Video wird geladen...

Video konnte nicht geladen werden

Beim Laden dieses Videos ist ein Problem aufgetreten. Dies könnte an einem vorübergehenden Netzwerkproblem liegen oder das Video ist möglicherweise nicht verfügbar.

"Throw your best stuff more" is a good starting point. Stuff models can be useful. But there was a trend in recent years among some orgs to completely move away from letting pitchers throw specific pitches if they didn't grade well. My counterpoint is that these models may not... fully account for the interactions of different pitch types. An average shape may stabilize the arsenal as a whole - especially if used in the right spots/sequences and with excellent execution. Will Vest is a good example here. Would a 0" VB, 20" HB sinker be cool? Sure. Has an 11" VB, 14" HB sinker executed in on the hands to righties still served a purpose since he added it to the arsenal. Absolutely. Some other orgs would have nixed this idea before letting it play out - living or dying by how their model says that pitch should perform. I've seen variations of all of the following: "Don't ever throw the sinker, it grades worse than your FB." "Don't ever throw that gyro, it grades worse than your sweeper." "Don't ever throw that fourseam, it grades worse than your sinker." The nuance matters here, and it isn't a binary answer. Who might that pitch be useful against? What situations warrant throwing it? When should it be used within a sequence? Where should it be thrown? When in doubt, let it play out on the field, starting with small sample sizes. See how hitters actually respond. Don't let the model - and the model alone (with all its baked-in assumptions) - dictate your entire approach.show more

Ben Brewster

74,671 subscribers

14,261 Aufrufe • vor 4 Monaten •via X (Twitter)

Anya Rossi• Live Now

Private livecam show

0 Kommentare

Keine Kommentare verfügbar

Kommentare vom Original-Post werden hier angezeigt

Ähnliche Videos

Elon Musk: "There will not be any meaningful elections in the future All of America will be 'Californicated' and not in a good way It will actually be worse than California The one thing that holds California back from being even worse than it is, is that people can move out of California and still be in America What happens when there’s no place to move? It’ll be way worse than California"

Elon Musk: "There will not be any meaningful elections in the future All of America will be 'Californicated' and not in a good way It will actually be worse than California The one thing that holds California back from being even worse than it is, is that people can move out of California and still be in America What happens when there’s no place to move? It’ll be way worse than California"

X Freeze

575,650 Aufrufe • vor 6 Monaten

Elon Musk: "All of America will be Californicated. Not in a good way… It will actually be worse than California." "The one thing that holds California back from being even worse than it is, is that people can move out of California and still be in America. What happens when there's no place to move?"

Elon Musk: "All of America will be Californicated. Not in a good way… It will actually be worse than California." "The one thing that holds California back from being even worse than it is, is that people can move out of California and still be in America. What happens when there's no place to move?"

Resist the Mainstream

87,868 Aufrufe • vor 1 Monat

JUST IN: Donald Trump says "Mother Teresa could not beat" the charges he is facing in New York, slams the judge for working as an asset for the Democrat Party. "The judge is so conflicted he can't breathe." "This judge contributed to Joe Biden and far worse than that. But I'm not allowed to talk about it 'cause I have a gag order." "Far worse than that by a thousand times worse than that, the worst I've ever heard. But I can't talk about it." "It'll be talked about in the history books. What's happening here is weaponization at a level that nobody's seen before, ever. And it should be allowed to happen."

JUST IN: Donald Trump says "Mother Teresa could not beat" the charges he is facing in New York, slams the judge for working as an asset for the Democrat Party. "The judge is so conflicted he can't breathe." "This judge contributed to Joe Biden and far worse than that. But I'm not allowed to talk about it 'cause I have a gag order." "Far worse than that by a thousand times worse than that, the worst I've ever heard. But I can't talk about it." "It'll be talked about in the history books. What's happening here is weaponization at a level that nobody's seen before, ever. And it should be allowed to happen."

