The methodology sounds bizarrely complex to me for the purposes of establishing comparative information transfer rate.

Wouldn't just timing how long it takes to communicate a controlled set of information answer that?

I'm confused by the concept of establishing an average "bitrate per syllable" and multiplying that through. Is this trying to address cases where language constructs DEMAND additional information be encoded in speech? Can one not construct a set of information intended to be communicated that could account for those quirks? Find some "lowest common denominator" sentences?

I feel like I'm missing something and I'm very curious about what my faulty assumption is

Someone ping me when the ADL condemns Trump for this.

Literally the victims and the perpetrator both were advocating for the indiscriminate murder of Arabs. The hate is mind boggling.

"If I push on this, I will alienate myself from this clearly mentally unstable patient and at that point there is no chance to help them"

It's literally how mental health professionals are trained.

Considering he asked twitter programmers to print out their pull requests Im not even sure he's not cosplaying a programmer

If a 45 year old not wearing a costume and strung out on Ketamine says trick or treat at my door, they're getting candy.

What am I, the fucking Halloween police? ACAB.

I think the main problem is that they keep inviting the original creators, they sign on, the studio heads explain to the creators how the studio has figured out how to tweak things, creators say "your ideas are horrible and if you execute on them as you've described, everyone is going to hate it". The studio's refuse to budge, creators depart citing creative differences, studio gets their way. Is a steaming pile of shit. Rinse and repeat.

Free speech absolutist

That is not at all what this article is about. The headline is terrible.

The research is suggesting that there may exist "per-person" fingerprint markers, whereas right now we only use "per-finger" markers. It's suggesting that they could look at two different fingers, (left index and right pinky, for example) and say "these two fingerprints are from the same person".

When they say "not unique", they mean "there appear to be markers common to all fingerprints of the same person"

Holy shit I've got some boomer energy, here:

The reason to not take out your phone isn't because someone might hate on your phone.

You don't take out your phone on a date so that you can be giving that person your full attention.

5. It isn't and has never been a truth machine, and while it may have performed worse with the question "is 10777 prime" it may have performed better on "is 526713 prime"

ChatGPT generates responses that it believes would "look like" what a response "should look like" based on other things it has seen. People still very stubbornly refuse to accept that generating responses that "look appropriate" and "are right" are two completely different and unrelated things.