> [verify to] Speak in a stage channel.

My understanding is non-stage voice channels are E2E encrypted, and Discord retains no recordings, whereas stage channels are not. Is this a liability thing—Discord not wanting to have voice recordings of non-adults?

lol

E.g. there is **__contact__** in the page, bold and underlined, but you cannot click on it to do anything.

Generally unimpressed with Qwen3 from my own personal set of problems.

(1) > 6DT19 had been decapitated with a single cut between the second and third cervical vertebrae , delivered from behind.

(2) > Additional [to the decapitation] peri-mortem trauma was present in the form of a series of small depressions on both sides of the pelvis [..]

> Taphonomic damage alone is also unlikely due to the appearance and margins of the lesions, which are the same colour as the surrounding bone (this differs if the break is post-mortem; [56]), and the adherence of bony fragments at the injury site (which occurs when soft tissue is present) .

[1]: https://journals.plos.org/plosone/article?id=10.1371/journal...

I remember meeting someone on Discord 1-2 years ago (?) working on a GoDaddy effort to have customer-generated icons using bespoke foundation image gen models? Suppose that kind of bespoke model at that scale is ripe for replacement by gpt-image-1, given the instruction-following ability / steerability?

> When we apply CFG to Parakeet sampling, quality is significantly improved. However, on inspecting generations, there tends to be a dramatic speed-up over the duration of the sample (i.e. the rate of speaking increases significantly over time). Our intuition for this problem is as follows: Say that is our model is (at some level) predicting phonemes and the ground truth distribution for the next phoneme occuring is 25% at a given timestep. Our conditional model may predict 20%, but because our uncondtional model cannot see the text transcription, its prediction for the correct next phoneme will be much lower, say 5%. With a reasonable level of CFG, because [the logit delta] will be large for the correct next phoneme, we’ll obtain a much higher final probability, say 50%, which biases our generation towards faster speech. [emphasis mine]

Parakeet details a solution to this, though this was not adopted (yet?) by Dia:

> To address this, we introduce CFG-filter, a modification to CFG that mitigates the speed drift. The idea is to first apply the CFG calculation to obtain a new set of logits as before, but rather than use these logits to sample, we use these logits to obtain a top-k mask to apply to our original conditional logits. Intuitively, this serves to constrict the space of possible “phonemes” to text-aligned phonemes without heavily biasing the relative probabilities of these phonemes (or for example, start next word vs pause more). [emphasis mine]

The paper contains audio samples with ablations you can listen to.

[1]: https://jordandarefsky.com/blog/2024/parakeet/#classifier-fr...

[2]: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=43758686

Wish they showed benchmarks / added quantized versions to the arena! :>

See:

> As SANIGER knew, at the time nate was claiming to use AI to automate online purchases, the app’s actual automation rate was effectively 0%. SANIGER concealed that reality from investors and most nate employees: he told employees to keep nate’s automation rate secret; he restricted access to nate’s “automation rate dashboard,” which displayed automation metrics; and he provided false explanations for his secrecy, such as the automation data was a “trade secret.”

> SANIGER claimed that nate's "deep learning models" were "custom built" and use a "mix of long short-term memory, natural language processing, and reinforcement learning."

> When, on the eve of making an investment, an employee of Investment Firm-1 asked SANIGER about nate's automation rate, that is, the percentage of transactions successfully completed with nate's AI technology, SANIGER claimed that internal testing showed that "success ranges from 93% to 97%."

(from [1])

[1]: https://www.justice.gov/usao-sdny/media/1396131/dl?inline

Be charitable. I provided encyclopedic reference out of a mutual discovery interest. Magazine articles[/opeds] may—in your words—present “opinions of some,” whereas reference-grade material provides a broad and citable foundation—ostensibly what you are looking for (“your axiomatic foundation is just another opinion of some”).

> You haven't [..] backed up your opinion

In the spirit of “respond to the strongest plausible interpretation” and good faith, I think you may have missed the argument I was making above. :>

I am positing a reformulation/distillation of “positive trade balance preference” as “preference for foreign investment,” drawing on Palgrave, although perhaps controversially. The former is controversial, especially if seen as a-priori; the latter mundane.

