“Oh, people can come up with statistics to prove anything, Kent. 14% of people know that.”
-Homer Simpson

So you’re not actually arguing that the IDF is not committing massive war crimes, you’re just saying you don’t care?

Are you claiming that all of Gaza is Hamas?

Are you referring to Method of Loci? I’ve experimented with it a bit. For a while I would do daily mental walk-throughs of the apartment I grew up in and I practiced visualizing symbols for the 10 digits. After a few months I was able to successfully remember some pretty long numbers. Ironically, I don’t remember how long they were. It wasn’t that useful though. It took me a really long time to “store” numbers; longer than it would to just write it down. I didn’t have a system for storing anything besides digits. Worst of all, the “memory space” was limited to the size of my old apartment. I was able to increase the space by adding detail to rooms but it was never enough to be practical for anything besides trivia. Strangely the repeated “walk-throughs” ended up bringing back memories of smells and textures that I hadn’t thought about in decades

I think I’m much better at remembering and imaging things that can be easily articulated. I recognize my wife with no problem but I can’t really summon a good mental image of her. We have a photo of the night we met. I can visualize details of the clothing and jewelry she was wearing but when I “look” at the image in my mind I can’t really see her face. It’s hard to describe. Almost like there’s an image with a tag that says “link to wife’s face here” without actually loading it. When I really concentrate on it I can wither get a really blurry image of her face, a really zoomed in image, or a sort of “line art” version of her face. I don’t have real prosopagnosia. I can recognize faces, it just takes many more exposures than it does for most people.

I used to do a lot of visualizing meditation. I can get myself to the point where I could imagine a different room all together (for meditation it was always the same fantasy “place” so that made it easier). When I was really into it I could change the perceived orientation of gravity. That is, when I was lying in bed I could sometimes complete the hallucination that I was standing in that “room”. That typically lasted only a few seconds but it was pretty wild.

This (and the human brain in general) is fascinating to me. I’ve always been on the opposite end of aphantasia, although I’ve never been officially diagnosed with hyperphantasia. I don’t understand it at all it just seems natural.

When there’s a question about physical objects I close my eyes and just check. It’s not that my memory is particularly good but I can “synthesize” shapes. I might tell myself a story like, "Start with a point. Expand it into a line segment. Now pull that line parallel to itself to create a rectangle. You can spin that plane around a bit and then grab a point in the middle and pull it up into a pyramid. And so on. I basically watch a color-coded animation when I say something like that.

With music it can be a bit distracting. I’ll go through phases where I get some piece of music stuck in my head and when I do it’s incredibly detailed. I can pick out individual instruments in an orchestra and hear reverb. It can actually get so distracting that I have to play a trick to get it to stop. I need to find a piece of interesting music that I’ve never heard before. I can play that enough times to “drive out” the other one but not enough to “light up” the new one and I’m fine.

As a kid it was obvious that this was not something everyone did and I thought I was special. It turns out that beyond being an interesting curiosity I haven’t found any actual use for it. Too bad. I still find these differences really interesting.

As an aside, I’m also one of those people that’s terrible at remembering names and faces. I often completely forget someone’s name and face within minutes of meeting them. I’ve started using Anki to help with it. I make flashcards of all the people I’m supposed to know and run through them every night. It’s a hack that works well enough that (some) people think I’m one of those people that never forgets a face.

Yes but there’s a threshold of how much you need to copy before it’s an IP violation.

Copying a single word is usually only enough if it’s a neologism.
Two matching words in a row usually isn’t enough either.
At some point it is enough though and it’s not clear what that point is.

On the other hand it can still be considered an IP violation if there are no exact word matches but it seems sufficiently similar.

Until now we’ve basically asked courts to step in and decide where the line should be on a case by case basis.

We never set the level of allowable copying to 0, we set it to “reasonable”. In theory it’s supposed to be at a level that’s sufficient to, “promote the Progress of Science and useful Arts, by securing for limited Times to Authors and Inventors the exclusive Right to their respective Writings and Discoveries.” (US Constitution, Article I, Section 8, Clause 8).

Why is it that with AI we take the extreme position of thinking that an AI that makes use of any information from humans should automatically be considered to be in violation of IP law?

This is a difficult question. I try to focus on the article itself rather than the news site.

The first thing I look for is if they’re rambling. That’s probably not the best criterion but it’s so obvious. If an article doesn’t get to the point in the first few sentences it probably doesn’t have a point.

The second thing I look for is verification. I already know some stuff about the world. If know the article made some mistakes I’ll assume they’re making other mistakes. If they are correct about less well known facts I mentally bump up their reliability a bit.

If they make a statement about a fact I expect them to source it. If their source is some equivalent of “trust me bro” I’m getting out my salt shovel.

Beyond that I’ll look at the track record of the author and the publication. Do they consistently pass or fall short of the reliable news threshold? If so, I adjust my expectations.

The individual articles or statements come first though. I may have very little confidence in Fox and Friends or in Donald Trump but if they get on TV and make independently verifiable statements that check out then it’s true.

In terms of a simple rule that could be practically implemented. Maybe something like, the article must have independently verifiable sources for its claims. One corollary would be, if article A cites article B as a source, don’t post A, just post B directly.

It would be great if there could be some discussion of what exactly “diversity” means. It’s one of those words that people seem to assume is well defined but I can’t get anyone to define it.

I don’t know what the definition should be but I’ve seen variations that assume different definitions and I’m more comfortable with some than with others.

1. I have a friend who works at a bank. He bragged that his team was 100% diverse. When I asked him what that mean he said there were no white people on his team. Personally, this seems like a bad definition. I have trouble thinking of “diversity” as the removal of some group, even if that group is otherwise over-represented elsewhere. It also ignores any potential diversity around any other factors; either the traditional political factors such as gender or religion or any diversity of thought (do their analysts include both Frequentists and Baysians?)

2. Reddit mostly has users from the US. Should we consider a Lemmy community diverse if it represents the predominant views and voices of the US? If that’s the case the image above needs more white people. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Demographics_of_the_United_States#Race_and_ethnicity

3. The world is a big place and anyone could join Lemmy. Should we consider a community diverse if it matches the demographics of the planet? In that case the image above has too many white people. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/World_population#Global_demographics

The above focuses on race but it’s more widely applicable. This community will most likely consists of mostly US citizens for the near future. If the community is firmly focused on US ideas it will be more about US opinion of the rest of the world than actual diversity. If it actually does include a globally diverse set of ideas it’s likely to get pretty uncomfortable for the majority of the people here.

This has been going on for much longer than Starlink.

There were a number of observatories built in or near cities. They became mostly useless once we figured out electric lights but we still use them for education sometimes.

SpaceX has been working with the NSF so they can continue to dim Starlink https://spacenews.com/nsf-and-spacex-reach-agreement-to-reduce-starlink-effects-on-astronomy/

Now we’re putting more and more observation capabilities deep into space. JWT is already getting images better than anything you could get on earth, even if you eliminated Starlink and turned off every light on the planet. Ground based astronomical observation is still relevant but we keep coming up with better alternatives.