Video yükleniyor...

Video Yüklenemedi

Ana Sayfaya Dön

In Rust, error handling is opt-out, not opt-in. Alice Ryhl (Rust for Android at Google, Rust language advisor & Tokio maintainer) explains: “The other thing I think is quite good is error handling. So on one hand, Rust doesn't really use exceptions, so it actually returns the error as...

Pragmatic_Eng's profile picture

The Pragmatic Engineer

45,916 subscribers

52,059 görüntüleme • 23 gün önce •via X (Twitter)

Bilim & Teknoloji
LIVE

Anya Rossi• Live Now

Private livecam show

0 Yorum

Yorum bulunmuyor

Orijinal gönderinin yorumları burada görünecek

Benzer Videolar

So this is the play Adam Jude and alexSSN are asking about. This is a correctly scored a fielder's choice because while the obvious thing is the fielder has to throw home (to prevent the winning run from scoring), the fielder can attempt to just get the out first and then go home. Young is obviously going to be out on this if the first baseman elected to get him out. So this is never a hit. As for balls that fall between fielders not being error, you have to remember Alex that an error is a mechanical misplay. You have to attempt to catch the ball and miss/drop it. When to guys look at each other and go "oops I thoiught you had it" and it falls between them, that's a hit because it's not an error as there is no drop or miss, because no one attempted the catch. Hope that makes sense.
0:53

So this is the play Adam Jude and alexSSN are asking about. This is a correctly scored a fielder's choice because while the obvious thing is the fielder has to throw home (to prevent the winning run from scoring), the fielder can attempt to just get the out first and then go home. Young is obviously going to be out on this if the first baseman elected to get him out. So this is never a hit. As for balls that fall between fielders not being error, you have to remember Alex that an error is a mechanical misplay. You have to attempt to catch the ball and miss/drop it. When to guys look at each other and go "oops I thoiught you had it" and it falls between them, that's a hit because it's not an error as there is no drop or miss, because no one attempted the catch. Hope that makes sense.

MLB Scoring Changes

22,943 görüntüleme • 1 yıl önce

Lots of folks wondering why the two plays to Oneil Cruz in the Pittsburgh Pirates at New York Mets game were recorded as hits. Here is the first one, and you can see he misjudges this line drive, and he comes in and then it sails over his head. MIsjudgement is NOT an error, so this correctly went down as a triple. Is it a ball that he needs to catch? Yes. Is it an error? No. An error is a physical misplay, and there is not a physicial misplay here. #LetsGoBucs #LGM
1:06

Lots of folks wondering why the two plays to Oneil Cruz in the Pittsburgh Pirates at New York Mets game were recorded as hits. Here is the first one, and you can see he misjudges this line drive, and he comes in and then it sails over his head. MIsjudgement is NOT an error, so this correctly went down as a triple. Is it a ball that he needs to catch? Yes. Is it an error? No. An error is a physical misplay, and there is not a physicial misplay here. #LetsGoBucs #LGM

MLB Scoring Changes

118,748 görüntüleme • 2 ay önce

Scott on why conviction in an idea is dangerous as an investor but required as a founder: "From the investor seat, I don't think you want to be in love with an idea. That's a risky thing because you'll find a way to express that by investing and make some compromises on the team because you know this idea is just so good, its time has come. But if the team isn't there, 90% of the time it doesn't work. Then there's a whole thing can you swap out the team? But the whole Founders Fund thesis was always no, you need the founder to run the company. But on the company side, you have to be in love with the idea. It's not that rational to start a company. There's a lot easier, more comfortable ways to make money if that's the goal. So it's got to be about what the company is doing specifically. If you want to actually start a company, it better be something that you're really passionate about, or you think that the problem is really important."
1:15

Scott on why conviction in an idea is dangerous as an investor but required as a founder: "From the investor seat, I don't think you want to be in love with an idea. That's a risky thing because you'll find a way to express that by investing and make some compromises on the team because you know this idea is just so good, its time has come. But if the team isn't there, 90% of the time it doesn't work. Then there's a whole thing can you swap out the team? But the whole Founders Fund thesis was always no, you need the founder to run the company. But on the company side, you have to be in love with the idea. It's not that rational to start a company. There's a lot easier, more comfortable ways to make money if that's the goal. So it's got to be about what the company is doing specifically. If you want to actually start a company, it better be something that you're really passionate about, or you think that the problem is really important."

Patrick OShaughnessy

33,016 görüntüleme • 2 ay önce

Two years ago today, Elon Musk introduced xAI with these words: “The overarching goal of xAI is to build a good AGI with the purpose of trying to understand the universe. I think the safest AI, the safest way to build an AI is actually make one that is maximally curious and truth seeking. So you go for try to aspire to the truth with acknowledged error. Does one ever actually get fully to the truth? It's not clear, but one should always aspire to that and try to minimize the error between what you think is true and what is actually true. My theory behind the maximally curious, maximally truthful as being probably the safest approach is that I think to a superintelligence, humanity is much more interesting than not humanity. One can look at the various planets in our solar system, the moons and the asteroids, and really probably all of them combined are not as interesting as humanity. As people know, I'm a huge fan of Mars, but Mars is just much less interesting than Earth with humans on it. And so I think that that kind of approach to growing an AI, and I think that is the right word for it, growing an AI is to grow it with that ambition. I've spent many years thinking about AI safety and worrying about AI safety. And I've been one of the strongest voices calling for AI regulation or oversight just to have some kind of oversight, some kind of referee, so that it's not just up to companies to decide what they want to do. I think there's also a lot to be done with AI safety, with industry cooperation. I kind of like Motion Pictures association, so I think there's value to that as well. But I do think there's got to be some like in any kind of situation that is, even if it's a game, they have referees. So I think it is important for there to be regulation. Like I said, my view on safety is like try to make it maximally curious, maximally truth seeking. And I think this is, this is important that you to avoid the inverse morality problem. Like if you try to program a certain morality, you can have the, you, you can basically invert it and get the opposite, what is sometimes called the Waluigi problem. If you make Luigi, you risk creating Waluigi at the same time. So I think that's a metaphor that a lot of people can appreciate.”
3:14

