Here's my hypothesis from ignorance: I don't know much about South America but understand that they freeze dry potatoes on high slopes?
Perhaps they dry best in these holes, the community built them together, like building an oven or kiln, the regularity and sections of 50 holes allow to track whose produce is where; and maybe you sell them on at the same time.
Or, how about ice collection - each hole gets filled with water/snow, it freezes, the lumps are the right size for carrying back to an ice hole. Maybe they can slide them down the slope like a historical ice-cube dispenser.
Your hypothesis is probably correct. The Incas were experts at using their mountainous topography to freeze dry things. In fact the word 'jerky' comes from Quechua.
>our Reinforcement Learning reading group there //
Anyone else, like me, imagining ML models embodied as Androids attending what amounts to a book club? (I can't quite shake the image of them being little CodeBullets with CRT monitors for heads either.)
> There are systems in place to prevent fast back-and-forth arguments.
Like what? I never saw anything to suggest that is the case.
> Not having a mentions functionality for those who wish to use it doesn't seem to to change anything around over-heated discussions.
Of course it does. If you have to keep checking manually, eventually you’ll get distracted. By the time you come back, if you do, there may already be another reply to the reply and you may no longer feel the need to comment. Nor will you be inclined to respond to a comment made days later in a nested discussion, because you won’t find it. But people just arriving at the thread might, and continue the discussion with new perspectives.
> I'd make @ a page like 'threads' which just includes any comments with @$username.
To each their own, I’m thankful HN doesn’t have that feature.
Ha, I had never heard of this effect despite having studied Kamiokande (well neutrinos, at least) as part of a mini-dissertation for my B.Sc.
However, looking for sources relating to leaching by ultra pure water (UPW) not much turned up.
I did however find on Google Scholar a paper "Ultrapure Water: friend or foe?"... which lead me to https://www.balazs.com/sites/balazs/files/2023-03/pub0039-up... . Reading between the lines, Marjorie Balazs appears to have made a career out of UPW; she says in that paper:
"The ability for UPW to absorb and dissolve or react with all kinds of materials
complicates other aspects concerning its use in the processing of wafers."
Seems like UPW dissolves anything, so lends credence to the anecdote.
Interesting topic, hadn't thought about UPW for wafer fabrication before.
I didn't read the article, but it's likely they are faster than light is when traveling through that water. light can have different speeds through different media.
as to why in this case: it can be somewhat intuitive to think that photons would be forced to take a somewhat longer path when traveling through a medium they interact with a lot (water, anything with a charge) then something which is almost going at the speed of light and famously doesn't interact with almost anything!
> A neutrino interaction with the electrons or nuclei of water can produce a charged particle that moves faster than the speed of light in water, which is slower than the speed of light in vacuum. This creates a cone of light known as Cherenkov radiation, which is the optical equivalent to a sonic boom. The Cherenkov light is projected as a ring on the wall of the detector and recorded by the PMTs.
What does 'a legal approach' mean where there is no rule of law? USA just bombed another country without having a domestic legal basis for that. Can't imagined they're holding back on AI use that is illegal -- even textbook-clear warcrimes (like blowing up shipwrecked people) does not give Hegseth and Trump pause.
That goes for domestic actions too, happy to arm a paramilitary and set them loose against citizens who are not politically aligned with Trump... the Republican Senate barely even blinks. Hard to imagine they'd care about AI use in mass surveillance, nor AI use in automated anti-personnel weapons. The Senate will be, 'Oh no they unlawfully killed USA citizens, again... Welp, let me check my insider trading gains... yh, seems fine'.
Interestingly the UK Supreme Court ruled on this in the Emotional Perception AI case - though I'd need to check if that was obiter (not part of the legal ruling itself).
Nah, they just respectfully said no to their face, which prompted him to make a big threat display and post another message with caps and exclamation signs on social media.
Cut off those using ad hominems. Fact check. All opinion should be labelled. Only one identity per person. Any associations or biases are public.
Do all that then I can't see what's hard about it ;oP.
Genuinely though, I think those things are doable. You probably have to have people use their own irl identities (at least the platform needs that information), which is problematic if you want free and open debate.
Fact checking is basically impossible as most things aren’t black and white and open to various interpretations. The idea of fact checkers online has been totally rejected because fact checkers themselves are vulnerable to bias and ideological capture.
Indeed. A few years ago I spent a lot of time "fact checking" things, and it's nearly impossible because there is way more speculation/interpretation of "facts" than most people think. Misleading headline writing makes this even worse because a lot of people don't read beyond the headline, or if they do they interpret the factual body of the article through a lens framed by the headline. The NY Times are exceptionally good at this. Read the article and it's factually correct, but different interpretations and the subtle insertion of opinions (often through headlines) . I'm not trying to shit on NYT here. NYT is still among the best sources, despite their imperfections. But it illustrates well the challenge.
Perfect fact checking, sure, but fact checking to the point of "this information comes from here", this person said this in this video, et cetera, is attainable.
The author's bias - it's different for each specific author. We should not pretend that there are moderators without bias, each AI-driven moderation tool inherits the bias of its human author.
The LLMs that power all that are "aligned", that is, they're subjected to manipulation to install specific bias in them, and so on.
reply