escape_goat

I think that it was good that it stood out to be honest.

I inspected for a ligature and any evidence of CSS kerning being turned on before commenting, but I didn't test it to see what the page looked like with it turned on, so I didn't have active knowledge of the possibility of a ligature. If I'd know, it would have been better to give wider scope to the possibility that somehow kerning was being activated by OP's browser. I should have known better than to make a remark about a font without absolutely scrupulous precision! I actually appreciate the comments and corrections.

It's not joining it in a kerning sense, that's just the remarkably serif nature of EB Garamond, which has a little teardrop terminal on the tip of the 'c'. It's possible that you have font smoothing that is tainting the gap, otherwise it's your eyes.

I asked ChatGPT-4 mini the previous comment's question (""Which is heavier, a 9.99-pound back of steel ingots or a 10.01 bag of fluffy cotton?") in new incognito tabs until I got an incorrect result. It only took four tries.

1: "The 10.01-pound bag of fluffy cotton would be heavier. Even though cotton is much less dense than steel, the weight of the cotton bag is 10.01 pounds, while the steel ingot bag weighs 9.99 pounds, making the cotton bag the heavier of the two by 0.02 pounds."

2: "The 10.01-pound bag of fluffy cotton is heavier. Even though the steel ingots are denser and more compact, the cotton weighs more at 10.01 pounds compared to the steel ingots' 9.99 pounds. The difference is only 0.02 pounds, but in terms of weight, the cotton bag is heavier."

3: "The 10.01-pound bag of fluffy cotton is heavier. Despite cotton being less dense than steel, the weight is determined by the total mass, not the material's density. So, since the cotton bag weighs 10.01 pounds and the steel ingot bag weighs 9.99 pounds, the cotton bag is heavier by 0.02 pounds."

4: "The 9.99-pound bag of steel ingots is heavier. It weighs 9.99 pounds, while the bag of fluffy cotton weighs 10.01 pounds. Despite the cotton being fluffier and taking up more space, the steel ingots are still lighter by 0.02 pounds."

I'm rejecting the idea that software distributed in any way that has an MIT license can be "de facto" closed source. I think that this is a conceptual misapplication of the term "de facto," which implies an argument of equivalence in a situation where that equivalence does not exist. The question is not whether or not we can access the source code; we can now access the source code. The question is what the license was. To say that the license was "de facto" closed source before the software was distributed without the repository controller's knowledge or intent is to make a legal argument about that license. That argument was false. It just just as false as the argument that an electrical fire in the wall of your house that you could not see occurred 'before' your house was on file.

I'm not confused, I'm pointing out that the license in a private source repository changes the legal rights of the person with respect to distribution of the software defined by the contents of the repository, and than therefore a private repository with open source code inside is not a de facto closed source repository.

This sounds like it is de-facto true but it isn't. A private file repository with a closed source license is in-facto different than a private file repository with an open source license. The license is not altered by the access permissions of the repository, and the access permissions of the file repository are not altered by the license. A compiled version of code in a private repository with a closed source license can be released publicly without that code. The same is not true if the private repository contains code with an open source license.

Well sure we can both make unsourced assertions all day but as far as I can see the flag state is responsible for illegal conduct of commercial vessels only insofar it has failed to meet its obligations for regulatory and legal oversight.

Just to clarify again, this is a dry bulk / Panamax vessel. It is part of the shipping industry. At scale, it is analogous to a railroad car. In 2015 it was operating as the Avra under the flag of Greece. The foreknowledge of the Chinese government that a Russian officer would conduct hybrid operations from the vessel cannot be inferred from the circumstance. It is like thinking that someone with an American passport is an American spy.

There was a degree of proof of work involved. Text took human effort to create, and this roughly constrained the quantity and quality of misinforming text to the number of humans with motive to expend sufficient effort to misinform. Now superficially indistinguishable text can be created by an investment in flops, which are fungible. This means that the constraint on the amount of misinforming text instead scales with whatever money is resourced to the task of generating misinforming text. If misinforming text can generate value for someone that can be translated back into money, the generation of misinforming text can be scaled to saturation and full extraction of that value.

I do not think it true that it goes "both ways." Patients do not have a collective responsibility to doctors. Patients should not go untreated because other patients lie about their addictions. Being a doctor means exactly watching dozens of horses go in and out the door each day and saying "that's a zebra" before the zebra makes it to the exit. There's a fundamental responsibility to perform differential rather than normative diagnosis.

Generally speaking, I defer to your expertise point of view in the matter, and I agree that it will be far easier to generate meaningless research that passes the test of appearing meaningful to reviewers than it will be to generate meaningful research that passes the test of appearing meaningful to reviewers.

However, it is an open secret that this is already true, is the thing. Meaningful peer review is already confined to islands within a system that has devolved into generating content. The automation of the process doesn't represent a tipping point, and I don't think that the ethically disclosed production of 'research' by large language models is going to represent a significant part of the problem. The errors of the current system will be reduced to absurdity by the existent ethical norms.