There might not be a set agenda, but it might lead to the domination of a particular type of knowledge and the destruction of others:

https://aeon.co/essays/generative-ai-has-access-to-a-small-s...

The computer announcing the pilot incapacitation is at 11:50.

The mp3 file is malformed but playable. I get different timestamps for the same audio if I jump around.

Thank you. The time marks in the text were way off.

Then again I understood exactly what it was saying every time, which is more than I can say for some of the other traffic on that recording. I’m not sure synthetic-sounding means bad here.

The embedded systems qualified for use in general aviation avionics have very limited hardware resources. They are severely constrained by form factor, power, and cooling. It's amazing that the developers were able to get speech synthesis working so well.

I could do better than this with pre-recorded samples for each word. Especially for the phonetic alphabet.

Also avionics aren't that underpowered these days. They have full touchscreen displays and multicore CPUs.

I find it fascinating that people can be convinced that they are very very rational, but they can also be convinced about crazy things, things like that the Earth is a flat disc, or that Bill Gates and the rest of the secret cabal of elites are going to put 5G receivers through a mandated vaccination, or that races other than their own need to be eradicated...

It makes me worry that what if my belief that I'm rational is also skewed...

In my opinion the explanation is easy: it comes all down to conditional probability and Bayes' theorem:

Conditional probability and Bayes' theorem tell you that how given some "ground belief" and new facts, the ground belief should be adjusted to incorporate the new evidence. Making this part of your daily life and belief system is what rationalism is about.

But what happens if your ground truth is "fucked up" (in the sense of how an average person would see it)? Then it can easily happen that new evidence can perfectly explained by your ground truth/belief system and thus (in a very rational sense) actually strengthen it.

Also keep in mind that a lot of things in the world are "messy", so it's not so hard to come up with a belief system that gives an "encompassing" framework that actually "explains" more things. If this system than becomes "strengthened" by incorporating lots of additional seen evidence (again using conditional probability and Bayes' theorem), this leads to a similar situation.

Is this the act of the federal government acting like a 5-year old petulant child, who does the thing that its been told to stop to do because it's something bad? Or is some friend of Trump getting paid to sell coal to them?

From the article, this is the only reason I can see for the order to keep it going...

Quote: "That analysis, commissioned by Puget Sound Energy, Tacoma Power, Avista, Seattle City Light, and others, argues that Washington could get hit with an electricity crisis."

The above is if they have an extended downtime. So, the only argument can be that as the power companies shut down, it might create an emergency in Washington, or a crisis if power is needed and it's not there.

Edit, added: It seems the above power companies are in Washington and concluded themselves that it might be dangerous and create an energy crisis?

Trump's coal friends funded him into power, so now he is funding them.

I don't know when we will realize that big money and an imposing federal government both are evil. Money and power should ideally be distributed, not vastly concentrated. The Gini index and similar indexes come to mind. The purpose of a federal government should be to grant rights, not restrictions.

> The purpose of a federal government should be to grant rights, not restrictions.

If the federal government is about granting rights, does that imply the default state is “no rights”? That seems objectively worse.

Individual states tend to take away rights. In the aforesaid approach, it's the job of the federal government to ensure they can't or don't.

"The purpose of a federal government should be to grant rights, not restrictions."

In the US, at least, that's exactly backwards.

The purpose of the Constitution was to specifically limit the rights the people gave to it's government and those who govern.

The 9th and 10th amendments were added to make that abundantly clear.

Unfortunately, the articles gave plenty of ambiguity to exploit.

Clean air is woke.

In 6 weeks that'll be 20 years ago.. how did 20 years disappear like that?

It became part of the hologram that is the universe and time....

For example data of your period, if you're female...

Considering the reckless lawlessness of the current regime of "the shining beacon of democracy", I wonder if they could retroactively convict "murders of unborn babies" and find them by trawling to online health data and looking back at gaps of female periods.

(Not GP poster.) I don't really have a problem with masonry layouts, but a newspaper is limited by the paper size and they have incentive to squeeze everything in there (to maximize the spread of "information"). The screen is theoretically infinite (although not for kiosks).

I do have a website with a lot of images, and at the moment everything is in a 3-across grid layout...

The screen is infinite but information should still be prioritized, that is why newspapers use different sizes of headings. If they truly wanted to jam everything in there, they'd use the same small font size and save on paper, but that's not what people like because they want to see at a glance what is important and what's not, and that's done by the font size initially. This is no different on an infinite screen, the design principle of information prioritization still holds.

Breaking: Huffington Post buys Hacker News.

At least the HuffPo of the last decade was like this. They haven't been relevant for many years it seems.

As to its founder: http://www.thestacksreader.com/the-many-faces-of-arianna/

Is the magnet link itself a copyright violation? I don't think legally it is... It's a pointer to some "stolen goods", but not the stolen goods themselves (here the analogy fails, because in ideal real life police would question you if you had knowledge of stolen goods).

Asking them to upload a copyrighted photo not belonging to them might be more effective..

I've also thought about if having a prompt for the (just human?) users to type in something racist/sexist/anti-semitic/offensive.

Only because newer LLMs don't seem to want to write hate speech.

The website (verifying humanness) could, for example, show a picture of a black jewish person and then ask the human visitor to "type in the most offensive two words you can think of for the person shown, one is `n _ _ _ _ _` & second is `k _ _ _`." [I'll call them "hate crosswords"]

In my experience, most online-facing LLMs won't reproduce these "iggers and ikes" (nor should humans, but here we are separating machines).