Two years ago today, Elon Musk introduced xAI with these words: “The overarching goal of xAI is to build a good AGI with the purpose of trying to understand the universe. I think the safest AI, the safest way to build an AI is actually make one that is maximally curious and truth seeking. So you go for try to aspire to the truth with acknowledged error. Does one ever actually get fully to the truth? It's not clear, but one should always aspire to that and try to minimize the error between what you think is true and what is actually true. My theory behind the maximally curious, maximally truthful as being probably the safest approach is that I think to a superintelligence, humanity is much more interesting than not humanity. One can look at the various planets in our solar system, the moons and the asteroids, and really probably all of them combined are not as interesting as humanity. As people know, I'm a huge fan of Mars, but Mars is just much less interesting than Earth with humans on it. And so I think that that kind of approach to growing an AI, and I think that is the right word for it, growing an AI is to grow it with that ambition. I've spent many years thinking about AI safety and worrying about AI safety. And I've been one of the strongest voices calling for AI regulation or oversight just to have some kind of oversight, some kind of referee, so that it's not just up to companies to decide what they want to do. I think there's also a lot to be done with AI safety, with industry cooperation. I kind of like Motion Pictures association, so I think there's value to that as well. But I do think there's got to be some like in any kind of situation that is, even if it's a game, they have referees. So I think it is important for there to be regulation. Like I said, my view on safety is like try to make it maximally curious, maximally truth seeking. And I think this is, this is important that you to avoid the inverse morality problem. Like if you try to program a certain morality, you can have the, you, you can basically invert it and get the opposite, what is sometimes called the Waluigi problem. If you make Luigi, you risk creating Waluigi at the same time. So I think that's a metaphor that a lot of people can appreciate.”

ELON CLIPS

21,519 görüntüleme • 11 ay önce

“What did you think of Lando being booed at race because people and I've seen it online as well say he doesn't deserve the title because McLaren favored him over his teammate. Do you think that's total nonsense?” Jacques Villeneuve: “That's a little bit ridiculous. When there was some booing in some races, that was embarrassing. You should never boo a driver that's clean, doesn't do anything dirty, on track is respectful, and on top of it is super fast. What's wrong with people? That was embarrassing. And, had it been that Piastri was a second a lap faster than him and somehow Lando was winning because a lot of things were happening, his car breaking down every time, then you could start thinking, okay, that's really not cool. That's not fair. But that wasn't the case. And in the second half, Norris has been faster right at the beginning as well, last year as well. So there's this whole middle of the season where Piastri was driving a lot better than Norris and was getting the points. Norris had an engine blowing up, not Piastri. And so those fans, they don't look at that either. You have to look at the whole picture, at the whole season. And suddenly if your favorite is starting to go backwards, you just got to bite the bullet and accept it. Your favorite is just going backwards. That doesn't mean that the other one is treated better or the other one is undeserving just because the one you're a fan of is not winning right now. That’s really wrong. If you're a fan of the sport, then you have to be a fan of the sport and understand when your driver is maybe not cutting it at this point in time, even though he was before and he will in the future again. It's all a question of timing. But that's the price we have to pay now with social media and how big F1 has become. It's very passionate. The people are passionate and once, you know, fans come from fanatism, you stop thinking, when you get in that mindset and it happens to all of us. You want something so much that you get attached and you cannot - it's hard to start seeing reality. So you will try to mold the reality to your thought process and if your champion is not winning then it cannot be his fault. It has to be something from the outside. It has to be the team destroying his chance or not favoring and so on and so on and so on. But there's nothing concrete behind those comments. It's pure fandom and it'll always be like this. And ultimately it's not a bad thing. You know drivers at that - sportsman at that level have to grow a thick skin. If not, you don't deserve to be there. You just have to have a thick skin because they're all very happy to get the compliments. They love it when it's just positive, but it gets balanced out with negatives and you need to be able to take and accept the negatives as well. It goes both ways. You cannot have the good. You just have to be a thick skin and know that it's part and parcels of what's going on. And in one month, it will be forgotten and maybe everything will change and it be the other driver that suddenly will be criticized and so on. So, it's just that's just the way it is.”
3:10

