I don’t know the details of how it works, but considering the environmental impact of fracking, I’m afraid something like this might have many unwanted consequences.
Nor could I. And I can't imagine sitting next to my wife watching a football game together on my phone. But I could while waiting in line by myself.
Similarly, I could imagine sitting next to my daughter, who is 2,500 miles away at college, watching the name together on a virtual screen we both share. And then playing mini-golf or table tennis together.
Different tools are appropriate for different use cases. Don't dismiss a hammer because it's not good at driving screws.
What is the reason, then, that California cannot be considered a first world state, and instead a failed state? And are there other states that used to have this designation, but have lost it in your view? Just curious.
Exploding deficits, tent cities, shit covered sidewalks, blackouts, palpable corruption, to name a few. No, I don’t think it’s limited to California, that state just kind of serves as a time machine for the rest of the country.
I don’t disagree in principle. But people also have to look at the interface while using it. There’s a balance, for sure, but strict utilitarian design is a no for me.
I don’t think NavinF shows any lack of concern for the issue as such. What’s being talked about here is whether OpenAI’s being forthright concerning their motives for keeping the tech closed.
I think we can all agree it is valid to be cautious with some of this tech, but the question is whether OpenAI is being cautious or simply using caution as PR. And given their track record, the latter seems, if not likely, then possible.
It simply lacks Catholic design elements. The stained glass is a jumble of nonsense, not even a nice pattern like the Muslims do, and I suppose there is an altar and a crucifix in there somewhere, but they drown in all the visual clutter, like they’re ashamed of it.
It’s possible, even likely, that the pictures don’t do it justice, so I will take a look in person at some point, but I don’t have high hopes.
The whole church is completely covered in innumerable fractals of catholic symbolism and its main tower will be topped by a 29 meters high cross. Maybe you just don't like the style, which is understandable as it is quite divisive.
There's a rhyme and reason to the stained glass that's tied into the other symbolic elements embedded in the architecture. For example, the color scheme shifts as you pan from the nativity side through to the passion side. The lower panels are not totally abstract; there are vague shapes that sort of remind you of figures, flames, etc. but then it tends to pivot towards full geometric abstraction as you raise your head.
Like the Mezquita in Córdoba, it's hard to get a sense of how intensely all the combined elements make an impression just from photographs.
Is this more of a limitation of our ability to communicate with the animals? If we could talk intelligibly with a crow, maybe we could teach it? Conversely, if our communication with a 7-year-old child were limited to the level we achieve with crows, could we teach the child and know for sure that they understand it?
> could we teach the child and know for sure that they understand it?
Yes, children aren't born knowing languages so you teach the child the language and then you can see it understands it. You don't need to share a language to teach language. We haven't been able to teach any animal language at even 4 year level, so animals at least doesn't have the same level of language intelligence as humans do.
You are going beyond the constraints, “if our communication with a 7-year-old child were limited to the level we achieve with crows.”
We know we are able to teach children language because we have shared modes of communication through which we can observe their learning; speaking, writing, hand gestures.
> You do not need to share a language to teach a language
True, but I would argue that you need to share a mutually intelligible mode of communication.
How would you teach (and know that they have understood it correctly) the concept of monetary denominations to a 7-year old child if you were limited to communicating on the level you can with a crow? I have no idea, and would probably give up. But this does not necessarily tell us anything about the intelligence or capacity for learning language in the child, it tells us only of the gap in communication that we cannot bridge.
> so animals at least doesn’t have the same level of language intelligence as humans do.
This does not necessarily follow. What follows is that humans are not able to teach animals human language on the same level as they are able to teach humans.
We’ve not been able to reach any animal language at a four year old level that they can speak but I think we have taught animals language at a level that they are able to understand? Though I guess we can’t necessarily prove that understanding.
Understandable, I’m in the desert southwest, so not a concern here.
I did recently attend a workshop by Dr. Ronald Rael (Professor of Architecture @ Berkeley), and he mentioned that as concerns building with adobe bricks, with proper roofing, rain is a minimal to non-existent issue. I am not entirely convinced, however, and have also heard of solutions such as using “plasticure” on the outside of the walls.
reply