Baum went on to call Sweeney and Glen Powell's smash-hit rom-com Anyone But You an "unwatchable movie," before revealing that she asked her students to "explain" the actress to her. "I said to my class, ‘Explain this girl to me. She’s not pretty, she can’t act. Why is she so hot?’ Nobody had an answer,” she said,
Yeah, seems like she had cause to say "maybe we don't have to hate each other for having success"...
I'm not an Xbox guy.
But if the PS Portal was $400 and played PS4 games natively plus did streaming like it does now, I would have been all over it. I like my steam deck, but there's a benefit to games hyper optimized to one system.
If those sites think that being linked to is a service they're providing Google (which demanding payment implies), then Google is just fulfilling their wishes.
This was really obvious a couple orders of magnitude ago, but I guess at least they stopped lying about infinite scale being an option?
Mostly audiobooks, 2x speed, a lot of hours a day. I do use an ereader sometimes. I've started collecting (just regular hardcover, mostly) physical copies of some of my favorites, but I don't really read them like that. When possible I read entire series from beginning to end consecutively. Audiobooks and visual reading are generally different books.
Mostly mystery, in a wide variety of settings, tones, levels of intensity, but some pure fantasy. Nonfiction is mostly psychology, but some science, other stuff as well. (180 new books this year), but I re-read as much as I read new. I don't set goals or anything, just use the "goal" to see the number each year out of curiosity.
Mid-30s, IDK. I read a bunch as a kid, then stopped the habit through high school and college and took a while to get back into heavy reading.
Just for the hell of it, if you want a well researched book about the value of all sorts of Rest to dispute that specific point.
"AI" long predates LLM bullshit.
Hallucinations aren't a problem with the actually medically useful tools he's talking about. Machine learning is being used to draw extra attention to abnormalities that humans may miss.
It's completely unrelated to LLM nonsense.
Except the summary is almost always literally the content the sites ask the sites linking them to show.
They have "please show this preview instead of a boring plain link" code.
It's a decent book overall. If you're interested in the theory behind choice architecture it's worth a read.
But yeah, read it a couple months ago and remembered it specifically addressed this question.
This is sloppy, but it's what I have time for atm:
In fact, the truth is surprisingly simple: much depends merely on what happens if people don't make a decision, something called a no-action default, or simply a default. The countries on the left of the graph ask you to choose to be an organ donor, and those on the right ask you to choose not to be a donor. If you do not make an active choice, you are, by default, a nondonor in Germany and a donor in Austria.
Dan and I wanted to understand this. We started by asking a sample of Americans whether they would be donors or not by presenting them with a choice on a webpage. One group, the opt-in condition, was told that they had just moved to a new state where the default was not to be an organ donor, and they were given a chance to change that status with a simple click of a mouse. A second group, the opt-out condition, saw an identical scenario, except the default was to be a donor. They could indicate that they did not want to be a donor with a mouse click. The third group was simply required to choose; they needed to check one box or the other to go on to the next page. This neutral ques-tion, with nothing prechecked, is a mandated-choice condi-tion; it's important, because it shows what people do when they are forced to choose.
The effect of the default was remarkably strong: when they had to opt in, only 42 percent agreed to donate, but when they had to opt out, 82 percent agreed to donate. The most interesting result was from those forced to make a choice: 79 percent said they would be a donor, almost the same percentage of donors as in the opt-out condition. The only difference between the group that was asked to opt out and those who were forced to make a choice was that we forced the respondents in the mandated-choice condition to pick either box before they could go forward. It shows that if forced to make a choice, most participants would become donors. Otherwise, if they were given a default, most simply took it, whatever it was.
From The Elements of Choice by Eric Johnson
It's more complicated than the one example, and he covers it further, but as a rough guideline, it looks like forced choice and opt out are similar in this case. Which would make sense because the opposition is mostly religious and strict religious people are more motivated to opt out.
I honestly ignored that Sweeney is a perfectly good looking woman because the whole premise is stupid.
The whole point of acting is to be whatever character. If people like one character enough, it doesn't matter how "good" your acting is. All that matters is that people connected to that character.
But also women bashing women for how attractive they are is definitely shit.