jean-
Joined 15 years ago
Joined 15 years ago
It’s an issue I’ve noticed personally, as I’m seeing an increasing number of reviews that lack substance and are almost entirely made of filler content. Here’s an excerpt from a particularly egregious recent example I ran into, which had this to say on the subject of meaningful comparison to recent work:
> Additionally, while the bibliography appears to be comprehensive, there could be some minor improvements, such as including more recent or relevant references if applicable.
The whole review was written like this, with no specific suggestions for improvement, just vague “if applicable” filler. Infuriating.
Something a lot of people don't realise is that when tarot cards were invented, their intended purpose was to be a game. The whole divination/cartomancy aspect was made up much more recently, mostly to amuse French aristocrats.
An excellent resource for people interested in learning more about this very old tradition is the following YouTube channel: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=DiCFfp_ZY4g
There was even a planned TV series based on the website around 10 years ago: http://www.guerilla-films.com/man-in-seat-61.html
> I've never had it be necessary to use these words. Often "on my/your side" if I'm walking with someone, or "beside/towards X" if there's a feature there.
> (it has deficiencies, and can be cumbersome, but these aren't them)
Surely the lack of words for left/right would make it pretty cumbersome to describe, say, the vehicle code, or to give driving directions, no?
When models commonly achieve 97% on a task, it means it's time to define a harder task, as it's long stopped providing any useful signal.
Example from Wiktionary: [2]
Tu ne m’aimes pas, n’est-ce pas ? — Si !
You don’t like me, do you? — Yes, I do!
[1]: https://french.stackexchange.com/questions/848/differences-b...There is also a wine version, if that is your preference: https://www.overleaf.com/latex/examples/latex-wine-stains/cd...