“What did you think of Lando being booed at race because people and I've seen it online as well say he doesn't deserve the title because McLaren favored him over his teammate. Do you think that's total nonsense?” Jacques Villeneuve: “That's a little bit ridiculous. When there was some booing in some races, that was embarrassing. You should never boo a driver that's clean, doesn't do anything dirty, on track is respectful, and on top of it is super fast. What's wrong with people? That was embarrassing. And, had it been that Piastri was a second a lap faster than him and somehow Lando was winning because a lot of things were happening, his car breaking down every time, then you could start thinking, okay, that's really not cool. That's not fair. But that wasn't the case. And in the second half, Norris has been faster right at the beginning as well, last year as well. So there's this whole middle of the season where Piastri was driving a lot better than Norris and was getting the points. Norris had an engine blowing up, not Piastri. And so those fans, they don't look at that either. You have to look at the whole picture, at the whole season. And suddenly if your favorite is starting to go backwards, you just got to bite the bullet and accept it. Your favorite is just going backwards. That doesn't mean that the other one is treated better or the other one is undeserving just because the one you're a fan of is not winning right now. That’s really wrong. If you're a fan of the sport, then you have to be a fan of the sport and understand when your driver is maybe not cutting it at this point in time, even though he was before and he will in the future again. It's all a question of timing. But that's the price we have to pay now with social media and how big F1 has become. It's very passionate. The people are passionate and once, you know, fans come from fanatism, you stop thinking, when you get in that mindset and it happens to all of us. You want something so much that you get attached and you cannot - it's hard to start seeing reality. So you will try to mold the reality to your thought process and if your champion is not winning then it cannot be his fault. It has to be something from the outside. It has to be the team destroying his chance or not favoring and so on and so on and so on. But there's nothing concrete behind those comments. It's pure fandom and it'll always be like this. And ultimately it's not a bad thing. You know drivers at that - sportsman at that level have to grow a thick skin. If not, you don't deserve to be there. You just have to have a thick skin because they're all very happy to get the compliments. They love it when it's just positive, but it gets balanced out with negatives and you need to be able to take and accept the negatives as well. It goes both ways. You cannot have the good. You just have to be a thick skin and know that it's part and parcels of what's going on. And in one month, it will be forgotten and maybe everything will change and it be the other driver that suddenly will be criticized and so on. So, it's just that's just the way it is.”

naenia ¹ ⁶³

29,833 görüntüleme • 6 ay önce

This is HUGE! Trump just had Stephen Moore in the Oval Office and they went through just how HORRIBLE the BLS data has been. Trump was right to fire the head! "That's a GIGANTIC ERROR, if it was an error, it would one thing. I don't think it's an error. I think they did it purposely."
3:18

This is HUGE! Trump just had Stephen Moore in the Oval Office and they went through just how HORRIBLE the BLS data has been. Trump was right to fire the head! "That's a GIGANTIC ERROR, if it was an error, it would one thing. I don't think it's an error. I think they did it purposely."

Gunther Eagleman™

107,781 görüntüleme • 10 ay önce

Thomas Frank on Mikel Arteta: "I think it's a good example of a club that sticks to the process. I think six years, it's very rare you get that long in football. I also think it's fair to say that it took probably three seasons for Arteta. So the fourth season, that's where he competed, now he's in the seventh season. So he was really, really ready to compete in his fourth season. So he took over, then two full seasons, then the fourth one. So I think that's how you should see it. And then we know the difference between having ultimate success to win something or not is like this, and you need margins. But the process is the most important thing." 🤝
1:14

Thomas Frank on Mikel Arteta: "I think it's a good example of a club that sticks to the process. I think six years, it's very rare you get that long in football. I also think it's fair to say that it took probably three seasons for Arteta. So the fourth season, that's where he competed, now he's in the seventh season. So he was really, really ready to compete in his fourth season. So he took over, then two full seasons, then the fourth one. So I think that's how you should see it. And then we know the difference between having ultimate success to win something or not is like this, and you need margins. But the process is the most important thing." 🤝

Hayters TV

398,472 görüntüleme • 6 ay önce

"Courage is far shorter in supply than genius." - Peter Thiel "One of the challenges in writing a book about entrepreneurship or teaching a class on this is that there is sort of no formula. And I think science always starts with a number two. It starts with experiments you can repeat, things you can do over and over again. But there's sort of a sense in which every moment in the history of business, every moment in the history of technology happens only once. The next Mark Zuckerberg will not be starting a social networking company. The next Larry Page will not start a search engine. The next Bill Gates will not be starting an operating system. And so if you are trying to copy these people, you're in some sense not learning from them. And so I think one of the really big challenges in teaching or writing about entrepreneurship is what can you say about being an entrepreneur at all when the key thing is always to do something new, different, that's not precisely been done before. And so the point of departure I start with in Zero to One is a somewhat indirect approach by asking a series of contrarian questions. The business question is, what great company is nobody starting? The more intellectual version of this question is, tell me something true that very few people agree with you on. And this is a fantastic interview question. It turns out to be quite a hard question, even when people can read on the internet that you ask of everybody who comes in the door, it still is a hard question. It's one of those unusual questions where if you know it's on the test, it's still hard. And it's hard not just because we sort of think that new things require brilliance or something like that, but because it's socially difficult. If I ask you that question, if you tell me something like the education system is screwed up or our political system doesn't work very well, those are true answers, but they're not actually good answers because all of us already know them to be true. The good answers are ones that are somehow uncomfortable that the person interviewing you does not actually want to hear. And I think we live in this world where courage is in far shorter supply than genius. And so it is sort of this, it is in a sense this problem of political correctness properly understood, is this very deep, very, very broad sort of a problem."
2:28

