Yeah, bruh. That happens when you jail people for “appearing gay”: https://www.axios.com/2022/10/24/hrw-report-lgbtq-qatar-jail-beatings-before-world-cup

And also for not being modest enough, which is entirely subjective, and also enforce an insane list of rules that changes and shifts at a moments notice based on religious interpretation: https://www.bbc.com/news/newsbeat-27599689

Antisemitism, bigotry, and lack of free speech and journalism: https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Human_rights_in_Qatar#:~:text=Individual rights and civil liberties,and freedom of the press.

Move your Nazi lovin’ ass out there if you love it so much, you hateful assclown.

AND a Nazi sympathizer, racist, bigot, antisemite, misogynist, and all around general asshole.

Edit: Okay…feel like I need to rant, because this is a particularly pretty stupid video.

• It’s 1h2m long, with maybe 10m of actual facts about Ford being a piece of shit (he unquestionably is)
• The guest here is just spouting off all kinds of historically inaccurate things about various groups of people.
• The guest also says in one breath that Native American agricultural techniques were “stolen and appropriated” (what?), and then in another breath tells viewers to go read about ancient Korean farming techniques and use those if you’re into farming (df…)
• 75% of the content of this house is surrounding a fascistic newspaper that Ford pushed before WWII (that really should have been the title)
• 15% is just the guest rambling off how awful everyone else is they don’t give communism a chance (lolz, he must not stay up on the news)
• The last bit is specifically about Ford being a gigantic piece of shit (which he is)

Skip through, save some time, but the bulk here is the guest guy pushing communism as an alternative to modern world woes with capitalism, and then some random shit about the “Islamic nature against Capitalism” which is news to me. The main guy also said Qatar is doing so well, it puts every other country to shame, so…take that for what it is if you know anything about Qatar (modern slavery, human rights abuses, LGBTQ oppression, misogynistic laws, class differentials in lawmaking…etc). So they’re railing on Ford, but in that one sentence about Qatar, also saying his bullshit seems to work in Qatar, so…

ANOTHER EDIT to say: the person posting this crap is the main host of this video. He’s also all over various social media posting links to his medium where he is (I am not shitting you) PRAISING MUAMMAR GADDAFI AS ONE OF THE GREATEST LEADERS OF THE 20TH CENTURY.

You must be from Texas

So, yeah. I can’t watch the full hour, but I skipped through and get the point.

Essentially, there used to be some guardrails around direct advertising in movies and TV after everyone selling ad time in the 50’s-70’s got multiple generations hooked on cigarettes and booze. Then it shifted from smokes to Coca-Cola which was in literally every movie in the 00’s, and now it’s websites.

The trick is, you can leave these brands anywhere in sight on screen, as long as you don’t directly tell the audience they need to buy it.

Bottle of Aviator Gin in a bar shot, sure.

Brawny paper towels in a janitorial closet, why not?

You just can’t draw attention to it. It’s a foolish distinction now because it’s been getting abused for so long, but until there are direct bans on all brands on screen - which seems kind of impossible - this will be a thing. Even more so now that you can quickly work AI generated billboard scenes in wherever you want without having to CGI or film it anymore. Sucks.

Edit: This is a perfect (though comedic) example of how it still works - https://youtu.be/5OHxP7pnwPg

Oh no…Joe Rogan gets interrupted by a certified genius in between idiotic thoughts.

Not enough pitch on the roof, no apparent eave, and the DRILLED wooden siding which is practically flat against the walls. It’s going to rot for sure.

That thing is going to leak and rot with any minor amount of rain.

Saving everyone a watch of unoriginal bullshit: https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Alexander_Selkirk

He was marooned, lived through it for 4 years, but died from what sounds like Malaria a few years later.

I watched them. There’s nothing there that is aggressive at all. He very clearly laid out and explained the issues with the ideas put forth by the ideas in that paper, and explicitly said why he did it that way (that’s how a colleague in science would note things), and further said if you’re to be taken seriously, you should expect such feedback from peers who are reviewing your work. That’s quite accurate.

What was your take on this that sounds negative?

I think “prick” is a bit far. I don’t think I’ve ever gotten any malice or ill-intent from him. He’s just a very blunt speaker who may not immediately recognize the social repercussions of what he’s saying in the moment. I think he recognizes this and constantly apologizes for the way he speaks.

Good points. I think ‘Pressure’ is actually Billy Joel attempting to ripoff Queen, but the metamorphosized Queen in the late 70’s/80’s. Imagine Freddy Mercury singing the words in Pressure, and you’ll hear Joel trying to sound like him. The synth part in that song played on a piano would sound distinctly classical as well, which was always a big theme in Queen’s and Mercury’s style.

The first half of this video is entirely dumb, which is shocking, because the second half actually accurately describes the issues the first half makes out to be “mysterious”. It’s not at all.

We can view model decisions AFTER they execute, but they are too fast to observe live. This is why constraints are put into place for reinforcement models to begin with. You want an expected outcome, just fast.

This video is confusing two different worlds that operate completely different from each other: computer vision models, and generative models.

We know exactly why vision models do what they do, because it’s predetermined, and a result is expected. Training these models includes large sample sets which can be observed, and the resulting model has outputs describing what happened during training. There are a jillion tools out there that let you even run a step-by-step of such models to see what the before and after of the input is, and allow you to adjust to your liking if the result is not correct. We wouldn’t be able to program them if not.

Generative models that are predictive operate differently. They attempt to guess a variation of input after a few filters, and then sort of run on their own. This is not reinforced learning, and is why it differs heavily from what this video describes.

There’s a massive difference between the different operations of neural networks, and this video just confuses all of them in some spots, but accurately describes them in others. It’s all over the place.

Base fact being that a model meant for vision is not having the same issues as one meant for languages or deep learning.

If I even smelled that much alcohol on the same day, it would probably kill me.

Think about the first part of that question though.

This was not an older movie, and if she’d ever watched the credits of a modern movie (as a movie buff), she would have certainly seen all the stunt coordination credits, and the tag about no animals being harmed.

Sooooo…yeah. I dated someone once who was brilliant in some ways, and not in others, but I very much loved them still, though our intellectual conversations were kept to a minimum.

After watching a particularly violent Western movie where a lot of horses were injured, shot, or killed, she seemed kind of disturbed. She was dead quiet after leaving the theater, and just seemed like she was thinking through it all and processing the story.

Halfway through the drive home, out of nowhere she asks “Where do all the horses go?”

The question kind of threw me, and waited a second to process what she had just asked me. I thought I misheard her, and there was a noticably uncomfortable gap in me reply.

“What? How do you mean?”

“Where do all the horses go after the movie? Like, what do they do with all the dead horses?”

In that moment, I froze, and I started to kind of chuckle as I thought she was making a joke. Then I realized she was serious. A 30-year old was asking me this question. A self-admitted movie buff, she called herself.

It was then that I knew this relationship wasn’t viable long-term.

Wat

Letterkenney?

Fuck Logan Paul

Upvote for the last shot.