So is your comment. And mine. What do you think our brains do? Magic?
edit: This may sound inflammatory but I mean no offense
Okay at first I was pretty convinced that this was just the wrong way to accomplish what I thought your goal was. But now, after reading the StackOverflow post and your README, I think this is fascinating and frankly really awesome. What a clever and strange thing, using multiline comments that way, and string no-ops. I think just knowing this exists will cause me to find reason to use it.
I’ve been using Kagi. It works well. I like it. Costs money, but that’s a positive in my book.
Okay, thanks for the explanation. Maybe I will keep watching, then. That gives me a little hope!
Ugh, has the second season gotten better? I watched the first two episodes of the second season and was really disappointed… enough that I stopped watching. I didn’t mind that they veered so far from the book the first season, because it was inevitable and they did a great job capturing the feeling.
But the second season is just bonkers and lots of sloppy writing so far. Totally unbelievable stunts for no reason other than suspense (that underwater scene and the mouth-to-mouth rebreathing, for example, was so stupid, and then they sit down and they’re like “phew, anyway”) and suddenly Hari is a split-consciousness main character and there’s forward time travel and no second foundation and two different types of non-psychohistory-developed psychic abilities and WE SEE THE IDENTITY OF THE MULE? Like, come on. In just two episodes they trashed some of the most compelling/thematic material and plot points of the original and turned it into a space-magic grab bag of action tropes.
I’m mostly just salty. Perfectly fine if you enjoy it personally. But maybe some of these points resonate with you and, knowing them, you can convince me to keep watching? Because I did really like the first season.
I agree with you, but why are you disparaging kbin? Plenty of good discussion here, and a good community.
Looks like it’s the other way around. From the article:
The new study in JAMA Surgery [...] looked at decision outcomes at least two years but up to 23 years after individuals underwent chest masculinization surgery.
No mo boobies
Not really an issue. If you want to see this content from defederated instances that everyone else finds obnoxious or disruptive, then you can either browse from an instance that doesn’t defederate that content, or spin up your own personal instance to browse from. It’s easy to move to a different instance. Your choice.
I see this complaint a lot but honestly I don’t quite understand what the big deal is. Not everyone is subscribed to the same communities. Personally, I’d love a feature on kbin/lemmy that rolled up duplicate posts on the client, but it’s really not that annoying for me to see a couple dupes in my feed if they’re posted in relevant communities /shrug
Ever since Obama beat Clinton 15 years ago
Jesus I thought you were exaggerating and then I did the math
Hey, this is excellent. I was looking to do something like this a few months ago. Bought a few ESP devices to mess with, but never got around to it. I might try it out now, though, using your guide. Thank you!
You’ve misunderstood me. None of those things are what that commenter is referring to. It’s not about improving another energy storage technology by using superconductors, it’s about having a room temperature, ambient pressure version of an existing technology that we already use superconductors for.
I think what they’re referring to is the idea that superconductors can trap current effectively indefinitely; more like replacing a battery with a capacitor than enhancing existing battery chemistry.
Got a source? When I first read about this people were cautiously optimistic partly because the head researcher was well-respected.
our compound shows greatly consistent x-ray diffraction spectrum with the previously reported structure data
Uhh, doesn’t look like it to me. This paper’s X-ray diffraction spectrum looks pretty noisy compared to the one from the original paper, with some clear additional/different peaks in certain regions. That could potentially affect the result. I was under the impression from the original paper that a subtle compression of the lattice structure was pretty important to formation of quantum wells for superconductivity, so if the X-ray diff isn’t spot on I’ll wait for some more failures before calling it busted.
This is a really terrific explanation. The author puts some very technical concepts into accessible terms, but not so far from reality as to cloud the original concepts. Most other attempts I’ve seen at explaining LLMs or any other NN-based pop tech are either waaaay oversimplified, heavily abstracted, or are meant for a technical audience and are dry and opaque. I’m saving this for sure. Great read.