:>

Trump is a textbook Mercantilist (positive trade balance inherently good [2]). Rather than magazine articles, see the Palgrave (the definitive encyclopedic reference for Econ) entry [1] and the Wikipedia page [2] for the arguments and history.

I always find reading the highest quality material leads to the highest quality thinking—there’s certainly a reason why modern LLM training mixtures might weight wikipedia tokens 5x and webtext 0.5x. :>

[1]: https://link.springer.com/referenceworkentry/10.1057/978-1-3...

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

> To conceptualize reciprocal tariffs, the tariff rates that would drive bilateral trade deficits to zero were computed. While models of international trade generally assume that trade will balance itself over time, the United States has run persistent current account deficits for five decades, indicating that the core premise of most trade models is incorrect.

> The failure of trade deficits to balance has many causes, with tariff and non-tariff economic fundamentals as major contributors. Regulatory barriers to American products, environmental reviews, differences in consumption tax rates, compliance hurdles and costs, currency manipulation and undervaluation all serve to deter American goods and keep trade balances distorted. As a result, U.S. consumer demand has been siphoned out of the U.S. economy into the global economy, leading to the closure of more than 90,000 American factories since 1997, and a decline in our manufacturing workforce of more than 6.6 million jobs, more than a third from its peak.

> While individually computing the trade deficit effects of tens of thousands of tariff, regulatory, tax and other policies in each country is complex, if not impossible, their combined effects can be proxied by computing the tariff level consistent with driving bilateral trade deficits to zero. If trade deficits are persistent because of tariff and non-tariff policies and fundamentals, then the tariff rate consistent with offsetting these policies and fundamentals is reciprocal and fair.

[1]: https://ustr.gov/issue-areas/reciprocal-tariff-calculations

> Tariffs are not a lever, they distort risk tolerance.

The "distortion" / divergence from market trends is exactly the point. This is no different from the FED setting the risk-free interest rate, or a carbon tax being levied. The government is holding actors accountable for an externality (trade deficit).

> Tariffs are crude, they are like a huge hammer hitting everyone, including allies

The intrinsically bad part is the trade imbalance, not adversarial nation status; these tariffs are structured such that if adhered to, ceteris paribus, we will have zero trade imbalance. See the OTR report. These tariffs are anything but crude, rather calculated and surgical. Countries with little deficit will be changed little tariff; those with large deficit a proportional, calculated tariff.

> Tariffs cause loss of confidence and loss of credit

This has yet to be shown in the long term.

> Blanket tariffs target allies; they're isolating us and we're creating blocks polarized to us and weaning themselves off our economic output.

Again, these are not "blanket tariffs." They are strategic, surgical and calculated, based directly on the particular trade deficit--especially indicated for allies who have gone unchecked for far too long. It's unclear if adversarial BLOCs have much to do with tariffs, and the US's economic exports (especially key exports like oil and LNG) have only increased amidst recently increasing strategic import controls.

> Tariffs only reduce dependency if there is internal capacity, of which there is none.

You're putting the cart before the horse. We need demand before we see an increase in production.

> We'll best case shift our dependency via third-party countries > We're concentrating our risk on fewer countries where tariffs are lower

Reciprocal tariffs are calculated and recalculated based on current trade deficit--this won't happen. Intrinsically, the "bucketing" of trade along geopolitical borders (we sum all exports and imports along national lines), actually incentives nation-heterogeneity, not nation-homogeneity, in imports, which is directly in line with national security interest.

> We're reducing our efficiency and increasing prices, job losses are coming, productivity will stagnate. We're reducing our agility and our headroom

Prices will increase, naturally. That's the entire point. See the OTR report. Jobs likely won't decrease, though, given the cost of labor will be relatively cheaper than the cost of goods, incentivizing hiring. Additionally, the FED is likely to lower interest rates, which will put further demand on the labor market. :> We certainly have a lot more negotiating power and agility and headroom now that we can strategically peel away tariffs to absorb supply shocks, once the economy adjusts to the new status quo.

> Historically, autarky has lead to stagnation.

When has the US ever been in autarky?

Ultimately, like the FED setting the risk-free interest rates, the POTUS is tempering the market's risk-taking behavior by internalizing the externality of trade deficit for economic agents.