Yeah, it's like just ignoring the actual conclusions. I mean, it's easier to hit and then it hits less hard, which is actually good because professional baseball players generally hit it out of the park when they get a good hit. So the conclusion is actually completely opposite what the title of the article is - it's not the same. It is a substantial improvement.
The moment I saw “slight difference in location of sweet spot” I knew the bat would have tremendous real-world impact even if the robots couldn’t hit any better.
i'm sorry but where are you seeing this completely opposite and substantial improvement?
>The team found nearly identical performance for the torpedo and standard bats except that the sweet spot for the torpedo bat was a half inch farther from the bat tip than the standard bat.
>“It was actually pretty phenomenal how close they were,” said Smith.
>For some players who like to hit the ball closer in, the torpedo bat might be a better option for them
some players with some batting characteristics may find this better? is that what you are referring to? What part of the article disputes this at all, let alone concludes the opposite? Is it the researcher's own quote? I really don't understand your objection here. It seems to be based on your own intuition about how players "generally" hit balls. But the researchers themselves have presented their own data and conclusions pretty clearly here.
to quote: "in the Persian Gulf today, the Navy grasps the reality of the circumstances, recognizing that it simply can’t sail into the strait without risk getting blown to smithereens by Iran’s missiles. Today, its carriers are stationed well outside the Gulf and the ranges of Iranian missiles."
Well, if you come at it from the mindfulness angle, there are real studies showing that mindfulness works. https://pmc.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/articles/PMC8083197/ and similarly, if you come at it from the religious angle, you can trace a lot of the aspects of mindfulness back to the Buddha's original teachings as recorded in canon. And if you ask if there is a fundamental point beyond those, I think the answer is that there is none recorded - the best description I have been able to get of Nirvana is that it is a state of perfect mindfulness.
There's a specific writing style for globalized English that AI's use. And then this post also had none of the stylistic flourishes that a real author might add. And then simple things like constructing a table of 68 libraries or whatever organized by relatively subjective categories. That is something that nobody is going to do by hand.
There is a new term "load-bearing" which is used a lot in my usage of AI. Has anyone else encountered this term being used a lot in their conversations? Or is it a quirk of personalization?
I use load-bearing all the time in conversation. People need to be careful that just because they don’t use certain phrases, it doesn’t automatically mean AI.
Both you and parent are making a lot of load-bearing assumptions.
As someone who likes to use a lot of em dashes in writing -- the 'heuristics' that AI 'hunters' like to use need a lot of further refinement before I would trust them with anything. And yet there are legions of anti-AI crusaders out there wielding them like weapons.
These folks are reinforcing a bias against all kinds of people, particularly those who are not native English speakers and were very likely taught 'globalized' English in their language training.
There are also fashions. So people could be using "load-bearing" more because it's fashionable. Like "lets double-click on that", or "spinning rust", etc
I've heard it a lot from podcasts that are towards the abundance movement. I think its common within the rationalise movement.
Personally I really like it for "load-bearing assumptions". Because it let's you work with assumptions whilst pointing out the potential issues of that assumption.
Well, I mean, you can certainly say economic value doesn't capture all of the value. But you can also say that there are metrics of value that do capture everything. Thermodynamic entropy, for example - its steady march to zero is statistically unstoppable. You can't measure a child's economic value without making a lot of assumptions, but you can measure a child's thermodynamic heat production with a few simple experiments. It might sound a little out there, but I've been looking at the maximum entropy production principle and some books on thermodynamics, and there really is a lot that is applicable to calculations about human systems. Viewing humans as dissipative structures designed to maximize entropy production really explains a lot about how the world works. Notably, some questions about our energy usage patterns. AI may not be useful economically yet, but it's excellent at dissipating heat.
In fact entropy is relative to what we define as chaos vs what we define as ordered. When we can't explain the order, we define it as being chaotic, and for convenience we model it statistically in stead of in absolute terms. I learned that few months ago from a HN posted article.
At least with Gemini, I found the trick is to add anything in any system instruction about a task list. Then the follow-up prompt will always be, do you want to add a task for that? Which is actually useful most of the time.
https://doi.org/10.1038/s41591-025-03622-w this is the paper they're basing the research on. So in primary care, the accuracy rates are in the 80s. So that's something like a 17% false positive rate. That's still like 5 to 1 odds of getting a correct result though. It's much better than nothing.
as the PRA outlines (and the article goes through), publishing notice to the Federal Register does not suffice to get around the PRA, it is just a step in the process.
It is just "notice" of their intention to do it. They still have to do the other pieces, including getting their OMB control number.
Of course, as the article points out, all of this is pretty moot, if they're going to get the police to drag you away and not let you fly, irrespective of the position in law.
If you are flipping through the reading to find a quote, then printed readings are hard to beat, unless you can search for a word with digital search. But speed reading RSVP presentation beats any kind of print reading by a mile, if you are aiming for comprehension. So, it is hard to say where the technology is going. Nobody has put in the work to really make reading on an iPad as smooth and fluid as print, in terms of rapid page flipping. But the potential is there. It is kind of laughable how the salesman will be saying, oh it has a fast processor, and then you open up a PDF and scroll a few pages fast and they start being blank instead of actually having text.
reply