Video wird geladen...

Video konnte nicht geladen werden

Zur Startseite

Breaking!🚨 Karnataka Govt's Big step towards Two language policy Govt has removed Third language (Hindi) from SSLC (10th) Marksheet Schools still teach Third language & students need to write exam, but it won't be in Marksheet

91,967 Aufrufe • vor 4 Monaten •via X (Twitter)

0 Kommentare

Keine Kommentare verfügbar

Kommentare vom Original-Post werden hier angezeigt

Ähnliche Videos

Most chiral molecules arise from carbons being bonded to 4 different atoms, which are called sterocenters. The makes the molecule have a different mirror image that cannot arise from simple rotation. But, you can have chiral molecules not from stereocenters. You can have chirality that doesn't come from a single point in the molecule. It comes from some global property. The classic example is helicene, which doesn't have any stereocenters, but has chirality because of hits helical structure. This means you cannot capture this molecule with a graph, and thus SMILES or a string representation cannot capture this. Of course natural language comes to the rescue (just say in words if it's left-handed or right-handed helix), but it's an interesting failure mode for viewing molecules as just a graph. Another example of a molecule with helical chirality is DNA. DNA is actually chiral in two ways, which is kind of confusing. It has both helical structure and stereocenters. You won't find the stereocenters ever flipped, but left-handed helical DNA can exist (called Z-DNA). Interestingly, making the flipped stereocenter of DNA could be part of an entire mirror organism (mirror RNA, DNA, AAs, sugars) that would then be potentially invisible to our immune systems. This has been recently proposed as a "mechanism" for how a runaway AI system could cause harm to Earth. I find it to be a pretty tedious and difficult way to cause harm, but it is intellectually cool. Anyway - this came up in a PhD defense and I have a lot of arcane knowledge about this I wanted to dump.

Andrew White 🐦‍⬛

15,039 Aufrufe • vor 4 Monaten

They say a picture is worth a thousand words. But for your toddler, single words can also convey a whole lot more than you might imagine. Witness this little one who uses the word “whee” (the exhilarated sound she makes going down a playground slide), to carry a whole conversation with her mom. When her mom asks if she’s having a fun day, our hero replies “whee” twice, which here loosely translate to: “Hey, you know that place the park that I love so much? The place I’m always saying whee? Well, I’m kind of disappointed that you haven’t taken me there.” Then she punctuates it with, “I sad.” Pretty amazing, right? As your child’s early language use grows, you can expect to hear a lot of telegraphic speech - one or two word sentences which are typically stripped of grammatical elements. Sentences like “up” (to signify “please pick me up”) or the request “shoe on.” While this telegraphic speech represents a major step forward in language acquisition for children, here’s an important tip: Our most supportive and constructive response as adults may be to treat these early utterances as meaningful… but then extend, rather than repeat them. In other words - rather than replying in kind with “shoe on,” reply with a fully grammatical response. “Oh, yes, if we’re going outside we do need to put your shoes on!” Doing so consistently will provide the types of linguistic models your child needs to continue advancing to more and more sophisticated and grammatical language. Whee! This little playground fan was shared to IG by indyah.

