This meme is from 2035

There might be a universe in which magic exists. However, there is no universe in which I exist and magic exists. That’s because I was born into a mundane version of the universe, so there are infinite possibilities, but because my existence in a magical universe is 0

That doesn’t really follow. Specifically, you’re putting way too much credit (infinity times as much credit as you should, in fact) on your ability to know exactly how your universe works. You’re saying there are zero hypothetical worlds in which you are the person you are now and also magic exists. I’m sure you can see how this is not true; for all you know magic is very obvious in your world and you just got mind-controlled, a minute ago, to your current state of mind. Or maybe you just never noticed it and hence grew up thinking you are in a mundane universe, which is very unlikely but not probability-0. Or one of many many other explanations, which are all unlikely (nothing involving a universe with magic in it is going to be likely), but very much not probability-0.

It very nearly did, but there’s, like, 2 working instances with heavy ratelimits.

…we’re talking about a ban of links to Twitter on a gaming subreddit. Those links would be to, like, game news. That’s not “fascist content”.

Oh, that’s really cool. I hope there’s more linkage between the twitter-like and reddit-like islands of the fediverse in the future; I’m somewhat interested in reading the former but it seems to be complicated to actually get federation with it.

I think it’s way worse to keep information from someone who wants to see it, than to let it be seen by someone who would prefer not to see it but isn’t motivated enough to do something about it. Sort of by construction, actually - if the latter category really didn’t want to see Twitter links, they would have done it themselves.

It’s not totally insane reasoning but, like, people can just downvote links to Twitter if they want to, and/or use an extension to automatically redirect to a Nitter instance. The only people actually affected by censoring Twitter community-wide is those who would want to look at the context.

In the US, you mean? From the top of my mind, advocating for more market freedom - unrestricted capitalism is a mixed bag generally, but the Biden administration was price-fixing insurance in the wake of California fires, which is a degree of economical illiteracy approaching Soviet Union levels.

Sure, in Firefox itself it wasn’t a severe vulnerability. It’s way worse on standalone PDF readers, though:

In applications that embed PDF.js, the impact is potentially even worse. If no mitigations are in place (see below), this essentially gives an attacker an XSS primitive on the domain which includes the PDF viewer. Depending on the application this can lead to data leaks, malicious actions being performed in the name of a victim, or even a full account take-over. On Electron apps that do not properly sandbox JavaScript code, this vulnerability even leads to native code execution (!). We found this to be the case for at least one popular Electron app.

Huh? What do you mean “if”? Such a PDF vulnerability literally did happen a few months ago; fixed in Firefox v.126: https://codeanlabs.com/blog/research/cve-2024-4367-arbitrary-js-execution-in-pdf-js/.

There’s no real need for pirate ai when better free alternatives exist.

There’s plenty of open-source models, but they very much aren’t better, I’m afraid to say. Even if you have a powerful workstation GPU and can afford to run the serious 70B opensource models at low quantization, you’ll still get results significantly worse than the cutting-edge cloud models. Both because the most advanced models are proprietary, and because they are big and would require hundreds of gigabytes of VRAM to run, which you can trivially rent from a cloud service but can’t easily get in your own PC.

The same goes for image generation - compare results from proprietary services like midjourney to the ones you can get with local models like SD3.5. I’ve seen some clever hacks in image generation workflows - for example, using image segmentation to detect a generated image’s face and hands and then a secondary model to do a second pass over these regions to make sure they are fine. But AFAIK, these are hacks that modern proprietary models don’t need, because they have gotten over those problems and just do faces and hands correctly the first time.

This isn’t to say that running transformers locally is always a bad idea; you can get great results this way - but people saying it’s better than the nonfree ones is mostly cope.

Incredibly weird that this thread was up for two days without anyone posting a link to the actual answer to OP’s question, which is g4f.

Run for office? With what money?

From what I know Element is a safer bet (similarly encrypted, but also decentralized), but Signal is the best one out of the messengers that don’t require any technical knowledge.

You should explain what “stuff” is “coming out”, then, instead of vagueposting.

Quite possibly the enemies have a better idea of the players’ hitpoint total than the DM, since they can, like, see how the player characters look, and probably have been tracking the battle much more closely than the DM has.

Hmm, interesting. Somewhat compelling, but:

• it’s a rather small (n=38) Chinese pilot study
• the effect on the sleep latency is sizable (a latency decrease from 31±14 to 18±12 minutes, effect size of 0.85), but there’s no effect on actual sleep duration.
• the sleep measurements were subjective (sleep diaries, not actigraphy)

I’m also a bit concerned why it’s the only study with this methodology in this later meta-analysis - all of the other “behavioral intervention” studies in it experiment with stuff like “extended time-in-bed”. In other words, there seems to not have been any followup or replication of this study.

It kills parasitic infections caused by worms. Cancer is not a parasitic infection caused by a worm. It’s like asking if a mouse trap can fix climate change. No, because they are in no way related.

That’s not a convincing argument. It suffices to say that ivermectin was considered as a candidate for a cancer drug as early as 2018, with a proposed mechanism of action and everything. It’s not as simple as “cancer is not a parasitic infection”, because pharmacology is never this simple. That paper also mentions positive study results both in vitro and in vivo. There is also a lot of later research (search ivermectin cancer on google scholar), but it’s potentially biased by the horrifying memetic war that happened in America during the covid pandemic.

My conclusion from ten minutes of googling is that quite possibly it’s a real weak anti-cancer drug much like the already-known ones. It’s hard to be sure of those things - we’re in an age where there’s enough research and publication bias and politics that you can’t trust individual studies¹. And you can’t fully trust meta-analyses either, but I can’t even find a meta-analysis of ivermectin as used for cancer, so.

(It’s pretty safe to say that it’s not an amazing cancer drug much better than all existing ones (like some people seem to think) - both on priors, and because if that was the case it’d be extremely obvious from all of the studies already made.)

¹ I don’t mean fraud, I mean that if a hundred teams over the globe try a study of something that doesn’t work, five of them will find p<0.05 results by pure chance and quite possibly only those teams will publish it - so until several good replications come along, it’ll look like there’s a real and well-supported effect. And there can be much subtler problems than this - see, say, how well the studies of psychic powers go.

I see. No, I don’t think I have any specific questions at this point.