Belief is necessary but not sufficient.

All power in our society is based on belief if you think about it.

Accents exist, you know.

“are” is a perfectly valid pronunciation of “our” I think, at least in some accents. Writing it as “are”, on the other hand does feel wrong.

I like contacts even less now.

I have a bunch of smart devices - light bulbs, wall plugs, etc. They all connect to Home Assistant running on my own server and I don’t need to pay any subscriptions.

IoT is not the problem, corporate greed is.

Well I did clarify I agree that the overarching point of this paper is probably fine…

widely accepted linguistic standard

I am not a linguist so apologise for my ignorance about how things are usually done. (Also, thanks for educating me.) But on the other hand just because it is the accepted way doesn’t mean it is right in this case. Especially when you consider the information rate is also calculated from syllables.

syllable bigrams

Ultimately this just measures how quickly the speaker can produce different combinations of sounds, which is definitely not what most people would envision when they hear “information in language”. For linguists who are familiar with the methodology, this might be useful data. But the general public will just get the wrong idea and make baseless generalisations - as evidenced by comments under this post. All in all, this is bad science communication.

I already said? It doesn’t affect FSR

This is bad reporting from phoronix (not surprising). The performance bug has nothing to do with FSR. It was just discovered in an FSR demo.

So I did a quick pass through the paper, and I think it’s more or less bullshit. To clarify, I think the general conclusion (different languages have similar information densities) is probably fine. But the specific bits/s numbers for each language are pretty much garbage/meaningless.

First of all, speech rates is measured in number of canonical syllables, which is a) unfair to non-syllabic languages (e.g. (arguably) Japanese), b) favours (in terms of speech rate) languages that omit syllables a lot. (like you won’t say “probably” in full, you would just say something like “prolly”, which still counts as 3 syllables according to this paper).

And the way they calculate bits of information is by counting syllable bigrams, which is just… dumb and ridiculous.

I am pretty skeptical about these results in general. I would like to see the original research paper, but they usually

1. write the text to be read in English, then translate them into the target languages.
2. recurit test participants from US western university campuses.

And then there’s the question of how do you measure the amount of information conveyed in natural languages using bits…

Yeah, the results are mostly likely very skewed.

Yeah this Tesla owner is dumb. wdym “we just need to train the AI to know what deer butts look like”? Tesla had radar and sonar, it didn’t need to know what a deer’s butt looks like because radar would’ve told it something was there! But they took it away because Musk had the genius idea of only using cameras for whatever reason.

I think what I look for is not being unbiased, but being independent. i.e. no conflict of interests, no direct relation with any political entities, not vested in the success of either side. And WaPo has failed that.

And stop pretending both sides are equal. Endorsing Trump is unethical.

It’s called weak forms, this video goes into a lot of details about them, has examples of “that that” as well: https://youtu.be/qlbGtEg68x4

Why am I so cross? Because I am stripped my working people status by Starmer despite me working all my adult life and still can’t start buying a house, for putting a bit of my savings into stock, just so he can claim he “didn’t raise working people’s taxes”.

That’s just peak slimey politician behaviour.

Do I think people who own a lot of stocks and assets should be taxed. Hell yes, let’s tax those motherfuckers. But just don’t lie and stop twisting the definition of working people.

Edit: typo

Read the news please.

When asked by Sky News if someone who works but also gets income from shares or property is a working person, Starmer said “they wouldn’t come within my definition.”

I agree with you, but that’s not what Keir Starmer said. His spokesperson recanted it, but what he said originally was stupid.

That’s not what Keir said originally, he said people who own any stock should be excluded from “working people”. Then people got (rightfully) mad and his spokesperson had to recant for him.

What are you talking about? This is exactly what Keir Starmer is saying and is what I am calling stupid.

Okay, so (hypothetically) I can be working for 50 hours a week to make ends meet. If I put any little savings I have from time to time into stock, I am not working people anymore? Just because I want to be financially responsible?