You actually would probably want the wash/cure and VOC extractor upgrades so it's more like 1200$ before it's useful, but if you have the clean room space and ability to handle the toxic resin, functionally resin printing is typically better than fdm for single color prints.

That said, if you do spend the extra for this along with the wash/cure and the voc extractor, the demos are really impressive. It seems like this printer is blazing fast, for single color prints it will print basically anything at better resolution than an FDM in <2 hours, whereas FDM could take anywhere from 4-12+ for a similar part with bigger layer lines.

For example you could freeze most of the layers of the embedder but let the final ones learn. Then you wouldn’t need to do either feature or prompt engineering?

I work in streaming recommendations and basically no one voluntarily gives extra feedback, and most initiatives that aren't machine learning based on true behavior fail on A/B tests.

The way out is creating a singular vision (eg leadership) and assigning teams goals they can work independently on towards that vision. It is to remove dependences between teams (and thus the need for them to communicate as much), not to increase communication or Jira tickets or Gantt charts or RACI matrices.

Sure, the weights are where the real value lives, but if the quality is so lax they leak their whole codebase, maybe they are just lucky they didn’t leak customer data or the model weights? If that did happen, the entire business might evaporate overnight.

A _huge_ part of a DS is saying "No" to bad ideas posed by non-experts. The issue with LLMs is all they ever say is "Yes" and "Wow, that's such a great idea!"

~The said, I think Dune still does seem useful. Hard to say whether the cost overruns are a lack of good management or if the experiment is just a quagmire, though. Guess I lean towards the scientists here that it's the former~

EDIT:

Doing some research it seems the Hyper K experiment might just be better, and funding might be better directed there than Fermilab.

Neil deGrasse Tyson in his Cosmos show described it like a person walking a dog. We don't know where the dog will be exactly, but we can see the person with the leash is moving in one direction, and the dog isn't going to ever get too far from him (because of the leash).

I think it actually winds up speeding up ci/cd docker builds, too.

That said, I do wonder if we all _are_ being protected from opposing views these days. Like, we come across the opposing views but usually in a filtered / characature form on Social Media/Fox News/MSNBC. It's actually kinda hard to find stuff without spin in my experience.

EDIT

My hypothesis is that's it's just cheaper to create speculative / opinion based journalism rather than real investigation. Since the former gets enough clicks, there's not a strong financial reason to create good journalism.

I've worked on weighting code for online polls, they literally rely on dozens of hand picked decisions to stay "reasonable". These decisions aren't factored into the error bars, making them appear smaller.

And as far as the fundamental style predictions, how can you use a single GDP number when Fox tells its viewers one number and MSNBC tells its viewers another?

This article does describe a faithful statistical effort, but to me it doesn't emphasize the risk of a "black swan" event enough.

EDIT:

Why are they harmful? At best they make lots of people angry about something that hasn't happened. At worst they skew the election by making people not vote, or afterward serve to justify election fraud complaints ("my candidate wasn't supposed to lose based on forecasts, so fraud occured").

I think we all need to take a deep breath, accept we have little understanding what will happen, _vote_, and hope for a sane outcome.