[-] BB84@mander.xyz 45 points 1 day ago

It is giving you exactly what you ask for.

To people complaining about this: I hope you will be happy in the future where all LLMs have mandatory censors ensuring compliance with the morality codes specified by your favorite tech oligarch.

[-] BB84@mander.xyz 3 points 3 days ago

For techbros, "open" doesn't mean libre, it means free work for corporate.

But technically "opencode" can be used with OLMo, so it is not as bad as OpenAI. Weight-released models also work, if you consider those open source.

[-] BB84@mander.xyz 91 points 3 months ago* (last edited 3 months ago)

The article over-dramatizes the story. This "deeply wrong" discrepancy is less than 10%. CMB measurements predict a Hubble constant of around 68km/s/Mpc. Distance ladder measurements get around 73km/s/Mpc.

Our current understanding of the universe the Lambda-CDM model is still wildly successful and it's more likely that the true correct model of the universe will be a correction/extension to Lambda-CDM rather than a completely new theory (although if it is a completely new theory that would be pretty cool).

[-] BB84@mander.xyz 39 points 3 months ago* (last edited 3 months ago)

The only times anyone would use the asterisk as multiplication symbol are

  • they are doing some fancy math and it's not the same kind of number multiplication we're familiar with
  • they are on a computer, the keyboard does not have a (×) key, and they don't know how to typeset it (\times in LaTex), so they just use the asterisk instead

The US government falls in the second category.

414
submitted 3 months ago by BB84@mander.xyz to c/memes@lemmy.ml

A microblog post by @kareem_carr saying "as soon as i saw they were using asterisks for multiplication symbols, i knew we were in trouble", with an image from the "Office of the United States Trade Representative (Executive Office of the President)" showing the mathematical formula $\Delta \tau_i = \frac{x_i - m_i}{\varepsilon * \varphi * m_i}$. The formula show asterisks (*) instead of multiplication signs (×).

260
submitted 3 months ago by BB84@mander.xyz to c/science_memes@mander.xyz
106
submitted 3 months ago by BB84@mander.xyz to c/fediverselore@lemmy.ca

I am seeing posts from https://hexbear.net/ once again. Anyone know what happened since they lost their domain name? How did they get it back?

36
submitted 4 months ago by BB84@mander.xyz to c/astronomy@mander.xyz
[-] BB84@mander.xyz 28 points 5 months ago* (last edited 5 months ago)

This meme was about training on model outputs. But would be nice if they got some trade secrets as well. Intellectual property is cancer and these IP-stealing Chinese companies, if they exist, are doing god's work 😊 hope Indian companies steal from China next as well

335
submitted 5 months ago* (last edited 5 months ago) by BB84@mander.xyz to c/memes@lemmy.ml

Did I say OC? I photoshopped the Bloomberg thing on top of someone else's meme that I ~~stole~~ obtained via fair use. It's basically OC by tech companies' standards.

282
submitted 6 months ago* (last edited 6 months ago) by BB84@mander.xyz to c/science_memes@mander.xyz

Caption: an interview dialogue

  • Are dark matter models unsuited to explain observations? [the "dark matter models" and "to explain observations" parts are poorly edited onto the image, overlaying the original text]
  • In my view, they are unsuited.
  • Why?
  • That's my opinion, don't ask me why.

End of caption

Dark matter is the mainstream among physicists, but internet commentators keep saying it can't be right because it "feels off".

Of course, skepticism is good for science! You just need to justify it more than saying the mainstream "feels off".

For people who prefer alternative explanations over dark matter for non-vibe-based reasons, I would love to hear your thoughts! Leave a comment!

37
submitted 6 months ago* (last edited 6 months ago) by BB84@mander.xyz to c/localllama@sh.itjust.works

Absolutely humongous model. Mixture of 256 experts with 8 activated each time.

Aider leaderboard: The only model above 🐋 v3 here is ~~Open~~AI o1. DeepSeek is known to make amazing models and Aider rotates their benchmark over time, so it is unlikely that this is a train-on-benchmark situation.

Some more benchmarks: on Reddit.

273
submitted 7 months ago* (last edited 7 months ago) by BB84@mander.xyz to c/196@lemmy.blahaj.zone

CW: Reddit

Originally from https://old.reddit.com/r/polandball/comments/1gg2ifk/eurosummer/

Shark is hai in German and haj (pronounced hai) in Swedish. blåhaj means blue shark.

[-] BB84@mander.xyz 24 points 8 months ago* (last edited 8 months ago)

Re your first point: I was imagining doing the two experiments separately. But even if you do them at the same time, as long as you don’t put the two objects right on top of each other, the earth’s acceleration would still be slanted toward the ball, making the ball hit the ground very very slightly sooner.

Re your second point: The object would be accelerating in the direction of earth. The 9.81m/s/s is with respect to an inertial reference frame (say the center of mass frame). The earth is also accelerating in the direction of the object at some acceleration with respect to the inertial reference frame.

[-] BB84@mander.xyz 35 points 8 months ago* (last edited 8 months ago)

If your bowling ball is twice as massive, the force between it and earth will be twice as strong. But the ball’s mass will also be twice as large, so the ball’s acceleration will remain the same. This is why g=9.81m/s^2 is the same for every object on earth.

But the earth’s acceleration would not remain the same. The force doubles, but the mass of earth remains constant, so the acceleration of earth doubles.

[-] BB84@mander.xyz 46 points 8 months ago

Yes, the earth accelerates toward the ball faster than it does toward the feather.

[-] BB84@mander.xyz 22 points 8 months ago

When the earth pulls on an object with some F newtons of force, the object is also pulling on the earth with the same force. It’s just that the earth is so massive that its acceleration F/m will be tiny. Tiny is not zero though, so the earth is still accelerating toward the object. The heavier the object, the faster earth accelerates toward it.

Both the bowling ball and the feather accelerates toward earth at the same g=9.81m/s^2, but the earth accelerates toward the bowling ball faster than it does toward the feather.

272
submitted 8 months ago* (last edited 8 months ago) by BB84@mander.xyz to c/science_memes@mander.xyz

Tap for spoilerThe bowling ball isn’t falling to the earth faster. The higher perceived acceleration is due to the earth falling toward the bowling ball.

109
they tricked us (mander.xyz)
submitted 10 months ago by BB84@mander.xyz to c/science_memes@mander.xyz
1170
submitted 10 months ago by BB84@mander.xyz to c/science_memes@mander.xyz

cross-posted from: https://lemmy.ml/post/19504984

It's all relative

28
25 Images for Chandra's 25th (chandra.harvard.edu)
submitted 11 months ago by BB84@mander.xyz to c/astronomy@mander.xyz
[-] BB84@mander.xyz 55 points 1 year ago* (last edited 1 year ago)

The x axis is position. The y axis is energy. The blue box is a potential energy barrier. The red curve shows the wavefunction of a particle at a certain energy level coming in and tunneling through the wall. (the wavefunction actually live on a different y-scale from this plot and is only superimposed here for illustrative purpose, so don’t use the energy y-scale to read into the amplitude of the oscillatory part).

more info: https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Quantum_tunnelling

view more: next ›

BB84

joined 1 year ago