FaceDeer

It sounds scary, and that’s all that’s needed to get clicks.

You keep steering wildly toward the cliff edge, I’ll keep suggesting that maybe this isn’t the best time for that.

I know it doesn’t need to.

It does anyway.

There are a lot of things the US probably should be doing differently about its political system, but they aren’t, and that’s the world we live in.

The US has an election cycle that runs much longer than most other places in the world.

I’m seeing a lot of people downvoting comments that are making simple statements of fact about how the American election system works. It may not be the way people want it to work, but that’s what they’ve got. Downvoting such comments doesn’t change it.

He already has enough delegates to win the convention, as is my understanding of the odd way the Democratic party makes this decision.

These are reasonable people who at this point are faced with a choice between that 80 year old and Trump.

The Democrats could have run someone else, should have run someone else, didn’t run someone else. So those are now the two options.

I will ALWAYS cast my vote to most effectively suppress the republican traitor filth.

And so you’re going to vote for Biden, yes?

And ultimately none of that mattered, because the issue that got the case dismissed was gross misconduct by the prosecutor.

Okay, even more complexity. Still not relevant to the reason the case was dropped.

Using system dynamics to classify parts of a system is all well and good when you’re, well, disecting systems, but this was about defining individual bodies.

No we’re not, unless you’re going to include dozens of moons as “planets” as well. Moons and planets have nothing to distinguish them except their system dynamics.

Using extrinsic contexts rather than intrinsic ones is how you define dolphins as fish.

I’m not sure what you mean here. Are you suggesting that dolphins and fish are defined based on where they are, rather than what they are? It wouldn’t make sense to do that. But that has no bearing on whether it makes sense to classify astronomical bodies that way because in their case extrinsic contexts actually are relevant.

Spherical due to being in hydrostatic equilibrium is all we need.

I actually don’t much like that part of the definition system either since it has the same “unclear fuzzy boundary” problem that a simple mass cutoff has. There’s no physical reason to expect there to be a gap between “round” and “not-round”, objects will be expected to have a smooth continuum. Some objects will change their roundness over time as their material slumps, even. But fortunately it’s not really relevant to the distinction between planets and non-planets, it only comes into play for distinguishing dwarf planets from smaller bodies. And there isn’t much public sense of investment in whether the formation of Rheasilvia should or should not invalidate Vesta’s claim to dwarf planethood, so it doesn’t come up much.

Definitions aren’t a waste of time when they’re based on meaningful distinctions and natural classifications. As Plato once said, “you should cleave nature at the joints.”

In the case of the IAU definition of “planet”, they picked a very good joint to cleave the population of objects at. For sound physically-based dynamic reasons you tend to get objects that are either really good at clearing their orbital neighborhood of other objects or not at all good at doing that, you never expect to see objects that are somewhere in a fuzzy middle ground.

The Wikipedia article on clearing the neighbourhood has a table of values for the planets and also for some of the prominent dwarf planets, and there’s a very clear multiple-orders-of-magnitude gap between the two populations under all of the various mechanisms by which neighbourhood-clearing can be measured or calculated.

Frankly, this is a way better approach than an arbitrary “at least this many kilograms” cutoff. With a cutoff like that you can easily get objects that straddle the line and are impossible to classify. It’s not based on any meaningful dynamic orbital properties of the object. I don’t like this proposal for exoplanets, they should use the same one that we use for solar system planets.

They are when you’re holding an actual trial. You can’t try both criminal and civil charges simultaneously, the two processes are quite different from each other.

And there’s the added layer of Baldwin being the producer, and so he’s the guy who hired the crappy armorer in the first place.

But ultimately none of that matters now. The reason this case was dismissed is not because of any of those questions of who’s responsible for what on the set, it was dismissed because the police and the prosecutors withheld evidence from the defense.

You do not withhold evidence from the defense in a criminal trial, that’s a huge no-no.

Dozens of actors starve while trapped in loops exactly like this every year, yet we never hear about those tragic deaths. :(

Have them predict what a reasonable plan would look like. Then they can start working from that.

That sort of thing can be handled by the framework outside of the AI’s literal context window. I did some tinkering with some automated story-writing stuff a while back, just to get some experience with LLM APIs, and even working with an AI that had only a few thousand tokens’ context I was able to get some pretty decent large-scale story structure. The key is to have the AI work in the same way that some human authors do; have them first generate an outline for the story, write up some character biographies, do revisions of those things, and only once a bunch of that stuff is done should it start writing actual prose.

Most cultures don’t immediately leap to “better kill everyone else in the train so I can take their stuff.”

We should split up to explore more efficiently!

Ohh, this small creature in the underbrush looks adorable! I’m going to pick it up.

Isekai harems are “all of the above.”

Probably quite quickly, if the train was traveling at any significant speed when all of a sudden it had no tracks under it.