"Courage is far shorter in supply than genius." - Peter Thiel "One of the challenges in writing a book about entrepreneurship or teaching a class on this is that there is sort of no formula. And I think science always starts with a number two. It starts with experiments you can repeat, things you can do over and over again. But there's sort of a sense in which every moment in the history of business, every moment in the history of technology happens only once. The next Mark Zuckerberg will not be starting a social networking company. The next Larry Page will not start a search engine. The next Bill Gates will not be starting an operating system. And so if you are trying to copy these people, you're in some sense not learning from them. And so I think one of the really big challenges in teaching or writing about entrepreneurship is what can you say about being an entrepreneur at all when the key thing is always to do something new, different, that's not precisely been done before. And so the point of departure I start with in Zero to One is a somewhat indirect approach by asking a series of contrarian questions. The business question is, what great company is nobody starting? The more intellectual version of this question is, tell me something true that very few people agree with you on. And this is a fantastic interview question. It turns out to be quite a hard question, even when people can read on the internet that you ask of everybody who comes in the door, it still is a hard question. It's one of those unusual questions where if you know it's on the test, it's still hard. And it's hard not just because we sort of think that new things require brilliance or something like that, but because it's socially difficult. If I ask you that question, if you tell me something like the education system is screwed up or our political system doesn't work very well, those are true answers, but they're not actually good answers because all of us already know them to be true. The good answers are ones that are somehow uncomfortable that the person interviewing you does not actually want to hear. And I think we live in this world where courage is in far shorter supply than genius. And so it is sort of this, it is in a sense this problem of political correctness properly understood, is this very deep, very, very broad sort of a problem."

Founder Mode

12,339 görüntüleme • 4 ay önce

.gorklon rust on what Department of Government Efficiency has found so far: "We do find it sort of rather odd that, you know, there are quite a few -- people in, in the bureaucracy who, who have ostensibly a salary of a few hundred thousand dollars but somehow managed to accrue tens of millions of dollars in net worth while they are in that position, which is, you know, what happened at USAID. We're just curious as to where it came from. Maybe they're very good at investing, in which case we should take their investment advice perhaps, but just -- there seems to be mysteriously, they they get wealthy. We don't know why. Where does it come from? And I think the reality is that they're getting wealthy at taxpayer expense. That's -- that's the -- that's the honest truth of it. So, you know, we're looking at, say, well, we would just -- if you look at, say, say Treasury, for example, basic controls that should be in place that are in place in any company, such as making sure that any given payment has a payment categorization code, that there is a comment field that describes the payment and if the payment is on the do not pay list, that you don't actually pay it. None of those things are true currently, so the reason that departments can't pass audits is because the payments don't have a categorization code. It's like just a massive number of blank checks just flying out the building. So you can't reconcile blank checks. You've got a comment fields that are also blank, so you don't know why the payment was made and then we've got this truly absurd a do not pay list, which can take up to a year for an organization to get on a do no pay list and we're talking about terrorist organizations. We're talking about, known fraudsters, known aspects of waste, known things that do not match any congressional appropriation can take up to a year to get on the list and even once on the list, the list is not used. It's mind blowing. So -- so what we're talking about here, we're really just talking about adding common sense controls that should be present, that that haven't been present. So you say like, well, how could such a thing arise? That's that seems that seems crazy that when you understand that really everything is geared towards complaint minimization, so that -- then you understand the motivations. So, if people receive money, they don't complain, obviously, but if people don't receive money, they do complain and -- and the fraudsters complain the loudest and the fastest. So, then when you understand that, then it makes sense. Oh that's why everything just they approve all the payments at Treasury b/c if you approve all the payments, you don't -- you don't get complaints. But now now we're saying no, no, actually, we're all going to complain if money is spent badly, if -- if your taxpayer dollars are not spent in a sensible and frugal manner, then that's not okay. Your -- your tax dollars need to be spent wisely on the things that matter to the people. I mean, these things like it's just common sense. It's not. It's it's not draconian or radical. I think it's really just saying, let's look at each each of these expenditures and say, is this actually in the best interest of the people? And if it is, it's approved. If it's not, we should think about it."
3:24

.gorklon rust on what Department of Government Efficiency has found so far: "We do find it sort of rather odd that, you know, there are quite a few -- people in, in the bureaucracy who, who have ostensibly a salary of a few hundred thousand dollars but somehow managed to accrue tens of millions of dollars in net worth while they are in that position, which is, you know, what happened at USAID. We're just curious as to where it came from. Maybe they're very good at investing, in which case we should take their investment advice perhaps, but just -- there seems to be mysteriously, they they get wealthy. We don't know why. Where does it come from? And I think the reality is that they're getting wealthy at taxpayer expense. That's -- that's the -- that's the honest truth of it. So, you know, we're looking at, say, well, we would just -- if you look at, say, say Treasury, for example, basic controls that should be in place that are in place in any company, such as making sure that any given payment has a payment categorization code, that there is a comment field that describes the payment and if the payment is on the do not pay list, that you don't actually pay it. None of those things are true currently, so the reason that departments can't pass audits is because the payments don't have a categorization code. It's like just a massive number of blank checks just flying out the building. So you can't reconcile blank checks. You've got a comment fields that are also blank, so you don't know why the payment was made and then we've got this truly absurd a do not pay list, which can take up to a year for an organization to get on a do no pay list and we're talking about terrorist organizations. We're talking about, known fraudsters, known aspects of waste, known things that do not match any congressional appropriation can take up to a year to get on the list and even once on the list, the list is not used. It's mind blowing. So -- so what we're talking about here, we're really just talking about adding common sense controls that should be present, that that haven't been present. So you say like, well, how could such a thing arise? That's that seems that seems crazy that when you understand that really everything is geared towards complaint minimization, so that -- then you understand the motivations. So, if people receive money, they don't complain, obviously, but if people don't receive money, they do complain and -- and the fraudsters complain the loudest and the fastest. So, then when you understand that, then it makes sense. Oh that's why everything just they approve all the payments at Treasury b/c if you approve all the payments, you don't -- you don't get complaints. But now now we're saying no, no, actually, we're all going to complain if money is spent badly, if -- if your taxpayer dollars are not spent in a sensible and frugal manner, then that's not okay. Your -- your tax dollars need to be spent wisely on the things that matter to the people. I mean, these things like it's just common sense. It's not. It's it's not draconian or radical. I think it's really just saying, let's look at each each of these expenditures and say, is this actually in the best interest of the people? And if it is, it's approved. If it's not, we should think about it."

