Muehe
Ubuntu ∈ Linux distributions ⇒ Linux can do that
Nah, this one was a direct link on purpose. But the edit box swallowed the @lemmy.ca part at the end due to trying user name auto-completion, so thanks for making me re-read the post. Good bot!
Ah with that link it's easy to track down what happened.
First you go to the community on the server in question: https://lemmy.world/c/alberta@lemmy.ca
Then you click on Modlog in the sidebar: https://lemmy.world/modlog/3835
And since there is pretty much nothing in it we immediately see the entry for your post saying:
reason: Deceptive content. Calling to abuse government system.
Note that when you compare your servers Modlog that entry is missing there, so yes, only removed for people connecting through lemmy.world.
Not sure how appeals work there, you can probably reply to the account that notified you, or go to the !support@lemmy.world community.
It is the GenX/older millennials who got off on [that].
Doomer Shooters? /s
*coughs in snap*
How the fuck do we still have quacks that are allowed to be called Dr. in this day and age?
Well the answer to that is rather multifaceted, but a few significant patterns seem to emerge:
- Ambiguous use of "Doctor" as an academic title in general and "Doctor" for the title "Medicinae Doctor" specifically. This just confuses a lot of people.
- "Paper mill" universities, selling "degrees" for money basically.
- Adjacent to that, recognition of foreign degrees. It is worth noting here that this is largely a legitimate process which is just occasionally abused, specifically by paper mills.
- Semi-adjacent to that, variance in title laws by jurisdiction. What education is allowing whom to bear which protected title under which circumstances is very different from country to country.
- Regulatory capture, aka "I will create my own degree, with Blackjack and Hookers". Several branches of medicine considered by many to be pseudo-scientific have managed to get themselves actual academic degrees recognised in several jurisdictions. For example the "Doctor of Chiropractic", or D.C. for short, is a recognised and protected academic title in many countries.
Is there a solution to all this? Not really. I guess educating the general public on the significance of academic titles could help, better global alignment in title laws as well. Preventing pseudo-sciences, or whatever someone considers as such, from establishing their own branches of science and academic titles seem highly dangerous though. Just think what this would imply for gender studies in the current political climate for example. Pseudo-science is just the price science has to pay for freedom of research, and when it bore theology being a branch since its inception than it will survive the D.C. as well.
Well according to the estimates given in the article the opposite is true and digitisation would save 4.5m£ p.a. Archival of paper has its own costs after all. You need climate controlled environments, regular review of the documents to make sure they aren't damaged by organics or anything, and physical storage space.
So not only is this argument probably wrong, engaging with it also gives credence the people suggesting that saving a paltry 4.5 million £ a year (which is about 0.06 £ per capita) is worth the downsides of this move, which it isn't according to all the experts cited in the article. The focus should be on the lost information, not on the costs.
Hell, at those costs you could just store them both physically and digitally without much difference in the overall budget (except for the initial digitisation of the physical documents). Digital storage is very cheap even with redundancies, and integrity checking can be automated.
Is some decade(s) old post of mine from some old forum really still floating around somewhere out there on some random old server chugging along?
The No Such Agency probably has a copy in its data centre in Utah. Other nation state actors probably have one as well if it's the singular and not the plural (decade).
Object IDs from the API so Questie doesn't have to wildly guess which one of the 300 "Wanted Poster" objects you are standing in front of to show you the quests it starts in the tooltip.
[citation needed]
To my understanding the problem is that the models reproduce biases in the training material, not model size. Alignment is currently a manual process after the initial unsupervised learning phase, often done by click-workers (Reinforcement Learning from Human Feedback, RLHF), and aimed at coaxing the model towards more "politically correct" outputs; But ultimately at that time the damage is already done since the bias is encoded in the model weights and will resurface in the outputs just randomly or if you "jailbreak" enough.
In the context of the OP, if your training material has a high volume of sexualised depictions of Asian women the model will reproduce that in its outputs. Which is also the argument the article makes. So what you need for more inclusive models is essentially a de-biased training set designed with that specific purpose in mind.
I'm glad to be corrected here, especially if you have any sources to look at.