Dan Wuori

77,083 Aufrufe • vor 1 Jahr

Watch These Three Videos. In the first, the Chief Minister of Assam calls a Congress politician a Gan*u. On camera. In public. Without apology. In the second, teenage girls dance to "Unki maa ka bhos*a" with hip thrusts that mime rape. In the third, a religious procession moves, thousands of men watching while women perform explicitly sexual acts while dancing on a truck (in the name of God). If you think these three things are unrelated, you haven't understood what Hindutva actually is. This is not crudeness. This is not a culture war about manners or etiquettes. This is a deliberate project, the systematic sexualization of Indian political and religious life, where the female body becomes spectacle and territory, where the language of violation becomes the language of faith and victory, where a Chief Minister and a religious procession share the same vocabulary. And it is thought out. I grew up in India, in a Hindu society. I never saw anything like this. This is not what Hinduism is. Whether you like it or not, Hinduism is part of every Indian's life. We grew up on Sunday morning Ramayan at 9 AM. The festivals of Diwali and Holi. The idea that good wins over evil. And so much more. It was simple. It was moral. It was universal. It belonged to all of us, even those of us who weren't Hindu. We had our own religions, our own prayers, but that moral code was shared. It was in the air we breathed. This is what is being hollowed out. Not just a religion, a common inheritance. That Sunday morning feeling. The idea that there is such a thing as good, and that it wins. Hindutva has taken that and replaced it with a truck, thousands of men, and women performing a sexual dance. This is Hindutva's deep perversion. It has taken a civilization's religious life and turned it into a mob spectacle. It has taken its political language and soaked it in rape. It has handed teenage girls a rape anthem and called it a dance. The slur is not a slip. The procession is not spontaneous. The choreography is not innocent. What is being built, across platforms, campaign rallies, and now religious processions is a political vocabulary where your opponent is not defeated but penetrated, where the enemy is not wrong but he is a Gan*u. When language and ritual are both sexualized to this degree, something specific happens to the people inside it: they stop seeing clearly. The violence stops feeling like violence. The degradation stops feeling like degradation. The opponent becomes pest. The procession becomes devotion. The rape joke becomes a rally cry. This is what the normalization is for. The filth is the mechanism. Run it long enough, from the Chief Minister's mouth to the temple truck to the religious procession, and an entire society quietly crosses a threshold it can never name, only feel. This is not Hinduism. This is Hindutva in it's ugliest form. And it's all connected.

Darab Farooqui

37,260 Aufrufe • vor 4 Monaten

Today is UN Chinese Language Day—a perfect moment to celebrate one of the most influential writing systems in human history. For thousands of years, the cultures of China, Japan, Korea, and Vietnam were deeply shaped by Chinese civilization. Until the early 20th century, Classical Chinese served as the shared literary and scholarly language across East Asia, much like Latin did in Europe. Chinese characters (汉字 / 漢字) became the common script of the region, later adapted locally as Kanji in Japan, Hanja in Korea, and Chữ Hán in Vietnam. Over time, each country developed its own writing innovations to better express their spoken languages: • Japan created Hiragana (平仮名) and Katakana (片仮名). • Korea invented Hangul (한글). • Vietnam eventually adopted the Latin-based Vietnamese alphabet. Yet the story of Chinese characters themselves is truly fascinating. 🇨🇳 The Legend of Cangjie According to ancient Chinese tradition, the characters were invented by Cangjie (仓颉), a legendary scribe under the Yellow Emperor around the 27th century BCE. While observing the tracks of birds and animals, the patterns of nature, and the constellations in the sky, he created the first symbols—zì (字). Legend says that on the day he succeeded, grains of rice rained from the heavens, and that night ghosts wept—because humanity had just gained the power of written wisdom. UN Chinese Language Day is observed annually on April 20, which was chosen as the date "to pay tribute to Cangjie, who is presumed to have invented Chinese characters about 5,000 years ago". Chinese characters are the world’s oldest continuously used writing system and one of the most widely used by number of speakers. In Chinese mainland since the 1950s, the government promoted simplified characters to boost literacy. Meanwhile, traditional characters continue to thrive in Taiwan, Hong Kong, and Macau. You’ll still see both versions depending on the context—books, signs, calligraphy, or digital media. 🇯🇵 Japan: Kanji + Kana Chinese writing reached Japan around the 5th century CE. The Japanese adapted the characters as kanji and cleverly developed two new scripts from them: • Hiragana, flowing and cursive, used for grammar and native words. • Katakana, angular and sharp, mainly for foreign loanwords and emphasis. Modern Japanese is an effective mixture: kanji carry the core meaning of words, while hiragana and katakana handle the rest. Japanese students learn 2,136 joyo kanji by the end of high school, with many more used in daily life. 🇰🇷🇰🇵 Korea: From Hanja to Hangul For most of Korean history, Literary Chinese written in Hanja (한자) was the official script—from the Gojoseon era all the way through the Joseon Dynasty. Even after King Sejong the Great created the beautiful Hangul alphabet in 1443, it took centuries for it to fully replace Literary Chinese in official and scholarly writing. Today, Hanja is still essential for reading historical documents, classical literature, and academic texts. Anyone seriously studying Korean history or the humanities needs a solid command of Chinese characters. 🇻🇳 Vietnam: From Chữ Hán to Quốc Ngữ In Vietnam, Chinese characters (Chữ Hán) dominated official and scholarly writing until the early 20th century. Around the 13th century, Vietnamese scholars created Chữ Nôm—a unique system that combined Chinese characters with newly invented ones to write the Vietnamese language. It was especially popular for recording folk poetry and literature. During French colonial rule, the Latin-based Vietnamese alphabet (Quốc Ngữ) gradually took over. Today, Chinese characters and Chữ Nôm are mostly reserved for cultural and ceremonial purposes—like traditional calligraphy, temple inscriptions, and cultural festivals. Happy UN Chinese Language Day!

