.
What is "human communication"? To me that is something that communicates a concept that resonates to a human. It doesn't mean that a human had to create it. For instance, an elaborate bird nest could be art because it communicates things like beauty, symmetry, function, etc.
No, in your analogy building a helicopter capable of going there is impressive. (Though I dispute the idea that it’s more impressive simply because helicopters were invented more recently than mountain climbing.) In any case, riding in a helicopter remains passive and in no sense impressive.
But the question here is not looking for a generator, because it would be okay if some group elements are only reached during the application of the sequence. (For the sequence to be a generator, all group elements need to be reached at the end of some full application of the sequence.)
The Hamiltonian cycle sequence from the original post is not a generator, but it visits every state. The question is: Is there a significantly shorter sequence that (when repeated) does the same?
We can give a concrete example that non-Abelian groups can satisfy this with S_3, which is the smallest non-Abelian group. Swap the first two elements; then swap the last two. Repeat three times. You get the sequence
Obama was correct in observing that he looked different from past American presidents. As for “claims to admire”, the implication that Obama doesn’t really admire MLK (and that this speech proves it!) is just ludicrous.
I’m going to go out on a limb here and guess that you just don’t like Obama. Didn’t like him before you read this article, don’t like him now.
You’re not just going out on a limb, you’re jumping to conclusions. I’m specifically responding to the point already made in the article: “For whatever reason, Obama preferred to evoke memories of Kennedy and Reagan rather than the iconic black man he claims to greatly admire. Whether intentional or an oversight, the omission was odd, especially since his target audience was Americans, and Obama didn’t want his speech to sound too “European.””
As you can see “claims to admire” didn’t originate from me.
Make up your mind, are you mad they pressured him to withdraw or mad they tried to keep him in the race?
Given your voting record and the fact that you’ve just criticized the democrats for two opposite courses of action in back to back posts (and I see your now several other posts hoping to find democrats mad at the DNC), I think you’re a plain ol’ conservative who’s inclined to find fault with the Democratic Party regardless of what specifically they do.
I mean whats the point of a having a primary system if you're going to just have the guy that won it back down and appoint a successor?
Sure, the convention is the votes that actually matter just like the electoral college but every time the popular vote gets upset by the electoral vote people are mad.
The primary and convention system have always existed in parallel. In fact, the USA doesn’t really have a primary system for presidents, just rules each state establishes on delegates should vote given the outcome of whatever happened in their state (and not all states have primaries of course, there are still caucus only state I think?). Even under a strict interpretation of the current system, the VP would take over the ticket if something happened to the president, so we aren’t even far off from that.
Conservatives are just going to have to deal with there already being a mechanism in here for nominating a candidate in a convention.
That isn’t the point. The point is that primaries were held (or in some cases, not held) based on a belief that the man would be fit for office, and the fact that he isn’t was being hidden from the voters participating in those primaries. I’m far beyond hoping for honesty from our politicians on either side, but I would classify this as fraud, albeit difficult to prove.
I think too many people on both sides consider it “legal if you don’t get caught” to do basically anything they please. And I think the fact that each side acts a lot further apart on issues than we actually are is just as sad. There’s no middle voice anymore. Either you consume left-wing media and hear their reactions to the 5% radical right or vice versa. All it means is that most Americans agree that 10% of us are batshit crazy.
I believe that most, if not all, cell phone cameras have cheaper CMOS sensors, not CCD sensors (which have a lower image noise, but they need a more expensive manufacturing process, less compatible with modern digital logic and more similar to the manufacturing processes used for DRAM).
AFAIK the CCD technology continues to be used only in large-area expensive sensors inside some professional video cameras, in applications like astronomy, microscopy, medical imaging and so on.
Quite true even full-frame DSLRs typically use CMOS sensors for some time now.
CCD was the first thing that came to mind as 'charge' is right in the name.
Out of curiosity, looked up invention dates for CCD 1969 and CMOS 1963 and CMOS sensor 1993 (quite a gap). I was playing with DRAM light sensitivity in the lab in the late 80's. I'm guessing CMOS had too much noise to be useful for a long while or something.
No, it was not taken as a given, it was an example of a very common product that digital image sensors enabled. I could have chosen e.g. digital cinema cameras, but they would not nearly have the same profound effect as cell phone cameras have had on society.
Tripled its housing supply since 1960 according to that article. Meanwhile Vancouver’s population went up by more than 4x. So it doesn’t seem surprising affordability would get worse!
I also very much appreciate that they can natively connect to iPhones (this is also essentially the main reason I have an iPhone). This makes phone calls and music and podcasts very easy. (Whereas up until 2017, I used to dread phone calls.)
I actually tried Phonaks briefly in 2022 and hated them. Lots of controls to fiddle with (some with oddly unintuitive names), but that meant I was constantly trying to adjust it and was rarely able to just exist in the moment. I found them markedly worse in noisy environments - I basically couldn’t have a conversation in a restaurant.