If the upscaler was trained on data that contains that exact patch in other contexts, it’ll theoretically be capable of upscaling it properly.

All the AI companies would beg to differ

Pebble seems to be headed in a good direction ever since it got bought back by the original founder.

I work in AI research, so naturally, AI is part of our day to day work. But when it comes to things like LLMs tools and other generative models, we rarely hear anyone talk about those. Sometimes, people will share their workflow, and that may involve LLMs to supplement traditional search engines for literature reviews for example. That’s about the extent of it. No one really cares to talk about them much. No one pushed those tools on us. We just do our work with whatever tools we think are best.

I’m not sure where the goal post was to begin with. I just thought it would be important to be aware of how we’re all contributing to the project so that we can make an informed decision. I haven’t thought this through enough to have an opinion on whether we should boycott either Framework or Lemmy.

You’re not directly paying them, but by being here and contributing to the community, you’re providing value to others who would then go on to donate to the devs.

Tolerance is tangential to humanization. You can be tolerant of a human. You can also be intolerant of a human.

But you cannot defy the laws of thermodynamics, so if you make anything colder, you need to absorb the energy to do so and vice versa. First time using this power and you accidentally made something too cold? Sounds like you just burned to death.

In the eyes of the universe, everything is simply an effect. There are no side-effects, so nothing you can redo despite having that ability.

Depending on the person, this might be a bonus.

Even then, you can probably trust a source to not lie, but you can’t trust them to never get fooled.

Quite the conundrum. I work better alone, but I want to go far.

If they’re disagreeing about objective reality

I always enjoy hearing about how people come to believe what they do. There’s pretty much always a logical basis for it and the difference just comes down to their heuristics failing at one particular point and cascading.

You don’t eat at home?

You’ll have to clarify what you mean by nutrients. I’m seeing some disagreements in the comments about whether things are nutritious or not because they’re using different definitions.

E.g. are you looking for high Calorie? Proteins and healthy fats? Large quantity of micronutrients? Large diversity of micronutrients? Or something else?

I got this too, and it basically immediately disappeared again. Our admins are doing a pretty good job of handling this kind of spam.

Honestly, if my career didn’t rely on it, I would entirely skip the publishing part of science. It takes so much more work to communicate your findings than to make them. Of course, that doesn’t help the cause since no one else will be able to build off of my work if I don’t share it.

It especially sucks when you’re having a nice conversation with someone, then OP deleted their post, putting an end to all of those conversations. Or if someone posts some useful information that you want to save for later.

The OP should have the right to delete things they put up, but they shouldn’t be able to delete everything associated with it too.

For some reason, I always thought his main contribution from his PhD was the volume thresholds for maintenance and adaptation.

In any case, are we judging his value as a researcher or as a YouTuber? If it’s the former, I’d rather look at his publishing history rather than a thesis. Soloman mentioned that the school he graduated from wasn’t a particularly high ranking school, and that’s evidenced by how they were able to let this pass. Knowing how your school works, why would you put any effort at all into what is essentially just a formality for graduation? Where I went for grad school, the examiners will read your work properly, but most people still only put in the minimal effort for it. Our efforts mostly go into papers that actually get read. Your thesis is never expected to see the light of day again after graduation.

If we’re judging him for his value as a YouTuber, then we should be judging his YouTube content. As far as that goes, he’s pretty much just preaching the same thing as every other fitness YouTuber. It’s just packaged differently. The one thing he does that stands out from others is explaining how science and the scientific method works when putting exercise science papers into context. I can understand his credentials being relevant here if you’re a non-expert, but as a scientist myself, I can vouch for the soundness of his explanations.

Jeff’s response was definitely disappointing though. Insulting Soloman does not align with the wholesome character of him that was painted in my head.

Many pay a lot more without ever learning this lesson. I’d say it was money well spent.