Collin Rugg

2,597,229 Aufrufe • vor 2 Jahren

Jordan Peterson: "If you can't fix your room, you can't fix your life" "Why should you even bother improving yourself? The answer is something like: so you don't suffer anymore stupidly than you have to. And maybe so others don't have to either. It's not some casual self-help doctrine. If you don't organize yourself properly, you'll pay for it. In a big way. And so will the people around you." Peterson continues: "You can say, 'Well, I don't care about that.' But that's actually not true, you do care about it. Because if you're in pain, you will care about it. It's very rare that you can find someone in excruciating pain who would say, 'Well, it would be no better if I was out of this.' Pain brings the idea that it would be better if it didn't exist along with it. It's incontrovertible." On how to start: "Look around for something that bothers you and see if you can fix it. You can do this in a room. Sit in your bedroom and think: 'If I wanted to spend ten minutes making this room better, what would I have to do?' You have to ask yourself that, it's a genuine question. And things will pop out. There's a stack of papers bugging you. Some rubbish behind your computer monitor you haven't attended to for six months. Cables tangled up." He explains why this matters: "If you were coming to see me for psychotherapy, the easiest thing would be to get you to organize your room. You think, is that psychotherapy? It depends on how you conceive the limits of your being. Start where you can start. If something announces itself as in need of repair that you could repair, fix it. Fix a hundred things like that, your life will be a lot different." On fixing what you repeat every day: "People tend to think of their daily routines as trivial. You get up, brush your teeth, have breakfast. Those probably constitute 50% of your life. People think, they're mundane, I don't need to pay attention to them. No, that's exactly wrong. The things you do every day are the most important things you do. Hands down. Just do the arithmetic." On staying within your competence: "Sometimes you don't know how to fix something. Imagine you're walking down the street and there's a guy who's alcoholic and schizophrenic and has been homeless for ten years. That's a problem. It would be good if you could fix it, but you haven't got a clue. You walk around that and go find something you could fix. Just because something announces itself as in need of repair doesn't mean it's you, right then and there, who should repair it. You have to have some humility. You don't walk up to a helicopter that isn't working and just start tinkering away." Peterson shares the key insight: "As soon as you give your mind a genuine aim, it'll reconfigure the world in keeping with that aim. That's actually how you see to begin with. You've all seen the video where you watch basketballs being tossed back and forth, and while you're doing that, a gorilla walks into the middle of the video and you don't see it. If you thought about that experiment for five years, that would be about the right amount of time to spend thinking about it." He explains what it reveals: "What it shows you is that you see what you aim at. If you can get one thing through your head, that would be a good one. You see what you aim at. One inference you might draw from that is: be careful what you aim at. What you aim at determines the way the world manifests itself to you. So if the world is manifesting itself in a very negative way, one thing to ask is: are you aiming at the right thing?"

Jordan Peterson: "If you can't fix your room, you can't fix your life" "Why should you even bother improving yourself? The answer is something like: so you don't suffer anymore stupidly than you have to. And maybe so others don't have to either. It's not some casual self-help doctrine. If you don't organize yourself properly, you'll pay for it. In a big way. And so will the people around you." Peterson continues: "You can say, 'Well, I don't care about that.' But that's actually not true, you do care about it. Because if you're in pain, you will care about it. It's very rare that you can find someone in excruciating pain who would say, 'Well, it would be no better if I was out of this.' Pain brings the idea that it would be better if it didn't exist along with it. It's incontrovertible." On how to start: "Look around for something that bothers you and see if you can fix it. You can do this in a room. Sit in your bedroom and think: 'If I wanted to spend ten minutes making this room better, what would I have to do?' You have to ask yourself that, it's a genuine question. And things will pop out. There's a stack of papers bugging you. Some rubbish behind your computer monitor you haven't attended to for six months. Cables tangled up." He explains why this matters: "If you were coming to see me for psychotherapy, the easiest thing would be to get you to organize your room. You think, is that psychotherapy? It depends on how you conceive the limits of your being. Start where you can start. If something announces itself as in need of repair that you could repair, fix it. Fix a hundred things like that, your life will be a lot different." On fixing what you repeat every day: "People tend to think of their daily routines as trivial. You get up, brush your teeth, have breakfast. Those probably constitute 50% of your life. People think, they're mundane, I don't need to pay attention to them. No, that's exactly wrong. The things you do every day are the most important things you do. Hands down. Just do the arithmetic." On staying within your competence: "Sometimes you don't know how to fix something. Imagine you're walking down the street and there's a guy who's alcoholic and schizophrenic and has been homeless for ten years. That's a problem. It would be good if you could fix it, but you haven't got a clue. You walk around that and go find something you could fix. Just because something announces itself as in need of repair doesn't mean it's you, right then and there, who should repair it. You have to have some humility. You don't walk up to a helicopter that isn't working and just start tinkering away." Peterson shares the key insight: "As soon as you give your mind a genuine aim, it'll reconfigure the world in keeping with that aim. That's actually how you see to begin with. You've all seen the video where you watch basketballs being tossed back and forth, and while you're doing that, a gorilla walks into the middle of the video and you don't see it. If you thought about that experiment for five years, that would be about the right amount of time to spend thinking about it." He explains what it reveals: "What it shows you is that you see what you aim at. If you can get one thing through your head, that would be a good one. You see what you aim at. One inference you might draw from that is: be careful what you aim at. What you aim at determines the way the world manifests itself to you. So if the world is manifesting itself in a very negative way, one thing to ask is: are you aiming at the right thing?"