Eivor

66,640 Aufrufe • vor 4 Monaten

Most recent diffusion language model research (that I’ve seen) seems to be using masking as the noising process. It looks like, however, most closed-source models (Google Gemini Diffusion and possibly Inception Labs’ Mercury) use a different noising process, where instead of masking tokens, they replace them with different tokens (either with a random token or a semantically similar token). I wondered how they were getting such high throughput with the latter noising process, since I believed that optimizing inference with KVCache approximation would be more difficult (for various reasons). I visualized this noising process with tiny-diffusion and compared it to normal unmasking, and was very surprised to see how fast the generation “settles” into a reasonable output, and then only slightly refines afterwards, requiring much fewer steps in total. Unmasking (where tokens are never remasked, the typical implementation) is inherently limited in generation speed by the fact that an increase in tokens decoded per step leads to more errors due to the mismatch between individual and marginal token probability distributions we sample from. The token replacement noising process seems to have a much different set of characteristics. Because we sample each token per step, every token makes “progress” towards the final output each iteration (in addition to *potentially* giving other tokens more information in future steps). Generally, masking has outperformed other noising processes, which is probably why most research focused on it (using smaller models). But the paper referred to in the retweet shows that random replacement as a noising process may scale better as model size increases. Big labs might have noticed these results much earlier (due to having drastically more training resources and being able to test larger models), which may explain the discrepancy in the choice of noising process. I’m gonna test this with larger models, since tiny-diffusion only has 10M parameters.

nathan (in sf)

