I feel the same. I want Rust in space, where there are constant stakes. NMS either takes too long to get to a part of the game where stakes become relevant, or doesn't have any.
If anyone has any recs on PvE/looting/base building games in space with the polish of NMS, please share.
I daily a GR Corolla. It's insanely fun to drive. The hardest part is i) keeping under the speed limit (which I do more often than I don't), and ii) the suspension. My god, the ride in this thing is SO stiff. The shitty Seattle streets bounce me around like crazy.
You don't need to. Just sample 1% of data, let the model do the feature engineering, ask model model to replicate everything in Pandas (or R, or whatever else), so you can run it for a full dataset.
"There's no such thing as a tactical nuke" is a common refrain among scholars, albeit skewed toward those not at military war colleges. The argument is that strategic use of a tactical nuclear weapon leads down the exact same escalation path as use of any other nuclear weapon. Moreover, that the very notion of a "tactical nuke" makes escalation more likely. You can disagree, and plenty do, but there's also plenty who don't disagree or at least don't want to find out.
> Moreover, that the very notion of a "tactical nuke" makes escalation more likely.
Sorry, but the notion exists, and the bombs exist. With n=2, likelyhood of nuclear escalation is hard to predict, but access to tactical nukes certainly hasn't increased the incidence of nuclear war so far.
I do think it's pretty hard to actually use a tactical nuke. If you use one against a nuclear power, it seems likely to escalate to mutually assured destruction. If you use one against a non-nuclear power, it seems likely to result in reprisal from the world, including potential nuclear response and therefore escalation to mutually assured destruction. I would think that the yield of the weapon barely matters, it's the fact that it's a nuclear weapon.
Who are these "scholars" exactly? The only reference I could find is Jim Mattis, and the context was very specific when he said that.
Furthermore, this is a "what if" scenario since tactical nukes have never been used. Of course it would make escalation likely during an open conflict, so what? Doesn't change the fact that there is a material difference between a tactical nuke and a strategic one.
Are you retconning Hiroshima and Nagasaki as usage of tactical nukes? And when they were not only used against an adversary without nukes, but at a time when the US was the only nuclear state, so that escalation was impossible?
The nominal definition of tactical nukes has less to do with yield and more to do with how they're used; tactical typically means a weapon designed for use on the battlefield.
If you have a real interest in this area, a subscription to Foreign Affairs would be useful. Especially during the 20th century that's where all these arguments were hashed out. Tactical nukes were already being publicly debated in the 1950s. You may be able to access many older articles, from Foreign Affairs and others, through a free JSTOR account.
First link was written by an intern, let's be serious. The second seems to have more legitimacy, ok, so we have this one guy, but the article is very weak. He doubts that tactical nuclear weapons would help control escalation. OK. I don't think that's the center of the argument here. I also think using tactical nukes would lead to escalation, so what? Doesn't change the fact that tactical and strategic nukes are different things.
My partner is a lawyer (prosecutor for a large city). The reason she is at low risk is simply because of the rate of adoption of AI tooling (or ANY tooling for that matter). IT in the public sector (particularly city government) is so much worse than I ever could have imagined before meeting my partner.
Our city just spent >$15MM on "case management software" that took 5 years to build by some fly-by-night outfit in California who won the contract, haphazardly bolted together MSFT Azure components, then vanished with zero support.
These teams can't in good faith freely adopt AI tooling into their workflow because they don't have the bandwidth to do it well, so they don't do it at all.
I run an ML team in fintech, and am currently hiring. If a resumè came across my desk with this "skill set" I'd laugh my ass off. My job and my team's jobs are extremely stressful because we ship models that impact people's finances. If we mess up our customers lose their goddamn minds.
Most of the ML candidates I see now are all "working with LLMs". Most of the ML engineers I know in the industry who are actually shipping valuable models, are not.
Cool, you made a chatbot that annoys your users.
Let me know when you've shipped a fraud model that requires four 9's, 100ms latency, with 50,000 calls an hour, 80% recall and 50% precision.
What does 50% precision mean in this case? I know 50% accuracy might mean P(fraud_predicted | fraud) = 50%, but I don't understand what you mean by precision?
I'd hope you're shipping _anti_-fraud models. Fraud models are abundant in fintech. On a side note, anyone who _really_ knows LLMs will be able to do your primitive fintech models with their eyes closed. You don't need a ton of skill to build a logistic regression model that runs at 14 qps. :-)
I've played music my entire life (picked up a guitar at 6 years old and just never put it down). I actually just released a new record last Friday (https://open.spotify.com/album/6JU0jmz537a6r2xrTvCcmn?si=eg4...). I joined a band when I was 15 (~2004), and we had some long tail success. We were able to tour, play huge shows (the Gorge in Washington, sell out the Showbox in downtown Seattle, an arena here or there). After high school I went to school for audio production, and even then I knew it was going to be tough to make a living. I ended up pivoting, studying math, now I'm in machine learning.
Music is the thing I love more than anything. I love writing it, releasing records, playing shows, and connecting with people on an emotional level. Never once have I considered it possible to have a fruitful career as a musician, despite seeing more success as a musician than most can ever dream of. Additionally, the industry (like many others) has changed dramatically over the past 25 years. In many ways, it has put much more power back into the hands of artists: you don't need a huge studio/record label/promotion to release a record. You can just release records, and promote them yourself. The flip side of that is there are SO many more people releasing music these days, which makes it really difficult to cut through the noise if your music is halfway decent.