Jaynit

68,799 Aufrufe • vor 3 Monaten

Corporations that are purely AI and robotics will vastly outperform any corporations that have people in the loop You can think of it like how 'computer' used to be a job that humans had. You would go and get a job as a computer where you would do calculations. They had entire skyscrapers full of humans....20, 30 floors of humans...just doing calculations. Now, that entire skyscraper of humans doing calculations can be replaced by a laptop with a spreadsheet. That spreadsheet can do vastly more calculations than an entire building full of human computers So, you think about it: what if only some of the cells in your spreadsheet were calculated by humans? That would be much worse than if all of the cells in your spreadsheet were calculated by the computer. And so, really what will happen is the pure AI, pure robotics corporations or collectives will far outperform any corporations that have humans in the loop. It will happen very quickly

Corporations that are purely AI and robotics will vastly outperform any corporations that have people in the loop You can think of it like how 'computer' used to be a job that humans had. You would go and get a job as a computer where you would do calculations. They had entire skyscrapers full of humans....20, 30 floors of humans...just doing calculations. Now, that entire skyscraper of humans doing calculations can be replaced by a laptop with a spreadsheet. That spreadsheet can do vastly more calculations than an entire building full of human computers So, you think about it: what if only some of the cells in your spreadsheet were calculated by humans? That would be much worse than if all of the cells in your spreadsheet were calculated by the computer. And so, really what will happen is the pure AI, pure robotics corporations or collectives will far outperform any corporations that have humans in the loop. It will happen very quickly

X Freeze

16,843,827 Aufrufe • vor 6 Monaten

Brett Favre once explained his practice mentality in one sentence: “As far back as I can remember, when I went out to practice, every throw that I made, I wanted it to be the best throw you’ve ever seen.” That is not a casual practice mindset. That is a standard. Favre did not become one of the greats because every throw was perfect. He became one of the greats because every throw mattered to him. Practice was not just a place to get through the script, warm up the arm, or wait for Sunday. It was where he trained his intent, his confidence, and his competitive identity. Quarterbacks reveal themselves in practice. Ball carriage discipline, base integrity, stride control, repeatable stroke, and accuracy all show up before the ball is ever judged by the result. When a quarterback treats every rep like evidence, the room feels it. The receivers feel it. The coaches feel it. That level of determination compounds. Greatness is rarely built in the highlight. It is usually built on a Tuesday, during a routine throw, when nobody in the stands is watching and the quarterback still demands the ball leave his hand with purpose.

Brett Favre once explained his practice mentality in one sentence: “As far back as I can remember, when I went out to practice, every throw that I made, I wanted it to be the best throw you’ve ever seen.” That is not a casual practice mindset. That is a standard. Favre did not become one of the greats because every throw was perfect. He became one of the greats because every throw mattered to him. Practice was not just a place to get through the script, warm up the arm, or wait for Sunday. It was where he trained his intent, his confidence, and his competitive identity. Quarterbacks reveal themselves in practice. Ball carriage discipline, base integrity, stride control, repeatable stroke, and accuracy all show up before the ball is ever judged by the result. When a quarterback treats every rep like evidence, the room feels it. The receivers feel it. The coaches feel it. That level of determination compounds. Greatness is rarely built in the highlight. It is usually built on a Tuesday, during a routine throw, when nobody in the stands is watching and the quarterback still demands the ball leave his hand with purpose.

Nate Longshore

104,203 Aufrufe • vor 3 Monaten

Sriram Krishnan reveals why it's easier to defend American code with a Chinese model than an American one right now: "I don't think it is great that the leading open weight models or open source models are not American. There's some great innovation happening with Moonshot and with DeepSeek and with Qwen, but I would much rather prefer that the leading models are American." "Linus Torvalds of Linux fame had a law that given enough eyes, all bugs are shallow. Open weight models are inherently secure because when you download a model off Hugging Face, the entire world can take it apart, inspect it, fine-tune it, look at it in ways that you absolutely cannot if they are closed." "There was an incident with Hugging Face that got reported on earlier today. Hugging Face seems to have found that somebody was using an AI LLM agent to hammer them at multiple places and to find ways to break in." "The way to counter that is to make sure American or Western or allies defenders have access to the best models to make our software just more secure." "It may be harder to look at your own code for exploits with Fable than it is when you use a Chinese model. That's just like a weird spot to be, and I think we should fix that." Sriram Krishnan