40,440 Aufrufe • vor 7 Monaten

‼️An interesting interview with Lavrov Sergey Lavrov regularly gives interviews, and almost every one of them is an information operation designed to create an alternative reality. The March 26 interview with France Télévisions is no exception. Let's break it down and point out where there are lies and where there is manipulation. 1. Lavrov claims that Russia is supposedly defending international law while speaking in the "language of principles" regarding Iran. What's wrong: it's basic role reversal. Moscow is trying to speak from the position of a "guardian of the law," even though it is waging an aggressive war against Ukraine. In the case of Iran, Lavrov is also deliberately omitting half the picture: yes, the US withdrew from the nuclear deal, but Iran also faced non-proliferation concerns raised by the IAEA. Why it matters: It is an attempt to whitewash Russia's crimes through someone else's crisis and to present the aggressor (Russia) as the judge. 2. Russia does not provide Iran with intelligence; the coordinates of US bases are "already known to everyone." What's wrong: it's an evasive statement, not a complete refutation. There is no independently verified evidence of specific target marking data transfers in open sources, nor can there be, but the Kremlin's "we have nothing to do with it" claim has no basis for being automatically considered true. Why it matters: A typical Kremlin tactic - to deny anything that does not align with Russia's interests and to continue operating in a gray area. 3. Saudi Arabia and the UAE have denied the US access to their airspace, so Russia is right about the "American venture." What's wrong: The caution of Gulf countries is real, but Lavrov turns it into a crude anti-Western caricature. Regional politics are more complex than the Kremlin's narrative that "everyone understands everything, only the US is pushing the world into chaos." Why it matters: The Kremlin takes a partial truth and builds a convenient political myth around it. 4. Russia isn't waging wars for its own gain; it's the US that wants to control the energy sector, the Strait of Hormuz, and the markets. What's wrong: It's pure projection. It is Russia that has used energy as a weapon for years, and after 2022, turned petrodollars into fuel for war. Why it matters: Moscow accuses others of doing what it does systematically - this is one of the central techniques of its propaganda. 5. Since 2014, Ukraine has been ruled by a "Nazi regime" that came to power through a coup. What's wrong: After Yanukovych fled, Ukraine held snap presidential elections, which the OSCE recognized as meeting international standards and being competitive. The claim of a "Nazi regime" is a political label, not a description of reality. Why it matters: "Nazism" in Kremlin rhetoric is a tool for dehumanizing Ukraine and justifying the war. 6. The Russian language is allegedly completely banned in Ukraine. What's wrong: Ukraine has strengthened the role of the state language, but this does not mean a total ban on Russian. The law does not apply to private communication and does not criminalize the everyday use of the language. Why it matters: The Kremlin is exaggerating language policy to the level of a "linguistic apocalypse" to sell the war as a supposed humanitarian mission. 7. Ukraine is allegedly at war with Orthodoxy and has "banned the canonical church." What's wrong: This is not about "banning a faith," but about a law regarding religious organizations linked to the Russian Orthodox Church. Even criticism from human rights activists does not support the Kremlin's claim of "persecution of Orthodoxy." Why it matters: Moscow is using the language of religious protection to cover up its network of influence in Ukraine. 8. The West allegedly cynically exploited the Minsk agreements as a respite to arm Ukraine. What's wrong: The Minsk process was collapsing because of the Kremlin's desire to use the agreements to establish de facto control over Ukraine, not because of some "cunning plot" by Paris and Berlin. Why it matters: The Kremlin is rewriting history retroactively to portray its own aggression as a supposedly forced response to "universal betrayal." 9. Russia does not attack civilians; its targets are solely facilities associated with the AFU. What's wrong: It's an outright lie. For years, the UN and independent sources have documented systematic Russian strikes on cities, residential areas, energy facilities, and civilian infrastructure. Why it matters: This is no longer just propaganda, but a cynical denial of documented terror against civilians. 10. The Bucha massacre is allegedly "not proven": there are no names, no evidence, and journalists haven't shown anything. What's wrong: This is one of the most mendacious claims. There are UN documents, testimonies, criminal investigations, identified suspects, and evidence of executions and killings of civilians. Why it matters: The Kremlin is not trying to refute the crime, but to wear down the audience with doubt and turn mass murder into "one of the versions." 11. Russia wants peace and negotiations. What's wrong: In the Kremlin's vocabulary, "peace" does not mean an end to aggression, but rather acceptance of its results. "Realities on the ground" means occupation; "root causes" means demanding recognition of Russia's right to punish neighbors for their political choices. Why it matters: Lavrov isn't offering peace. He's dressing up surrender in softer language. 12. Europe is supposedly dragging out the war, while Russia is looking for a solution. What's wrong: Russia started this war itself. European aid to Ukraine is a response to the aggression, not its cause. Why it matters: This is the main inversion of Kremlin logic - to make the audience forget who attacked first and shift the discussion from aggression to a "conflict that has dragged on too long." 13. RT and Sputnik are victims of censorship, and France has no right to speak about freedom of speech. What's wrong: RT and Sputnik were banned not as "ordinary media," but as state-run tools of disinformation. Their role as propaganda channels has been publicly acknowledged both in the EU and in France. Why it matters: The Kremlin wants to portray the defense of democracies against malicious information operations as a restriction of free speech. 14. France and Europe have made Russia an enemy; Moscow is merely reacting. What's wrong: The cause of the rift is not "Russophobia," but Russia's invasion, war crimes, blackmail, and influence operations against Europe. Why it matters: The Kremlin is systematically trying to reverse the cause-and-effect relationship: it is not that "Russia destroyed relations," but that "the West rejected Russia." 15. Individual real episodes - the tanker, incidents in France, disputes among allies - allegedly prove Western hypocrisy and justify Russia. What's wrong: Lavrov takes a real but local fact and uses it as a smokescreen. None of these incidents erases Russia's crimes or the very fact of its aggression. Why it matters: This is a favorite Kremlin method - using others' difficulties and whataboutism to cover up its own crimes.

Anton Gerashchenko

88,596 Aufrufe • vor 4 Monaten