It is clear that you have no argument and have devolved into constructing straw men and ad hominem.

TLS 1.2, the standard, may be from 2008 but support for it in browsers did not start to appear until around 2013.

The subject of censorship in LLMs and the wider technology world in general has little bearing on this model specifically, that is, a model with a high token speed, which is what is of interest to me here and why I, and I presume many others, chose to read that particular article and this comment thread. It is unnecessary that such a digression should be attaching itself to all manner of threads with only the most remote connection to that subject.

Comments URL: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=48424552

Points: 2

# Comments: 0

Comments URL: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=48049460

Points: 24

# Comments: 1

If it contains less than 50,000 words, perhaps, but most standard print dictionaries contain ~500,000 entries. The size of /usr/share/dict/words on my system is 954 KiB and the small version of the cracklib dictionary is 481 KiB.

I presume this is hyperbole and that what you mean is almost or very near zero.

The original reasoning can be found in medical texts from the mid to late 19th century when it was first discussed. My recollection is not strong enough to repeat it with confidence but it was to the effect of: the removal of the foreskin should restrict the ease of movement* and therefore restrict the ease of “self-abuse” as it was termed then.

* the foreskin functions as a sleeve which eases movement and reduces friction during sexual acts.

Comments URL: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=47859739

Points: 16

# Comments: 8

I would not give too much credence to the various figures often given for the average height of men and women in x country without careful research, since they have highly variable degrees of support.

For years I had heard repeatedly that the average height of a man in Indonesia was 158 cm or 5ft and 2 inches. This seemed so absurd to me and provoked enough scepticism that I eventually attempted to track down the source of that figure. It turned out to be from Wikipedia and the citation was a study that measured the heights of the elderly yet all of those repeating that figure neglected to mention, or were in all likelihood entirely ignorant of, that detail. I am similarly sceptical of some of the claims made about the average height of the Dutch, the subject of which seems to be a particular favourite among height myth-mongers.

With respect to young adult men I have found that figures based on measurements obtained as part of fitness screenings for mandatory military service are the most reliable due to their large sample size (at least an order of magnitude larger than the largest academic studies) and overwhelming lack of selection and sampling bias. A minority of nations have such systems and fewer still publish the data obtained in public. Yet even this would not answer the question for the whole population.

In my personal experience that "scenario" is a wearisome but stable job with a good income that would afford a comfortable middle class lifestyle. Yet this unfortunate circumstance was so intolerable that they would rather risk, and have in fact realised, the complete financial ruin of themselves and the ruin of the prospects and happiness of their children than continue to suffer it. So I had little else other than contempt, for them and others like them, when they came to me asking for money.

Comments URL: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=47803323

Points: 146

# Comments: 82

Even with their proposed “improvements” to Windows Update it would remain inferior in principle to what it was in Windows 7 (or 8 which I never used) and prior when you could “pause” updates indefinitely or, in non-dystopian terms, refuse them. If a third party, even one that you trust, can mandate changes to the software on your computer, then it is not really your computer.

They should wait until some or all of the following things have happened:

1. Camp David is sacked, looted and burned to the ground by foreign troops. [1]

2. Foreign naval vessels patrol American rivers to protect foreign corporate interests in America. [2]

3. Foreign nations have unrestricted access to American ports and trade. [3]

4. America pays a large indemnity for attempting to resist. [4]

5. Foreign nationals become immune to US law. [5]

6. Multiple military defeats and territorial losses. [6]

7. This goes on unfettered for 100 years.

All in all perhaps it is a bit early to call it that.

[1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Old_Summer_Palace#Destruction

[2] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Yangtze_Patrol

[3] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Unequal_Treaties

[4] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Boxer_Indemnity#The_clauses

[5] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Extraterritoriality#China

[6] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Century_of_humiliation#History

You say that ratings drift over time to such an extent that to use them in comparisons across long time spans is meaningless yet their analysis determined that chess ratings as a measure of intrinsic quality of move choice (which must be highly correlated with playing strength) is stable over several decades with only some indications that a small amount of deflation has occurred.

Your argument in comparison amounts to informal speculation. If I were to share my own I would say that those potentially error-inducting considerations, are statistically insignificant compared to the sheer number of games, that is to say corrective and informative exchanges of points, that occur. Further, I would add that the absolute values of ratings were defined by the playing strengths of the original players and that this definition has been well preserved even as the player pool has evolved.

I have heard many such arguments in my time yet not a single proponent cares to demonstrate them. What I find amusing is that those same proponents will often readily accept a comparison across time of a single player (often themselves) across similar time spans without controversy, as evidence of their progress as a player, for instance using Carlsen’s rating today and comparing it with one from early in his career, say from 2003 or 2004, which at this point was more than 20 years ago.