Sriram Krishnan reveals why it's easier to defend American code with a Chinese model than an American one right now: "I don't think it is great that the leading open weight models or open source models are not American. There's some great innovation happening with Moonshot and with DeepSeek and with Qwen, but I would much rather prefer that the leading models are American." "Linus Torvalds of Linux fame had a law that given enough eyes, all bugs are shallow. Open weight models are inherently secure because when you download a model off Hugging Face, the entire world can take it apart, inspect it, fine-tune it, look at it in ways that you absolutely cannot if they are closed." "There was an incident with Hugging Face that got reported on earlier today. Hugging Face seems to have found that somebody was using an AI LLM agent to hammer them at multiple places and to find ways to break in." "The way to counter that is to make sure American or Western or allies defenders have access to the best models to make our software just more secure." "It may be harder to look at your own code for exploits with Fable than it is when you use a Chinese model. That's just like a weird spot to be, and I think we should fix that." Sriram Krishnan

MTS

61,234 Aufrufe • vor 23 Tagen

Video showcasing the new updated intervention screen. Again I love the idea, but I really do not think this is the way to capture data from people. It’s just too intrusive and will throw people off. Some ideas: - It needs to be a smaller window that you can press to expand (and see the intervention reasons) - It should go away on its own after x seconds - something related to destination parking would be a good option? - voice note should just be one of the options in the list rather than an entire separate pop up - the mockup that ΛI DRIVR showed would be the absolute best way to handle this. You can observe all of your disengagements at the end of your drive and then you can go through and take the time to tag it all properly. As it is now I would guess 75% of people are just going to hit an option at random to dismiss the popup. Tesla AI Ashok Elluswamy

Video showcasing the new updated intervention screen. Again I love the idea, but I really do not think this is the way to capture data from people. It’s just too intrusive and will throw people off. Some ideas: - It needs to be a smaller window that you can press to expand (and see the intervention reasons) - It should go away on its own after x seconds - something related to destination parking would be a good option? - voice note should just be one of the options in the list rather than an entire separate pop up - the mockup that ΛI DRIVR showed would be the absolute best way to handle this. You can observe all of your disengagements at the end of your drive and then you can go through and take the time to tag it all properly. As it is now I would guess 75% of people are just going to hit an option at random to dismiss the popup. Tesla AI Ashok Elluswamy

Devin Olsen

11,310 Aufrufe • vor 3 Monaten

Rick Rubin: "Make what you love, not what you think people will like" "If you want to live in a creative way, which will benefit everything in your life, be a better person in your family, do a better job starting a new business, it's all the same. I don't really know anything about music. It's more a way of looking at the world and wanting it to be the best it could possibly be. And doing whatever it takes to be the best it could possibly be." Rubin shares how his career happened: "From the beginning, I never thought any of the things I'm doing were possible or realistic. I just did things out of the love of them, thinking I would have real jobs. That my passion would be my hobby, and I'd have a job to support my hobby. And it just magically turned out different than that without me knowing it was possible." On why some things connect and others don't: "The stars line up at certain times for certain things to happen. Sometimes you can make something great, and it doesn't connect for whatever reason. Sometimes you make two things you think are the two best things you've ever made. One of them connects with the world. One of them doesn't. And it might not have anything to do with what's in the art. It might be that it came out the same day as something else. Or there was a bigger story at the time. There's so much to it that we don't understand." He continues: "All we can do is make something good and put it out and hope for the best. That's all there is. We never know why things work. Even if you make a piece of art and it works, you may not know why." On talent versus work ethic: "There are a lot of talented people who never make it because they don't have the work ethic. It's not just talent, talent's a piece. And you could argue for some people, the work ethic trumps the talent." Rubin explains what real collaboration is: "Having worked with a lot of bands, I see there's often this friction where people are trying to get their idea in. That's not a collaboration. A real collaboration is when everyone who's there is working together towards whatever is the best thing for the whole. Whether it's your idea or someone else's idea, it doesn't matter. If you're invested in the collaboration, you want the best idea to win. You don't want your idea to win." On what makes art great: "What makes it great is the personal. With all of its imperfections. With all of its quirkiness. That's what makes it great. How you see the world that's different from how everyone else sees the world. That's why you're an artist. That's your purpose in sharing your work with the world." He warns against being derivative: "There are these derivative voices where they're finding what they think other people want to hear, and they start saying it because they've heard other people say similar things that are now successful. Even if they have some short-term success doing that, it's not revolutionary. It doesn't change the world. It doesn't last. The people who you first see and you might not like that you come to like because you don't understand them at first, those are the ones that change the world. Those are the ones you dedicate your fandom to for life." Rubin shares his philosophy on taste: "You can't second-guess your own taste for what someone else is going to like. We're not smart enough to know what someone else is going to like. To make something thinking, 'Well, I don't really like it, but I think this group of people will like it,' it's a bad way to play the game of music or art. You have to do what's personal to you. Take it as far as you can go. Really push the boundaries. And people will resonate with it if they're supposed to resonate with it." He describes creativity as catching waves: "We're really talking about magic. The universe conspiring on our behalf if we let it. Being in this flow of catching these waves that anyone can catch. If you're trying to catch it, you're open to it, you see it coming, you take off on every chance you get. And sometimes the ride happens. It's remarkable how it happens. It doesn't come from preconception. It's not an idea. It's through the doing." Rubin explains how ideas exist in the universe: "Have you ever had that experience where you have an idea for something, you don't do it, and then six months later you see someone else has done it? It's not because they took your idea. It's that it's time for that, and you can act on it or not. The best artists are the ones who have the best antenna for this material that's available. It's coming through. The best comedians see the best jokes. They see them coming. We all live in the same world; the way you see it, you have the best joke because you see it best." He closes with how to stay open: "If we listen to what's going on around us, you can overhear a conversation in a coffee shop, and it is the setup for an idea you're working on. You hear a phrase you don't commonly use. My experience is: when you are open and looking for these clues in the world, they're happening all the time. And they're happening often right when you need them."

