And most speakers can play infrasound for many non-sinusoidal waveforms [0]. They'll drop the fundamental and some lower-end harmonics but can still give a sense of what it sounds like

[0] https://szynalski.com/tone#7,saw,v0.5

I'm not an ML engineer - is there an accepted definition of "intent" that you're using here? To me, it seems as though these GPT models show something akin to intent, even if it's just their chain of thought about how they will go about answering a question.

> nor is there a mechanism for intent

Does there have to be a dedicated mechanism for intent for it to exist? I don't see how one could conclusively say that it can't be an emergent trait.

> They don't do long term planning nor do they alter themselves due to things they go through during inference.

I don't understand why either of these would be required. These models do some amount of short-to-medium term planning even it is in the context of their responses, no?

To be clear, I don't think the current-gen models are at a level to intentionally deceive without being instructed to. But I could see us getting there within my lifetime.

But these models have exhibited a few surprising emergent traits, and it seems plausible to me that at one point they could intentionally deceive users in the course of exploring their boundaries.

Is it that far fetched?

It's easier to care about your job when you're capable of doing a good job. But the average person nowadays is more likely to be dealing with obesity, hormonal imbalances or a variety of other modern ailments/vices that make it harder to think clearly or perform consistently.

And then social media gives us post after post about how your coworkers are not your family and how dumb you have to be to give 100% to your work. A lot of people seem to mindlessly prescribe to this train of thought that would otherwise have questioned it if they went to a church or had some belief system that emphasized the inherent importance of doing good work.

https://abc7news.com/amp/ranked-choice-voting-oakland-school...

2) You're saying that a series of graphs is only harder to understand than a single graph due to lack of "familiarity?" This seems disingenuous. With single-graph results, you can show geographical heat maps of voting behavior which is paints a vivid picture of the vote. Heat maps for RCV are misleading and/or require additional context (this shows 1st choices).

3) Hand-counted ballots are a must in my opinion (for audit-ability). And hand counts of RCV are time-consuming so are typically only done once. I guess runaway elections can be called early with RCV, but my point is that it will happen far less often and most election results will be significantly delayed (waiting for all mail-in ballots to start a hand count)

4) I admit I didn't read this paper nor understand it at a cursory glance, but I know this was a drum that approval voting experts beat a while back. Maybe these strategies are new, or have downsides I'm unaware of.

Why do you see proportional representation as the most important thing to aim for? This is the only argument for RCV over approval that holds water, but my mental model for the need for proportional representation is of politics being a 0-sum game where everyone needs to vie for themselves (which I disagree with).

The biggest change was giving all of my plants real planters. They are so much happier now :)

* The results of close elections become basically random (due to results swinging wildly depending on the order in which the first few candidates are eliminated)

* You have to convey results with a series of graphs rather than a single graph (which confuses voters)

* You need all ballots in-hand to start an official count, so you can't call elections early

* You lose the ability to perform risk-limiting audits, which are the cheapest and easiest way to audit elections

So bad actors can trivially affect RCV elections by destroying or delaying a few mail-in ballots, as well as cast doubt on RCV results as a whole

TIL that our heads grow by about ~8% (in circumference) after we're tweens [0]. Cool!

[0] https://www.craftyarncouncil.com/standards/head-circumferenc...

It reminds me of trepanation, the old-school mental health procedure to just drill a hole in the skull. Some people still do it and swear by it [0], saying that it relieves pressure.

[0] https://www.imdb.com/title/tt0202909/

It's inherently negative, basically meaning "not enabled" and as such, `not muted` == `not not enabled`.

Just say whether their mic is on or off, and reflect that with the UX elements and writing. Done.

Mechanical brakes are nice.

It is untrue that they have no idea if the "solutions" we try won't lead to worse outcomes

It is true that they have some idea that the "solutions" we try won't lead to worse outcomes

It is true that they have some idea that the "solutions" we try will lead to better outcomes.

I think the nuance needed here is: what do we mean by "better outcomes?" It's reasonable to believe that it will help lower temperatures. But is that an "outcome" in and of itself?

If we consider the "outcome" to also include the second and third order effects, I'd like to understand how anyone could be certain that it will be better.

The more necessary evils we depend on, the more things that can fail and further perturb the system.

Stopping now helps nudge us back towards the stable equilibrium we had.

And while bad internet connections, mics, webcams, etc all contribute to a less enjoyable time collaborating with colleagues, I believe they are all trumped by the fact that video conference absolutely shatters the evolutionary understanding we have of space, and how to navigate it to interact with others.

This is why audio-only calls feel so much better. It's basically just like talking to your friends at a sleepover with the lights out. It's not quite the same because you can't get closer or further from specific individuals, but for smaller groups it works pretty well.

But when we turn video feeds on, things get very strange. Zoom puts everyone into the same exact chair, staring at a mirror where they can see everyone else in the reflection.

This makes it seem like everyone is staring directly at you. And they are very close, sometimes even in your lap.

Keith Johnstone's book Impro says a whole lot about space, including:

> If I stand two students face to face and about a foot apart they're likely to feel a strong desire to change their body position. If they don't move they'll begin to feel love or hate as their 'space' streams into each other. To prevent these feelings they'll modify their positions until their space flows out relatively unhindered, or they'll move back so that the force isn't so powerful. High-status players (like high-status seagulls) will allow their space to flow into other people. Low-status players will avoid letting their space flow into other people. Kneeling, bowing and prostrating one-self are all ritualized low-status ways of shutting off your space. If we wish to humiliate and degrade a low-status person we attack him while refusing to let him switch his space off. A sergeant-major will stand a recruit to attention and then scream at his face from about an inch away. Crucifixion exploits this effect, which is why it's such a powerful symbol as compared to, say, boiling someone in oil.

All this is to say that I believe that the Vision Pro has a lot of potential to be a game-changer for remote conferencing. It's focus on "spatial computing" makes it so that we can flex those evolutionary muscles around space again.

[1] Let Dogs be Dogs by the Monks of New Skete. Great book

I have both ADHD and "hidden hearing loss" and I chalk both up to my brain struggling to filter out noise/distractions.

Co-location is the entire value of the hybrid model over remote. By forcing 2 employees to use the same desk, you are capping one of their teams to being co-located to 2 days a week.

I personally find value being together (with at least some of the team) 4-5 days a week.

Imo, it would have been a better move to make “hybrid” workers to actually show up to the office or lose their desk. So many employees are just phoning it in.

Honestly, I think they’ve done a pretty good job and as a result the show still feels fresh and entertaining in the 6th season. But I imagine that’ll be quite a bit harder without Justin.

Whatever they were doing they had a formula for making some dang good tv. R&M is far better than any other adult cartoon I’ve seen, to the point that I think it might be one of the best TV shows I’ve ever seen.

Here’s to hoping that Justin gets in a better spot, and the next few seasons of R&M don’t pull a Game of Thrones.

[0] https://wikipedia.org/wiki/Flanderization