Curtis Houck

14,545 görüntüleme • 1 yıl önce

Justin Thomas was asked about his group getting put on the clock: "We just didn't really agree with it. ... The hard part to me with the whole pace of play thing is that you, there's so much that goes into golf and there's so much that goes into hole to hole in terms of, are you hitting it close, are you able to tap it in, or you have to mark it, stuff like that, to where, are you holding the group up or are you not, to where it's very hard to make that call. And we just didn't agree with it, to be honest. "But we got taken off, and a hole later we were caught up. So it kind of goes to our point of why we didn't think we should of, but it is what it is. It's a part of it."
1:15

Justin Thomas was asked about his group getting put on the clock: "We just didn't really agree with it. ... The hard part to me with the whole pace of play thing is that you, there's so much that goes into golf and there's so much that goes into hole to hole in terms of, are you hitting it close, are you able to tap it in, or you have to mark it, stuff like that, to where, are you holding the group up or are you not, to where it's very hard to make that call. And we just didn't agree with it, to be honest. "But we got taken off, and a hole later we were caught up. So it kind of goes to our point of why we didn't think we should of, but it is what it is. It's a part of it."

Cameron Jourdan

619,177 görüntüleme • 1 ay önce

🚨 Elon Musk on Grok 3.5: "With Grok 3.5, that is about to be released, it's trying to reason from first principles. The focus of Grok 3.5 is to find the fundamentals of physics and applying physics tools across all lines of reasoning and to aspire to truth with minimal error. So apply kind of the tools of physics to thinking, and you know physics, if you violate conservation of energy or momentum, then you're either going to get a Nobel Prize, or you're wrong. We aim to get to truth with acknowledged error, but minimize that error over time. And I think that's actually extremely important for AI safety. So I've put a lot for a long time about AI safety, and conclusion is the old maxim that honesty is the best policy."
1:23

🚨 Elon Musk on Grok 3.5: "With Grok 3.5, that is about to be released, it's trying to reason from first principles. The focus of Grok 3.5 is to find the fundamentals of physics and applying physics tools across all lines of reasoning and to aspire to truth with minimal error. So apply kind of the tools of physics to thinking, and you know physics, if you violate conservation of energy or momentum, then you're either going to get a Nobel Prize, or you're wrong. We aim to get to truth with acknowledged error, but minimize that error over time. And I think that's actually extremely important for AI safety. So I've put a lot for a long time about AI safety, and conclusion is the old maxim that honesty is the best policy."

DogeDesigner

83,775 görüntüleme • 1 yıl önce

🚨 Elon Musk on Grok 3.5: "With Grok 3.5, that is about to be released, it's trying to reason from first principles. The focus of Grok 3.5 is to find the fundamentals of physics and applying physics tools across all lines of reasoning and to aspire to truth with minimal error. So apply kind of the tools of physics to thinking, and you know physics, if you violate conservation of energy or momentum, then you're either going to get a Nobel Prize, or you're wrong. We aim to get to truth with acknowledged error, but minimize that error over time. And I think that's actually extremely important for AI safety. So I've put a lot for a long time about AI safety, and conclusion is the old maxim that honesty is the best policy."
1:23

🚨 Elon Musk on Grok 3.5: "With Grok 3.5, that is about to be released, it's trying to reason from first principles. The focus of Grok 3.5 is to find the fundamentals of physics and applying physics tools across all lines of reasoning and to aspire to truth with minimal error. So apply kind of the tools of physics to thinking, and you know physics, if you violate conservation of energy or momentum, then you're either going to get a Nobel Prize, or you're wrong. We aim to get to truth with acknowledged error, but minimize that error over time. And I think that's actually extremely important for AI safety. So I've put a lot for a long time about AI safety, and conclusion is the old maxim that honesty is the best policy."