Rick Rubin: "Make what you love, not what you think people will like" "If you want to live in a creative way, which will benefit everything in your life, be a better person in your family, do a better job starting a new business, it's all the same. I don't really know anything about music. It's more a way of looking at the world and wanting it to be the best it could possibly be. And doing whatever it takes to be the best it could possibly be." Rubin shares how his career happened: "From the beginning, I never thought any of the things I'm doing were possible or realistic. I just did things out of the love of them, thinking I would have real jobs. That my passion would be my hobby, and I'd have a job to support my hobby. And it just magically turned out different than that without me knowing it was possible." On why some things connect and others don't: "The stars line up at certain times for certain things to happen. Sometimes you can make something great, and it doesn't connect for whatever reason. Sometimes you make two things you think are the two best things you've ever made. One of them connects with the world. One of them doesn't. And it might not have anything to do with what's in the art. It might be that it came out the same day as something else. Or there was a bigger story at the time. There's so much to it that we don't understand." He continues: "All we can do is make something good and put it out and hope for the best. That's all there is. We never know why things work. Even if you make a piece of art and it works, you may not know why." On talent versus work ethic: "There are a lot of talented people who never make it because they don't have the work ethic. It's not just talent, talent's a piece. And you could argue for some people, the work ethic trumps the talent." Rubin explains what real collaboration is: "Having worked with a lot of bands, I see there's often this friction where people are trying to get their idea in. That's not a collaboration. A real collaboration is when everyone who's there is working together towards whatever is the best thing for the whole. Whether it's your idea or someone else's idea, it doesn't matter. If you're invested in the collaboration, you want the best idea to win. You don't want your idea to win." On what makes art great: "What makes it great is the personal. With all of its imperfections. With all of its quirkiness. That's what makes it great. How you see the world that's different from how everyone else sees the world. That's why you're an artist. That's your purpose in sharing your work with the world." He warns against being derivative: "There are these derivative voices where they're finding what they think other people want to hear, and they start saying it because they've heard other people say similar things that are now successful. Even if they have some short-term success doing that, it's not revolutionary. It doesn't change the world. It doesn't last. The people who you first see and you might not like that you come to like because you don't understand them at first, those are the ones that change the world. Those are the ones you dedicate your fandom to for life." Rubin shares his philosophy on taste: "You can't second-guess your own taste for what someone else is going to like. We're not smart enough to know what someone else is going to like. To make something thinking, 'Well, I don't really like it, but I think this group of people will like it,' it's a bad way to play the game of music or art. You have to do what's personal to you. Take it as far as you can go. Really push the boundaries. And people will resonate with it if they're supposed to resonate with it." He describes creativity as catching waves: "We're really talking about magic. The universe conspiring on our behalf if we let it. Being in this flow of catching these waves that anyone can catch. If you're trying to catch it, you're open to it, you see it coming, you take off on every chance you get. And sometimes the ride happens. It's remarkable how it happens. It doesn't come from preconception. It's not an idea. It's through the doing." Rubin explains how ideas exist in the universe: "Have you ever had that experience where you have an idea for something, you don't do it, and then six months later you see someone else has done it? It's not because they took your idea. It's that it's time for that, and you can act on it or not. The best artists are the ones who have the best antenna for this material that's available. It's coming through. The best comedians see the best jokes. They see them coming. We all live in the same world; the way you see it, you have the best joke because you see it best." He closes with how to stay open: "If we listen to what's going on around us, you can overhear a conversation in a coffee shop, and it is the setup for an idea you're working on. You hear a phrase you don't commonly use. My experience is: when you are open and looking for these clues in the world, they're happening all the time. And they're happening often right when you need them."

