I remember when scientists were more focused on making AI models smaller and more efficient, and research on generative models was focused on making GANs as robust as possible with very little compute and data.

Now that big companies and rich investors saw the potential for profit in AI the paradigm has shifted to "throw more compute at the wall until something sticks", so it's not surprising it's affecting carbon emissions.

Besides that it's also annoying that most of the time they keep their AIs behind closed doors, and even in the few cases where the weights are released publicly these models are so big that they aren't usable for the vast majority of people, as sometimes even Kaggle can't handle them.

Kinda ironic I saw this post right after this other one lol: Three Democrats Re-Introduce Bill That Would Bring Ranked Choice Voting to Congressional Elections Across America

All those ads an pop-ups are really annoying. Printfriendly isn't perfect but does make the website a bit more readable: https://www.printfriendly.com/p/g/DYjpGu

Kinda funny that they inadvertently admitted that she did really well in the debate by calling her a "relentless debate machine".

9/11

Edit: At first I thought the joke was related to those "who did 9/11" memes that I see all the time on the internet, but only afterwards did I realize the date is actually 9/11 (hadn't seen any posts online about it yet and we don't talk about it at all in Brazil)

idk if that puts me ahead of or behind the curve...

music genre: video game 2

*laughs in LibreOffice*

I don't like that it insists on resetting to that Liberation font half the time I make a new line though

I'm just that humble 😎

I've heard about him being autistic, first time I hear about him being bi

He's been doing that ever since his media career started in the 90s.

But I couldn’t find a credible source for the “showing children pornography” portion you mentioned

It's from one of the kid's testimony in the first link (it starts with "Now, when you first saw the suitcase, where was it in that room."), where he talks about how Michael showed him and his brother some porn mags. The first time he was hanging out with MJ while he was putting on makeup, and MJ picked up a suitcase with the porn mags and showed the kid one of the pictures. In the second occasion the kid can't recall if he or his brother brought up the suitcase or if MJ did, but he says that they were all looking at the magazines together for "30 minutes to an hour".

Regarding the books specifically, it's one of those elements that on their own could be interpreted as just MJ being kinda weird. We know the first book was a gift given the fan's inscription, and it's fairly reasonable to assume that the second one was a gift too. As the blog post points out the third book wasn't brought up in court and wasn't with the other two books, but it's still reasonable to assume that it belonged to MJ. To me the way the blog author tries to "soften" the book definitely points to some bias in their part:

The third book, that was confiscated in 1993 In Search of Young Beauty: A Venture Into Photographic Art (Charles Du Bois Hodges, 1964) which contains both boys and girls, mostly dressed, but some nude or semi-nude.

If we squint a bit we could just chalk these up to MJ possibly being a nudist or being a bit weird. I certainly think it's odd that he had books with pictures of nude children in them, and even liked one of them enough to inscribe his own message in it, but if only the books were brought up in court I certainly wouldn't think that's enough evidence to convict someone. But given the whole context and other elements of the accusations I'm not willing to give MJ that much benefit of the doubt.

Definitely not the impression I got from everything I've read. The whole sleeping in the same bed with kids, keeping books with naked pictures of children, showing porn to kids (perhaps the most common method predators use to try to groom children), and the whole thing with setting up an alarm around his bedroom.

Keep in mind that a lot of the information I've seen was from a Wordpress blog bent on defending Jackson in any and every way possible, and yet I still think the case they make is not really convincing. The author speculates about what "true grooming" looks like, and why MJ's actions supposedly don't fit their personal expectations of grooming. They also try to justify him keeping those books with pictures of naked kids as if that was a normal thing to do.

Maybe if it was just one of these things it could still be justified as MJ just being weird. But it's all off these things, a clear pattern of behavior and accusations for which the simplest explanation is that MJ was indeed a predator. What I can say is that if these accusations were directed at some random dude down the road I definitely wouldn't want my kids going near him.

Imagine caring about more than one issue at a time. I only care about how inflation is going to affect the price of my chicken nuggets.

society

I guess if you're a hostage cops can just kill you and blame the criminal then

As someone who's never read/watched the Hobbit & LOTR universes I frankly have no clue wtf this is supposed to mean

But godspeed to you, little rat

Don't forget to add a bit of lead for seasoning

Consider:

I remember seeing a tweet of hers where she doubled down on this by linking to some right-wing blog that claimed Khelif has XY chromosomes. Not sure if she's changed course ever since the lawsuit or if she decided to triple down.

Edit: Looks like she was still tweeting about Khelif 6 days ago, but hasn't tweeted since.

Looked up her name on Twitter to see what people were saying about this, that was a mistake 🙄

A lot of people seem to hate her for whatever reason, she was far from perfect, but all things considered I think she did fine as CEO and I never got the hate. It can't be easy to manage a company as big and complex as YouTube.