DogeDesigner

199,099 görüntüleme • 1 yıl önce

EVERYONE needs to be aware how SIGNIFICANT the Wisconsin Supreme Court election is This election decides who controls The House of Representatives and Voter ID Elon Musk “The single biggest challenge, I think is actually just making people aware that there is this very important election. There's both the very important election for Judge Schimel as well as the deciding on, on adding voter ID to the Wisconsin Constitution institution, which is very, very important. So it's quite shocking ,you can sort of tell where voter fraud is happening, where they ban id, you know, like why would you ban, ID like in New York and California, it's like illegal to show idea at an election. Well, why would, I can't imagine why that would be the case…. So, two really important things is to ensure judicial integrity on Tuesday and then the voter ID thing It's April Fool's Day. So I think most people aren't aware, like I said, most people aren't aware that there is this important election, but there most people don't even know that there's an election at all. Or if they do, they aren't sure exactly when and where it is. — They don't realize just how important it is. They think it, it's, well it's just, you know, some kind of judicial thing that's not that important. But it actually, what they're doing, what's happening on Tuesday is a vote for the, the which party controls the U.S house of House of Representatives. That is why it is so, so significant and whichever party controls the house, to a significant degree controls the country, which then steers the course of Western civilization. So it's like, I feel like this is one of those things that, that may not seem that it's gonna affect the entire destiny of humanity, — it's a super, it's a super big deal. The fact that I'm here in person, like I'm not phoning it in. I'm here in person”
2:25

EVERYONE needs to be aware how SIGNIFICANT the Wisconsin Supreme Court election is This election decides who controls The House of Representatives and Voter ID Elon Musk “The single biggest challenge, I think is actually just making people aware that there is this very important election. There's both the very important election for Judge Schimel as well as the deciding on, on adding voter ID to the Wisconsin Constitution institution, which is very, very important. So it's quite shocking ,you can sort of tell where voter fraud is happening, where they ban id, you know, like why would you ban, ID like in New York and California, it's like illegal to show idea at an election. Well, why would, I can't imagine why that would be the case…. So, two really important things is to ensure judicial integrity on Tuesday and then the voter ID thing It's April Fool's Day. So I think most people aren't aware, like I said, most people aren't aware that there is this important election, but there most people don't even know that there's an election at all. Or if they do, they aren't sure exactly when and where it is. — They don't realize just how important it is. They think it, it's, well it's just, you know, some kind of judicial thing that's not that important. But it actually, what they're doing, what's happening on Tuesday is a vote for the, the which party controls the U.S house of House of Representatives. That is why it is so, so significant and whichever party controls the house, to a significant degree controls the country, which then steers the course of Western civilization. So it's like, I feel like this is one of those things that, that may not seem that it's gonna affect the entire destiny of humanity, — it's a super, it's a super big deal. The fact that I'm here in person, like I'm not phoning it in. I'm here in person”

Wall Street Apes

51,269 görüntüleme • 1 yıl önce

🚨WEIRD PLAY ALERT🚨 This is from tonight's Atlanta Braves at Miami Marlins game. This was originally scored a triple and an error, and almost immediately changed to an error on the right fielder and a throwing error on the center fielder. The original error on the rright fielder was for colliding with the center fielder as it looked like he had the ball. However, this was changed back to a triple and an error, as you have both fielders on a dead sprint back into right center. While yes, it might be a catch, the catch itself, and the play, is well above ordinary effort. The collision error isn't for this type of play, but a play where a fielder is situated where he can field the ball with ordinary effort and gets run into, with the ball getting knocked out, so this was changed after a review after the game but before stats were posted.
0:24

🚨WEIRD PLAY ALERT🚨 This is from tonight's Atlanta Braves at Miami Marlins game. This was originally scored a triple and an error, and almost immediately changed to an error on the right fielder and a throwing error on the center fielder. The original error on the rright fielder was for colliding with the center fielder as it looked like he had the ball. However, this was changed back to a triple and an error, as you have both fielders on a dead sprint back into right center. While yes, it might be a catch, the catch itself, and the play, is well above ordinary effort. The collision error isn't for this type of play, but a play where a fielder is situated where he can field the ball with ordinary effort and gets run into, with the ball getting knocked out, so this was changed after a review after the game but before stats were posted.

MLB Scoring Changes

10,917 görüntüleme • 28 gün önce

Dr. Sabine Hazan: "I tested 26 yogurts at Whole Foods and Ralph's and all the shopping centers to see if they had Bifidobacteria. And out of the 26, only three had Bifidobacteria. So, you know, I'm a skeptic. I tested 16 probiotic 17 probiotics on the market. 16 of them didn't have Bifidobacteria." "How could they say Bifidobacteria and not have Bifidobacteria in there? So there was the the labels are are misleading the consumer. There's a lack even organic. You know organic is a trademark, and it's a brand as well. And organic itself, if you think about it, everybody puts organic. Does but is it really organic?" "I mean, the farm there's a farm that will remain nameless that says organic, but they spray at 05:00 in the morning. That's not necessarily organic if you're spraying pesticides. So, you know, there's a there's a lot out there, and you have to be a wise consumer. You have to be a detective to survive. You have to do the right thing, and to me, that's what it's all about."
1:12

Dr. Sabine Hazan: "I tested 26 yogurts at Whole Foods and Ralph's and all the shopping centers to see if they had Bifidobacteria. And out of the 26, only three had Bifidobacteria. So, you know, I'm a skeptic. I tested 16 probiotic 17 probiotics on the market. 16 of them didn't have Bifidobacteria." "How could they say Bifidobacteria and not have Bifidobacteria in there? So there was the the labels are are misleading the consumer. There's a lack even organic. You know organic is a trademark, and it's a brand as well. And organic itself, if you think about it, everybody puts organic. Does but is it really organic?" "I mean, the farm there's a farm that will remain nameless that says organic, but they spray at 05:00 in the morning. That's not necessarily organic if you're spraying pesticides. So, you know, there's a there's a lot out there, and you have to be a wise consumer. You have to be a detective to survive. You have to do the right thing, and to me, that's what it's all about."