Jaynit

109,182 Aufrufe • vor 4 Monaten

Elon Musk: Initially, going to Mars will be dangerous and uncomfortable. “The people who would go in the early days to make life multiplanetary on Mars or the moon would have a much higher risk of death than if they stayed on Earth. Things would be cramped and uncomfortable. So that is the sales pitch for Mars. It is going to be uncomfortable. The food won’t be as good as Earth. You might die. It is going to be a massive amount of hard work. And it may not succeed. That is the sales pitch. Cathie Miller: It is the same as when people came to America. Elon: Yeah. You didn’t want to be in Jamestown. Maybe if there had been social media back then, they would have been saying, we are all dying, here are videos of us dying. That would have probably put a damper on future voyages. But they just went. A whole bunch of people just disappeared into the unknown.” Source: The Katie Miller Podcast, December 10, 2025.

Elon Musk: Initially, going to Mars will be dangerous and uncomfortable. “The people who would go in the early days to make life multiplanetary on Mars or the moon would have a much higher risk of death than if they stayed on Earth. Things would be cramped and uncomfortable. So that is the sales pitch for Mars. It is going to be uncomfortable. The food won’t be as good as Earth. You might die. It is going to be a massive amount of hard work. And it may not succeed. That is the sales pitch. Cathie Miller: It is the same as when people came to America. Elon: Yeah. You didn’t want to be in Jamestown. Maybe if there had been social media back then, they would have been saying, we are all dying, here are videos of us dying. That would have probably put a damper on future voyages. But they just went. A whole bunch of people just disappeared into the unknown.” Source: The Katie Miller Podcast, December 10, 2025.

ELON CLIPS

33,206 Aufrufe • vor 1 Monat

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.

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 Aufrufe • vor 1 Jahr

David Sacks says companies are trapped paying OpenAI & Anthropic because they can't figure out how to use open source models "I think enterprise CTOs would like to shift their token consumption to cheaper models for the obvious reason that it would be more efficient. They are seeing compute costs or token costs skyrocket right now, so everyone's trying to figure this out." "You also have the AI sovereignty issue that Alex Karp talked about. They're worried about giving up the secret sauce or the alpha in their business to a frontier lab that may one day be competing with them. "The problem is, I think in most cases, they don't have the technical ability to do it. Coinbase figured out how to do it. DoorDash figured out how to do it. They built a token routing system that allows them to send frontier tasks to frontier models and non frontier tasks to more mundane models. But I don't think your average enterprise has the technical capability to do that." "This is why the share of wallet of closed models, it actually increased. I think that open source went from 19% last year to 11% this year. So open source as a share of enterprise spending is actually decreasing." "I don't think that means usage is decreasing. I think usage is skyrocketing. It also may be the case that because the whole point of using an open model is you just pay for the compute costs, you don't have to pay a lab, so it may be that it's hard to measure that usage in terms of spend." "But nonetheless, anyone who's saying that these closed models are going to lose or are somehow losing, you're just not seeing it in the data."

