Agree (you made me think of the famous face on Mars). I mean that more as a joke. Also there's no clear threshold or divide on one side of which we can speak of "human intelligence". There's a whole range from impairing disabilities to Einstein and Euler – if it really makes sense to use a linear 1D scale, which very probably doesn't.
Had never heard about Graphite, thank you! I'll try to stay updated about it. But please feel free to post important news about it in this community, whenever there'll be steps forward.
The title of the post is incorrect. It should be: "Elon Musk rebrands Twitter as the X11 Window System".
That's a neat description.
My point was that a coffee machine is designed to make coffee, not to keep track of time. Maybe it always takes roughly the same amount of time to make a coffee, and so someone uses it as a proxy stopwatch. But it can very well suddenly take more or less time, without anything being wrong about it – maybe different coffee brands, cleaned pipes, or whatnot.
ChatGPT is an algorithm designed to parrot language, not to perform mathematical reasoning based on logic rules.
Cheers! one mystery solved.
+1 rsync, to an external harddrive. Superfast. Useful also in case I need a backup of a single file that I changed or deleted by mistake. Work files are also backed up to the cloud on mega.nz, which is very useful also for cross-computer sync. But I don't trust personal files to the cloud.
Interesting legal ramifications that I wasn't aware of. Does Canonical own Ubuntu? from what I gather in the other comments, it doesn't really?
I didn't know this – cheers!
There's still a lot of debate around this topic. It's obviously difficult for people who have used these methods for the past 60 years to simply say "I've been using a flawed method for 60 years" – although in the end that's how science works. The problem moreover is double: the method has built-in flaws, and on top of that it's often misused.
Some starters:
-
The official statement by the American Statistical Association
-
Signatories for the dismissal of the method
-
Many papers explaining the built-in flaws, from this old 1935 paper and this old 1965 discussion, to more recent ones; for example this, or this, or this, or this, or this tutorial
-
This paper gives a good summary
-
Journals that don't accept "statistical significance" methods anymore: this or this
-
Several books, for example this one. I agree with the factual content of this book, but I don't like the authors's braggart way of writing. In their defence, though: it's the same braggart way of writing that R. A. Fisher, the father of "statistical significance", often had.
What's sad is that these discussions easily end in political or "football-team"-like debates. But the mathematical and logical proofs are there, for those who care to go and read them.
Time to change distro.
Thanks for the recommendations!