Camus

192,788 görüntüleme • 1 yıl önce

Here is the play in question by Ryan, and as much as this is obvious that the catcher didn't secure this ... the rule in place for scorers is if a thorw BOUNCES, it is a throwing error. I do not like applying this in this type of instance on a throw from the outfield, but right now that's how the rule reads. Only the committee can change it on appeal, and they would have to do that against the writter rule (to the consternation of those in charge I'm certain). But letter of the law ... the throwing error is correct.
0:26

Here is the play in question by Ryan, and as much as this is obvious that the catcher didn't secure this ... the rule in place for scorers is if a thorw BOUNCES, it is a throwing error. I do not like applying this in this type of instance on a throw from the outfield, but right now that's how the rule reads. Only the committee can change it on appeal, and they would have to do that against the writter rule (to the consternation of those in charge I'm certain). But letter of the law ... the throwing error is correct.

MLB Scoring Changes

232,327 görüntüleme • 11 ay önce

Dr. Joseph Mercola: "You never wanna sleep with your cell phone on in your bedroom and on your nightstand. That's about one of the worst things you can do because you have to have really low in fact, I developed a tent. It's called the EMF shield that you can go in. And I sleep even though I have a very low EMF environment because I have got put shield in rooms and everything, I still sleep sleep in my tent every night. So there's almost no radiation in that tent." "It's a relatively inexpensive way to get a simple thing because so you you but so turn your cell phone off or in airplane mode. Only use it when you need to. And then when you go to sleep, the other source is in your house. It's it's not the cell phone towers outside. It's the cell phone tower inside your house, which is the Wi-Fi." "I don't have Wi Fi right at my house. I use an alternative called Ethernet cables. I've been a tech passionate about tech for over fifty years. In 1968, I took my first computer programming class. And I, and one of the other books I'm writing the sugar cure, but I'm also writing another book called The Tyranny of Convenience, which is the updated of of EMF." "Because what you're doing people are exchanging convenience for their health. That's what they're doing. Because it's easy. The Wi Fi is so simple, so convenient. But Wi Fi is everywhere. Everywhere you go. And the bigger cities you are, the worse it is. Yeah. I mean, Wi-Fi more dense. I mean, there's lots of people who consider themselves, you know, progressive and lefties, and they wanna make Wi-Fi, free for a whole city." "And so the whole city would be covered by Wi-Fi, and you're saying this is not good. It's one it's a prescription for disaster, unmedicated disaster. Now unless they modify and modulate the signal in some way so it doesn't cause biological damage, right now it is. Quite significant. It's not acute. It's it's chronic exposure. Just like smoking doesn't kill you in a day or a month. It takes long term exposure to do it."
2:10

Dr. Joseph Mercola: "You never wanna sleep with your cell phone on in your bedroom and on your nightstand. That's about one of the worst things you can do because you have to have really low in fact, I developed a tent. It's called the EMF shield that you can go in. And I sleep even though I have a very low EMF environment because I have got put shield in rooms and everything, I still sleep sleep in my tent every night. So there's almost no radiation in that tent." "It's a relatively inexpensive way to get a simple thing because so you you but so turn your cell phone off or in airplane mode. Only use it when you need to. And then when you go to sleep, the other source is in your house. It's it's not the cell phone towers outside. It's the cell phone tower inside your house, which is the Wi-Fi." "I don't have Wi Fi right at my house. I use an alternative called Ethernet cables. I've been a tech passionate about tech for over fifty years. In 1968, I took my first computer programming class. And I, and one of the other books I'm writing the sugar cure, but I'm also writing another book called The Tyranny of Convenience, which is the updated of of EMF." "Because what you're doing people are exchanging convenience for their health. That's what they're doing. Because it's easy. The Wi Fi is so simple, so convenient. But Wi Fi is everywhere. Everywhere you go. And the bigger cities you are, the worse it is. Yeah. I mean, Wi-Fi more dense. I mean, there's lots of people who consider themselves, you know, progressive and lefties, and they wanna make Wi-Fi, free for a whole city." "And so the whole city would be covered by Wi-Fi, and you're saying this is not good. It's one it's a prescription for disaster, unmedicated disaster. Now unless they modify and modulate the signal in some way so it doesn't cause biological damage, right now it is. Quite significant. It's not acute. It's it's chronic exposure. Just like smoking doesn't kill you in a day or a month. It takes long term exposure to do it."