David Sacks says companies are trapped paying OpenAI & Anthropic because they can't figure out how to use open source models "I think enterprise CTOs would like to shift their token consumption to cheaper models for the obvious reason that it would be more efficient. They are seeing compute costs or token costs skyrocket right now, so everyone's trying to figure this out." "You also have the AI sovereignty issue that Alex Karp talked about. They're worried about giving up the secret sauce or the alpha in their business to a frontier lab that may one day be competing with them. "The problem is, I think in most cases, they don't have the technical ability to do it. Coinbase figured out how to do it. DoorDash figured out how to do it. They built a token routing system that allows them to send frontier tasks to frontier models and non frontier tasks to more mundane models. But I don't think your average enterprise has the technical capability to do that." "This is why the share of wallet of closed models, it actually increased. I think that open source went from 19% last year to 11% this year. So open source as a share of enterprise spending is actually decreasing." "I don't think that means usage is decreasing. I think usage is skyrocketing. It also may be the case that because the whole point of using an open model is you just pay for the compute costs, you don't have to pay a lab, so it may be that it's hard to measure that usage in terms of spend." "But nonetheless, anyone who's saying that these closed models are going to lose or are somehow losing, you're just not seeing it in the data."

dnap

110,354 Aufrufe • vor 1 Monat

Usually I would only post this kind of shalaye on my youtube...but I really just wanted to take the time to share it here too, for anyone who may be interested. If there is someone out there, who is using your life as a justification to continue to destroy theirs, please don't just say "That's their business nah" ...it should be yours too. You should care. Because all power is a gift, and at the end of the day we will all give an account of how it was used, to the Giver of the gift - the source of all Power. T for Teinks🙂

Usually I would only post this kind of shalaye on my youtube...but I really just wanted to take the time to share it here too, for anyone who may be interested. If there is someone out there, who is using your life as a justification to continue to destroy theirs, please don't just say "That's their business nah" ...it should be yours too. You should care. Because all power is a gift, and at the end of the day we will all give an account of how it was used, to the Giver of the gift - the source of all Power. T for Teinks🙂

Eric Gugua

20,321 Aufrufe • vor 1 Jahr

“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.”

“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 Aufrufe • vor 8 Monaten

Mobile phones betray the limits of your brain's ability to construct its model of the world in the absence of sensory inputs... Whilst your brain has rather coarse-grained high level models of mobile phones (which is why you *can* have dreams containing phones), it struggles to replicate the low-level detailed functionalities that require a constant stream of visual sensory data... For example, the output of the calculator app, typing/sending messages, navigating between apps and other functions are all dependent on complicated processes that occur under the hood of the phone that your brain can't replicate... This is why using a phone in a dream will usually be extremely frustrating -- nothing behaves as you expect or as it should. A lot of the pieces will be there but they will be garbled and endlessly confusing... As I discuss on Rogan here, this is a good reality test for lucid dreaming. If your phone is working as it should, you're almost certainly not dreaming...

Mobile phones betray the limits of your brain's ability to construct its model of the world in the absence of sensory inputs... Whilst your brain has rather coarse-grained high level models of mobile phones (which is why you can have dreams containing phones), it struggles to replicate the low-level detailed functionalities that require a constant stream of visual sensory data... For example, the output of the calculator app, typing/sending messages, navigating between apps and other functions are all dependent on complicated processes that occur under the hood of the phone that your brain can't replicate... This is why using a phone in a dream will usually be extremely frustrating -- nothing behaves as you expect or as it should. A lot of the pieces will be there but they will be garbled and endlessly confusing... As I discuss on Rogan here, this is a good reality test for lucid dreaming. If your phone is working as it should, you're almost certainly not dreaming...

Andrew Gallimore

28,666 Aufrufe • vor 1 Monat

Elon Musk: It should be harder to establish a rule than to remove it. “I'm not completely libertarian in the sense I don't think there should be regulations at all. I just think that the natural bias of regulations is to last forever. You have to actively delete a regulation or a law, the way things are set up in most laws. Some laws have sunset provisions. And the problem with that is you get vested interests who like that law, and there's an inertia around it. And so over time, the body of law and regulations grows and grows and grows. It is something that I think is not ultimately good for society. So, in fact, I think it would generally be a good idea to have it such that it's hard to establish a rule and easy to remove one.” Montana Job Summit, September 16, 2013

Elon Musk: It should be harder to establish a rule than to remove it. “I'm not completely libertarian in the sense I don't think there should be regulations at all. I just think that the natural bias of regulations is to last forever. You have to actively delete a regulation or a law, the way things are set up in most laws. Some laws have sunset provisions. And the problem with that is you get vested interests who like that law, and there's an inertia around it. And so over time, the body of law and regulations grows and grows and grows. It is something that I think is not ultimately good for society. So, in fact, I think it would generally be a good idea to have it such that it's hard to establish a rule and easy to remove one.” Montana Job Summit, September 16, 2013