Finally, recommendation algorithms have truly transformed the landscape of content creation, likely irreversibly. I get messages _daily_ from people who have "hacked" the TikTok algorithm, and can get my bands plays. There is an entire cottage industry of algorithm "hackers", some of them actually have results too.
One odd anecdote: I love Alex G. I've been listening to him for over a decade, and have flown out to see him play in places like New york/Austin TX. A few years ago he played in Seattle, and the entire demographic of the audience seem to've changed overnight. Way younger, more "mainstream" looking kids, filled the Showbox in Seattle. The strangest part was that no one seemed to know the words to his songs anymore. I did some digging, and he'd gone viral on TikTok. A few of his songs went absolutely bananas on there, and it completely transformed his fanbase. They knew the words to those songs, but not his entire set. Is this bad? I have no idea, but the trimming down of content into bite sized morsels _feels_ bad to me, and I believe it will dramatically alter this next generation's baseline attention span. Again, not a moral judgement, just a factual claim.
>The flip side of that is there are SO many more people releasing music these days, which makes it really difficult to cut through the noise if your music is halfway decent.
I think one thing important to consider here is that part of the experience of enjoying music is not necessarily how good the song is, but how much, and how many, other people are enjoying it. People often listen to (mediocre) music simply to have a shared emotional experience with others.
Imagine bonding over gruel, because everyone else is eating it and you can’t connect with them unless you are able to discuss the consistency and mouthfeel of the gruel.
"Clichés like this are beautiful, because they reflect us and we are beautiful. Take, for example, this chord progression. It only became taboo because it was too powerful -- that's why you won't forget it." --Porter Robinson
Pop music isn't gruel. A lot of it may be slop, but it's deeply appealing. Somebody somewhere solved for what "works", and a million copycats cloned it with minimal effort because it works.
So don't think gruel. It's more along the line of... McDonald's. Bad food, but it's appealing. And people do bond over it, or at least they used to before people stopped caring and fast food places became utter hellscapes. You still see kids bonding over McD's in Japan.
In order to be heard, truly heard, you have to be able to be understood. Music is 80% familiarity. Rarely can you just add your 20% uniqueness and be understandable. All music starts with 80% gruel as the base recipe.
This is a good point. I'd argue well more than 80% though.
Time signatures, instrumentation, arrangements, chord progressions, etc are the base gruel that forms the core of almost all (western/popular) music.
The "new" contributions of most artists are more like flavorings or spices with the occasional unexpected twist on the base. And, critically, this is necessary to find an audience.
Even bands that "change music" are just permuting on the basic gruel. And, usually, just popularizing the permutations that other bands have tried first but were too early/didn't break out of their local audience/etc.
Often these permutations only get popular because they bring with them a new and appealing (or under-represented) aesthetic. It's not even really the music, necessarily.
There are exceptions, there are some real musical innovators. They rarely get popular though, no matter how much respect they earn from their peers.
Relatable. Some of my best friends were made in the heat of struggle, not in a fancy establishment. When you're happy and comfortable, people are a dime a dozen. When you're down on situation, any human contact is a luxury, and the experience embeds itself in your mind.
Music is 80% familiarity 20% novelty. Western scales are 100% gruel when you consider the available audio spectrum/combination. And yet I bet a large portion of music you enjoy is made up of 'gruel' made to be 'gruel' simply to have that common connection you deride. And even if not, do you not have genres that you enjoy? Each genres just being their own brand of gruel with whatever familiar makeup defines it?
> They knew the words to those songs, but not his entire set.
This has always been true for recorded music. Originally people would buy mostly singles after hearing a song on the radio, then maybe listen to the B-side too.
Listening to complete albums was only popular for a short while before streaming brought single songs back to prominence as the main way people consume music.
Don't disagree. I'm merely commenting on the dramatic change in his audience, which IMO opinion was driven by TikTok virality. Going from a crowd of people who were singing along to people standing around waiting for the "TikTok hits" was really strange.
I had a similar experience when I went to see James Blake; the audience was bimodal in age and there was a younger crowd that only knew a few of his singles that had gotten real big (collabs w/ Travis Scott and Rosalia)
So maybe this is normal as we get older? I didn't know this had happened with Alex G but I'm happy to hear about his success -- to me that's the main thing that matters, however an artist finds their audience.
Not for alex g. He has had a cult following as the best songwriter in rock music for a decade plus. Up until he took off on tiktok everyone at his shows knew almost all his songs. I guess really the complaint here is just that he went from cult musician to a having more pop appeal.
Man the tiktokification of alex g absolutely blows. Same with mitski, unbearable live shows now. It is a bit difficult for me to be mad about it though because at the end of the day the complaint just boils down to being mad that these artists have become more popular, pop sets have always been like this. More popular = more money for them which cheers me up a bit
I don't know if it's good financially, but do you have a bandcamp? I like getting cds / mp3s there usually and it doesn't need a sign in to listen to the song.
We don't. I probably should make one of those, but as a solo act, the number of platforms I need to keep up with is ridiculous. Reddit/Spotify/Instagram keep my time occupied, it's brutal honestly.
As a solo act, I also agree. There's 24 hours in the day and to do the metadata correctly for the releases themselves _just to send to the distributor_ takes like 1-2 hours. Then I need to make content, when I just wanted to make music, then upload the same release to Bandcamp. It's untenable
> For instance, AI can’t bathe a patient.
Oh sweet, we're left with literally cleaning up feces. Thanks AI!