I have the Pixel Fold, I am a fan. If you read a lot of documents and watch a lot of videos, it’s a game changer.

Funding, yes. Also voting for them in local elections, no one benefits from trying to thrust them straight into national elections. Yeah it’s gonna take a few election cycles, and yeah blue is our best bet for those cycles.

That '70s Show aired in 1998, 22 years after 1976, when it was set.

1998 was 27 years ago.

instead of bickering over why people are at the queer event and not a workers event

I see a lot of people in the thread interpreting OPs statements this way, but that just doesn’t seem like what they’re saying at all. They didn’t say anything negative about queer events, and they’re not asking why people are at them, or implying that those events should be less popular. They’re asking why workers rights events aren’t even more popular, considering their relevance to the vast majority of the population.

I distinguish between “go out” and “go [some specific place]”. The first one implies just leaving home to be elsewhere, the second implies going someplace specific for a specific purpose.

I like going places, particular places with particular people for particular activities. I have many interests and enjoy exploring them (although all my cool stuff related to those interests is at my house anyway).

I don’t like “going out”, arbitrary places with arbitrary people for no particular reason. My time is limited and I have many interests, if I have free time I want to spend it intentionally.

Me too, but I don’t really play a lot of video games, so I could list every game I’ve ever played pretty quickly.

Alcoholic beverages are as old as civilization itself.

Some people theorize that alcohol was the cause of civilization; that we settled down and developed agriculture to have a reliable source of grain to make archaic “beer”.

Seemed more like the problem was the gaslighting than the documentation.

I think there’s a difference between bad and wrong. Wrong documentation is incorrect. Bad documentation isn’t really incorrect, it’s just poorly executedb and mostly unhelpful.

You’re the one who asked to open a gate to the fifth dimension, you can’t then get upset that you broke 3+1 dimensional physics

Aesthetically, I don’t like ABBB for “Roses are red…”. ABCB is fine, ABBB feels too forceful. And the plurals just turn it into half rhymes anyway. How about :

Roses are red

I used to have dreams

Work is a drag

But I guess I have memes

Dude, your question is dumb and useless. I “avoided” your question by explaining why it was dumb and useless. Re-read, then re-read again, then watch some YouTube videos about exponential functions, then watch some videos about the AI singularity, then do whatever you want after that because I’m done trying to teach the unteachable.

Iykyk

Again, buddy, no. That’s not how math works. Math does not fit things to curves, math generates the curves. The object of math is the function, the ones that take data sets and fit them to curves are data analysts, for the purpose of predicting future behavior.

Zooming in on a particular section of a curve and observing that it looks roughly linear at that scale does not make the underlying function, which generates that curve, linear. Exponential growth is exponential growth, and it starts before the “knee”. It’s there the whole time, even when it looks linear.

Every continuous function looks linear when you zoom in enough, that’s how derivatives work in calculus. The exponential function looks linear right up until it starts to not look linear anymore. The point of mapping real world systems to functions is to predict their future behavior, not just describe their present status.

The prediction that AI will go exponential is based on the premise of AI generating future AIs. Obviously, as AI gets better, the AIs that it generates will get better. As AI increases, the AIs thus generated increase by a factor of AI^2 . Once AI generated AIs are equivalent to those developed by a human, i.e. AI = 1, the rate of increase will accelerate, since every new model can make an even better model, which can make even better ones, ad infinitum.

No one knows for sure exactly what is going to enable AI to generate powerful AIs, but once it happens that’s the knee. That’s why it’s hypothesized to be exponential. And that has big consequences, which is why people are eager not to miss the signs that it’s ramping up.

This is an obvious plant

What metric are you using? Data can’t really be fit to a curve without data to plot.

The entire contention is you misunderstanding how exponential functions work., i.e. “if it’s exponential, shouldn’t we be rapidly accelerating by now?” Betrays a fundamental misunderstanding.

People don’t expect AI to be exponential because of existing data. It’s because once AI starts significantly improving itself, the advancement of AI, x, starts to apply to itself x^2 .

We won’t know if it is, in fact, exponential until after the “knee” of the curve. But a slow advancement now does not preclude rapid acceleration in the near future. You’ve repeatedly demonstrated throughout the thread that you don’t understand this.

They grow proportionately to ax^n . Correspondingly, for values of x < 1, they look very similar to a simple linear slope. For values of x > 1, they grow very rapidly. Both portions are part of the function, it doesn’t suddenly “become” exponential at the rapid increase, it’s exponential the whole time.

In algebra? The basic properties of exponential functions, for one.

You don’t get Nobel prizes for going to math class. What you do get is a basic understanding of math, which is more than sufficient to correct you on this. This was covered in Algebra, man. Review your notes.

Buddy, I can say with confidence I’ve taken math courses you’ve never even heard of. You do not know what you’re talking about.