Camus

60,175 görüntüleme • 1 yıl önce

.Rob Miles is spitting fire: “People are starting from a prior in which ‘[AIs] are safe until you give me an airtight case for why they're dangerous.’ This framing is exhausting. You explain one of the 10,000 ways that AIs could be dangerous, then they explain why they don't think that specific thing would happen. Then you have to change tack, and then they say, 'your story keeps changing'... "If you're building an AGI, it's like building a Saturn V rocket [but with every human on it]. It's a complex, difficult engineering task, and you're going to try and make it aligned, which means it's going to deliver people to the moon and home again. People ask “why assume they won't just land on the Moon and return home safely?" And I'm like, because you don't know what you're doing! If you try to send people to the moon and you don't know what you're doing, your astronauts will die. [Unlike the telephone, or electricity, where you can assume it’s probably going to work out okay] I contend that ASI is more like the moon rocket. "The moon is small compared with the rest of the sky, so you don't get to the moon by default - you hit some part of the sky that isn't the moon. So, show me the plan by which you predict to specifically hit the moon." And then people say, “how do you predict that [AIs] will want bad things?” There's more bad things than good things! It's not actually a complicated argument... I'm not going to predict specifically where it off into random space your astronauts are going, but you're not going to hit the moon unless you have a really good, technically clear plan for how you do it. And if you ask these people for their plan, they don't have one. What's Yann Lecun’s plan?” "I think that if you're building an enormously powerful technology and you have a lot of uncertainty about what's going to happen, this is bad. Like, this is default unsafe. If you've got something that's going to do enormously influential things in the world, and you don't know what enormously influential things it's going to do, this thing is unsafe until you can convince me that it's safe." HOST: “That’s a good way of thinking about it - with some technologies you can assume that the default will be good or at least neutral, or that the capacity of a person to use this in a very bad way is bounded somehow. There's just only so many people you could electrocute one by one."
5:30

.Rob Miles is spitting fire: “People are starting from a prior in which ‘[AIs] are safe until you give me an airtight case for why they're dangerous.’ This framing is exhausting. You explain one of the 10,000 ways that AIs could be dangerous, then they explain why they don't think that specific thing would happen. Then you have to change tack, and then they say, 'your story keeps changing'... "If you're building an AGI, it's like building a Saturn V rocket [but with every human on it]. It's a complex, difficult engineering task, and you're going to try and make it aligned, which means it's going to deliver people to the moon and home again. People ask “why assume they won't just land on the Moon and return home safely?" And I'm like, because you don't know what you're doing! If you try to send people to the moon and you don't know what you're doing, your astronauts will die. [Unlike the telephone, or electricity, where you can assume it’s probably going to work out okay] I contend that ASI is more like the moon rocket. "The moon is small compared with the rest of the sky, so you don't get to the moon by default - you hit some part of the sky that isn't the moon. So, show me the plan by which you predict to specifically hit the moon." And then people say, “how do you predict that [AIs] will want bad things?” There's more bad things than good things! It's not actually a complicated argument... I'm not going to predict specifically where it off into random space your astronauts are going, but you're not going to hit the moon unless you have a really good, technically clear plan for how you do it. And if you ask these people for their plan, they don't have one. What's Yann Lecun’s plan?” "I think that if you're building an enormously powerful technology and you have a lot of uncertainty about what's going to happen, this is bad. Like, this is default unsafe. If you've got something that's going to do enormously influential things in the world, and you don't know what enormously influential things it's going to do, this thing is unsafe until you can convince me that it's safe." HOST: “That’s a good way of thinking about it - with some technologies you can assume that the default will be good or at least neutral, or that the capacity of a person to use this in a very bad way is bounded somehow. There's just only so many people you could electrocute one by one."

AI Notkilleveryoneism Memes ⏸️

77,349 görüntüleme • 2 yıl önce

Chamath: “The Palantir short is stupid.” “The Palantir short is stupid, and I think that those people will lose money.” “The thing that the people that are shorting this company don't understand is that all of these other businesses that you put up there, there is a viable competitor of some kind that you can switch to.” “Look at the one with the lowest multiple to sales, MongoDB. There's 90 versions of what MongoDB does.” “I'm not gonna say whether MongoDB is good or bad. It’s actually a good company. It's an extremely well run business, but it's not unique. It's just extremely well run.” “Snowflake is not unique, but it is well run.” “Palantir is both unique and well run, and there's no clear alternative, so there's no place to churn to.” “And so I think the reason why it has a premium valuation is because the duration and the durability of these cash flows are much longer than what you would typically see in any of these other companies.” “And if people took 1/1000th of a second to actually use their brain, they'd come to that conclusion.”
0:54

Chamath: “The Palantir short is stupid.” “The Palantir short is stupid, and I think that those people will lose money.” “The thing that the people that are shorting this company don't understand is that all of these other businesses that you put up there, there is a viable competitor of some kind that you can switch to.” “Look at the one with the lowest multiple to sales, MongoDB. There's 90 versions of what MongoDB does.” “I'm not gonna say whether MongoDB is good or bad. It’s actually a good company. It's an extremely well run business, but it's not unique. It's just extremely well run.” “Snowflake is not unique, but it is well run.” “Palantir is both unique and well run, and there's no clear alternative, so there's no place to churn to.” “And so I think the reason why it has a premium valuation is because the duration and the durability of these cash flows are much longer than what you would typically see in any of these other companies.” “And if people took 1/1000th of a second to actually use their brain, they'd come to that conclusion.”

The All-In Podcast

281,854 görüntüleme • 7 ay önce

Elon Musk on the physics of truth: “Truth is not an easy thing But you can aspire to the truth. You can try to get as close to the truth as possible with minimum error while acknowledging that there will be some error in what you’re saying This is how physics works. You don’t say you’re absolutely certain about something, but a lot of things are extremely likely Aspiring to the truth is very important”
0:22

Elon Musk on the physics of truth: “Truth is not an easy thing But you can aspire to the truth. You can try to get as close to the truth as possible with minimum error while acknowledging that there will be some error in what you’re saying This is how physics works. You don’t say you’re absolutely certain about something, but a lot of things are extremely likely Aspiring to the truth is very important”

X Freeze

794,963 görüntüleme • 19 gün önce