ELON CLIPS

32,677 Aufrufe • vor 10 Monaten

Q. As an actress, you come across countless lines in scripts. Has there been a sentence recently that became an answer to one of your own questions? 🦭 There was a project called , and at that time I worried a lot. “What’s the right choice? What kind of project should I do now?” There was a line from the character Lee Eunoh that said something like, “I’m going to erase all those words saying ‘It’s scary’ and ‘It can’t be done.” That one line stayed with me deeply. I think it became a project where I let go of many worries and challenged myself wholeheartedly. Once you actually go through something, it may turn out to be less serious than what you feared. Somehow, you get through the present. If you can be a little braver and throw yourself toward the place you truly want to go, then your future self will somehow find a way to solve it. Fighting! #KimJiWon #김지원

Q. As an actress, you come across countless lines in scripts. Has there been a sentence recently that became an answer to one of your own questions? 🦭 There was a project called , and at that time I worried a lot. “What’s the right choice? What kind of project should I do now?” There was a line from the character Lee Eunoh that said something like, “I’m going to erase all those words saying ‘It’s scary’ and ‘It can’t be done.” That one line stayed with me deeply. I think it became a project where I let go of many worries and challenged myself wholeheartedly. Once you actually go through something, it may turn out to be less serious than what you feared. Somehow, you get through the present. If you can be a little braver and throw yourself toward the place you truly want to go, then your future self will somehow find a way to solve it. Fighting! #KimJiWon #김지원

ᧁ🪽

11,841 Aufrufe • vor 3 Monaten

.David Deutsch: "What's currently called AI and AGI are not only different from each other, they are very close to being the exact opposites of each other. The reason is that an AI, current AI is like an AI that diagnoses diseases or an AI that plays chess or an AI that controls a huge factory. Those things have objective functions, that is they have a function that they are designed to maximize and that is why they are used in those particular applications. Or in military terms, you could say the objective is to hit the target. You might say the objective is to hit the target unless some thing specified, but it's a specified thing comes up in which case don't hit the target and so on. This is, as I said, almost the opposite of what humans do when humans think. For a start, the AI has to be obedient, that is it has to actually do the things it is programmed to do, whereas a human is fundamentally disobedient, especially when being creative. When a human plays chess, they are performing a completely different kind of computation. They don't do the same things, they don't investigate the same possibilities that the artificial chess playing machine does, because the artificial one is capable of looking at billions and billions of possibilities, whereas the human can only look at hundreds or something. They are doing something completely different. Another difference is that the human can explain, can write a book later, having become world champion, can write a book saying how I did it, as the computer program that beats the world champion can write no such book, because it has no idea how it did it. It was just following a program. I was doing this and that and that and none of that is illuminating. Also, third thing, the chess player can decide I don't want to play chess anymore, from now on I will play Go or from now on I will play tennis. If commanded to play chess, the functionality will deteriorate completely. Those things are different. What we want in an AGI is that it behaves in a way that cannot be specified in advance, because if you specified it, you would already have the answer. The AGI program has to give unexpected answers, answers to questions we didn't even know how to ask."

.David Deutsch: "What's currently called AI and AGI are not only different from each other, they are very close to being the exact opposites of each other. The reason is that an AI, current AI is like an AI that diagnoses diseases or an AI that plays chess or an AI that controls a huge factory. Those things have objective functions, that is they have a function that they are designed to maximize and that is why they are used in those particular applications. Or in military terms, you could say the objective is to hit the target. You might say the objective is to hit the target unless some thing specified, but it's a specified thing comes up in which case don't hit the target and so on. This is, as I said, almost the opposite of what humans do when humans think. For a start, the AI has to be obedient, that is it has to actually do the things it is programmed to do, whereas a human is fundamentally disobedient, especially when being creative. When a human plays chess, they are performing a completely different kind of computation. They don't do the same things, they don't investigate the same possibilities that the artificial chess playing machine does, because the artificial one is capable of looking at billions and billions of possibilities, whereas the human can only look at hundreds or something. They are doing something completely different. Another difference is that the human can explain, can write a book later, having become world champion, can write a book saying how I did it, as the computer program that beats the world champion can write no such book, because it has no idea how it did it. It was just following a program. I was doing this and that and that and none of that is illuminating. Also, third thing, the chess player can decide I don't want to play chess anymore, from now on I will play Go or from now on I will play tennis. If commanded to play chess, the functionality will deteriorate completely. Those things are different. What we want in an AGI is that it behaves in a way that cannot be specified in advance, because if you specified it, you would already have the answer. The AGI program has to give unexpected answers, answers to questions we didn't even know how to ask."

Deutsch Explains

72,455 Aufrufe • vor 1 Jahr