I am not promoting an idea. I am just stating simple facts. Just to contextualize the issue. People are underappreciating the relative peacefulness of protests.

Guys, remember protests are the alternative. Even the volent ones are the alternative.

Remember what humans did before we protested.

100% that is why they only appreciate realistic art styles and I guess super trendy stuff like ghibli.

And of course, “appreciate” is doing a lot of heavy lifting here.

They are dehumanizing everyone else too.

Can you think of anyone precise and clear enough in their speech that some “needless” repetition and context wouldn’t drastically improve your understanding of what they say?

Can you imagine how upset they would be if you took them by their very word and not what they meant?

In their mind, authors (and probably everyone else) are machines. The kindness of trying to truly understand them is not given. They should be “flawless”.

I have read books in which the definition of certain words get redefined to be more precise and clear in the communication while making things less verbose. I don’t think an ai summary will reliably properly introduce me to the definition on page 100 of a book that took the previous 99 pages to set up the required definitions to understand the definition it gives on page 100.

But I could be wrong.

And electronic voting goes against the principles of a fair and free election.

One of the principles of such an election is that a layman can understand the process to verify the legitimacy of the election. The average citizens needs to be able to understand the election process.

Electronic voting either allows the state to track who voted for what and/or allows people to vote multiple times, or it is not possible for a layman to verify the legitimacy of the election.

Electronic voting are just plain anti democratic.

Edit: I am ignoring here the simple fact that closed source code is unverifiable and any voting machine running with e.g. windows would return unverifiable results. So I am ignoring the issues of the software stack of this machines, which we shouldn’t.

Some of the tested models were specifically “reasoning” LLM models. Please tell me that the “reasoning” model is not intended to be used for “reasoning”. Please.

It works the same way.

1  |  |
2  |  |
3  |  |
4  |  |
5  |  |
6  |  |
7  |  |
8  |  |
9  |  |
10 |  |
11 |  |
12 |  |

|  |  |
2  |  |
3  |  |
4  |  |
5  |  |
6  |  |
7  |  |
8  |  |
9  |  |
10 |  |
11 |  |
12 |  1

|  |  |
|  |  |
3  |  |
4  |  |
5  |  |
6  |  |
7  |  |
8  |  |
9  |  |
10 |  |
11 |  |
12 2  1

|  |  |
|  |  |
3  |  |
4  |  |
5  |  |
6  |  |
7  |  |
8  |  |
9  |  |
10 |  |
11 1  |
12 2  |

|  |  |
|  |  |
|  |  |
4  |  |
5  |  |
6  |  |
7  |  |
8  |  |
9  |  |
10 |  |
11 1  |
12 2 3

|  |  |
|  |  |
1  |  |
4  |  |
5  |  |
6  |  |
7  |  |
8  |  |
9  |  |
10 |  |
11 |  |
12 2  3

|  |  |
|  |  |
1  |  |
4  |  |
5  |  |
6  |  |
7  |  |
8  |  |
9  |  |
10 |  |
11 |  2
12 |  3

|  |  |
|  |  |
|  |  |
4  |  |
5  |  |
6  |  |
7  |  |
8  |  |
9  |  |
10 |  1
11 |  2
12 |  3

|  |  |
|  |  |
|  |  |
|  |  |
5  |  |
6  |  |
7  |  |
8  |  |
9  |  |
10 |  1
11 |  2
12 4  3

|  |  |
|  |  |
|  |  |
|  |  |
5  |  |
6  |  |
7  |  |
8  |  |
9  |  |
10 |  |
11 1  2
12 4  3


|  |  |
|  |  |
|  |  |
2  |  |
5  |  |
6  |  |
7  |  |
8  |  |
9  |  |
10 |  |
11 1  |
12 4  3

|  |  |
|  |  |
1  |  |
2  |  |
5  |  |
6  |  |
7  |  |
8  |  |
9  |  |
10 |  |
11 |  |
12 4  3

|  |  |
|  |  |
1  |  |
2  |  |
5  |  |
6  |  |
7  |  |
8  |  |
9  |  |
10 |  |
11 3  |
12 4  |

|  |  |
|  |  |
|  |  |
|  |  |
5  |  |
6  |  |
7  |  |
8  |  |
9  |  |
10 2  |
11 3  |
12 4  1

|  |  |
|  |  |
|  |  |
|  |  |
5  |  |
6  |  |
7  |  |
8  |  |
9  1  |
10 2  |
11 3  |
12 4  |

|  |  |
|  |  |
|  |  |
|  |  |
|  |  |
6  |  |
7  |  |
8  |  |
9  1  |
10 2  |
11 3  |
12 4  5

And so on… As you can see, when there was a 3 stack in the right pole, and moved the 4, for the solution to create space for the 5, we move the 3 stack as if it is just a 3 tower and we will end up with a 4 stack tower, allowing us to move the 5 and now we need to move the 4 stack on the 5. As the 4 stack is even, we would start by moving the 1 to the left stack, placing the 2 on the 5 and then the 1 on the 2, creating a 2 stack, now we can move the 3 on the left pole, now we solve the 2 stack, as it is even, we move the 1 to the 4 and the 2 on the 3 and then the 1 on the 2, creating a 3 stack and allowing us to move the 4 onto the 5. Now we solve the 3 stack onto the 4. It is odd, so we solve as we solve the previous 3 tower.

A bigger tower is just solving a 1 smaller tower basically twice.

So for solving 12, you solve 11 and move the 12 to the spot, to solve 11 again. To solve 11, you solve 10 and move the 11 and solve 10 again…

Hey for anyone who doesn’t know how to solve tower of Hanoi, there is a simple algorithm.

1.  |.  |
2.  |.  |
3.  |.  |

Let’s say, we want to move the center rod.

Count the stack of disks that you need to move: e.g. 3

If it is even, start with placing the first disk on the spot that you don’t want to move the tower to. If it is odd, start with placing the first disk on the spot that you want to move the tower to.

|.  |.  |
2.  |.  |
3.  1.  |

|.  |.  |
|.  |.  |
3.  1.  2


|.  |.   |
|.  |.   1
3.  |.   2


|.   |.  |
|.   |.  1
|.   3.  2

Now the 2 stack is basically a new Hanoi tower.

That tower is even and we start with placing the first disk on the spot that we don’t want to land on

|.  |.  |
|.  |.  |
1.  3.  2


|.  |.  |
|.  2.  |
1.  3.  |

|.  1.  |
|.  2.  |
|.  3.  |

And we solved the tower. It is that easy

Dear lord, I feel so bad

I think he means pear 🍐

The truth is the for a lot of us being here in the first place was a political stance.