It worries me that, even in the best case where the Epstein scandal causes Trump’s supporters to turn against him and he’s forced from office by his cabinet or Congress, Vance and most of the rest of the administration will emerge unscathed—and public opinion on his actual policies will be unaffected.

A trait being selected for doesn’t always mean it’s desirable to the individuals who have it.

If any element of the Marvel universe respected the laws of physics, it would break the rest of the franchise.

if the death is actually only a means to an end and not the end itself

I would restrict the intended end to institutional change—it’s not an assassination if you kill someone for their parking space, but it is if you kill them for their school board vote.

Edit: I guess I’d also have to add killing someone purely for their notoriety.

Did they select Whatsapp as a main communication channel and direct their supporters to it?

Or did they just start a group chat to reach out to supporters who were already on the app?

It’s a good name for a baby born with horns protruding from its head.

I don’t know if it’s what you had in mind, but MediaWiki (the software WP runs on) has “interwiki” features that let MW instances easily reference each other’s articles; and other MW plugins (like Wikibase and Sematic MediaWiki) have features that let MW instances share their underlying data.

If you’re arguing for a particular public policy, then it’s not necessarily hypocritical (which isn’t to say it’s good).
If you’re arguing for social change based on personal behavior, then you should lead by example.

I don’t have a thermostat, but I have indoor and outdoor temp and humidity sensors, and a window position sensor. HA notifies me (via lighting color) if I should open the window because the outdoor conditions are better than indoors, or vice versa.

fe·lic·i·ty | fəˈlɪsədi |
noun (plural felicities)

1. intense happiness.
2. the ability to find appropriate expression for one’s thoughts.

Ironically, the thing that most effectively poisons AI content is other AI content. (Basically, it amplifies the little idiosyncrasies that are indistinguishable from human content at low levels but become obvious when iterated.)

Just saw a YouTube documentary that reminded me of this comment—it describes how Galileo made his lenses by hand from window glass using an artillery ball as a grinder.

For one thing, the idea that there are “bad” genes stems from the outdated idea that there’s a one-to-one correspondence between genes and physical traits—but the reality is that most genes govern hundreds or thousands of traits, and most traits depend on similar numbers of genes. So bad traits usually result from the wrong combination of genes that are not bad in themselves—take sickle-cell anemia, which results from the wrong combination of genes that by themselves offer malaria resistance. (Most cases are far more convoluted than that.) If you remove the genes that cause the “bad” traits, you’re also removing the good traits they cause in other contexts.

Without even looking at the human issues, the underlying idea that you can improve a species by removing its biological diversity in favor of the “best” variants is catastrophically wrong.

TL,DR: It wasn’t learning, it was just brute-forcing the entire solution space.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lottery_ticket_hypothesis

You can make a rough magnifying lens by trial and error using glass and a hand grinder—not the same as prescription lenses, but for many it would be better than nothing.

Interesting that two of the few countries that prefer the US to China are China’s fellow BRICS members Brazil and India.

Yeah, but this poll was from Gallup—who trusts them?

So if I understand that right, the “per 100,000” figures aren’t for the exact populations, but for what the populations would be if the age groups were re-weighted to keep the age demographics constant?

Some thoughts:

• Florida had a striking increase between 2003 and 2008 that isn’t reflected by California or Texas. Did something specific happen in Florida in that timeframe?

• Texas seems to have been on a long-term downward trend until 2013 (while Florida was spiking). The subsequent upward trend is mirrored by Florida, but not California.

• What does “age-adjusted” mean?

• Does “per 100,000” refer to the entire population, or the population under 25? If the former, could some of the differences be accounted for by changing demographics?