chicken

I would say, whichever one is polling highest, who has signaled support in any way for the issue. Other things about them don't matter because they aren't going to win anyway. In this case a lot of third party votes for a single candidate are probably better than the same number of votes spread across different candidates because it looks more like an organized voting block to politicians looking at the numbers in retrospect, who are the reason to vote at all if you are voting third party, you are trying to communicate via those numbers about how your vote can be obtained or lost.

There's no telling how much it would be worth since there's no active market for it, the NFT has been owned by the same wallet since its purchase in 2021 and has not been transferred or resold. That wallet currently has minimal value in Ethereum or tokens, and around 2k different NFTs, most of which don't seem to be very valuable. They are still active, with a transaction from a month ago moving 264k in stablecoins to a crypto exchange.

• https://etherscan.io/nft/0x3B3ee1931Dc30C1957379FAc9aba94D1C48a5405/25046

• https://opensea.io/3FMusic/collected

I thought it was the electrons that orbited

If you are saying they will privatize elections somehow as a loophole around following the constitution, I am skeptical

?

She's got the horns, is that her father then?

19th Amendment:

The right of citizens of the United States to vote shall not be denied or abridged by the United States or by any State on account of sex.

Only about a century old. Let's go for another 100.

If it wasn't clear, I am not claiming that AI is better than a person at summarizing complex information.

The AI summaries were judged significantly weaker across all five metrics used by the evaluators, including coherency/consistency, length, and focus on ASIC references. Across the five documents, the AI summaries scored an average total of seven points (on ASIC's five-category, 15-point scale), compared to 12.2 points for the human summaries.

The focus on the (now-outdated) Llama2-70B also means that "the results do not necessarily reflect how other models may perform" the authors warn.

to assess the capability of Generative AI (Gen AI) to summarise a sample of public submissions made to an external Parliamentary Joint Committee inquiry, looking into audit and consultancy firms

In the final assessment ASIC assessors generally agreed that AI outputs could potentially create more work if used (in current state), due to the need to fact check outputs, or because the original source material actually presented information better. The assessments showed that one of the most significant issues with the model was its limited ability to pick-up the nuance or context required to analyse submissions.

The duration of the PoC was relatively short and allowed limited time for optimisation of the LLM.

So basically this study concludes that Llama2-70B with basic prompting is not as good as humans at summarizing documents submitted to the Australian government by businesses, and its summaries are not good enough to be useful for that purpose. But there are some pretty significant caveats here, most notably the relative weakness of the model they used (I like Llama2-70B because I can run it locally on my computer but it's definitely a lot dumber than ChatGPT), and how summarization of government/business documents is likely a harder and less forgiving task than some other things you might want a generated summary of.

It can also be a solid rubber duck for debugging.

A lot of the time I get 3/4 of the way through writing a prompt and don't bother hitting enter because I already figured it out. Great way to get your thoughts organized to have an incentive to put them down in writing.

If other people are also immortal, the awkwardness of all of them eventually becoming your exes

IMO the most valid argument is that there are way more people making a middling income than people making a high income, so any reduction in taxes for those people would need a proportionally much larger increase in the upper brackets to maintain the same level of tax revenue, if it's possible to make the numbers work at all depending on how much of a tax break you want to give. The minimum amount to be taxed is set based on where the tail end of the bell curve is, the number of people who are poor enough not to be taxed is small.

Of course there's also the fact that the richest people don't get their money from having a job at all, it's all in investments, so messing with income tax rates doesn't even affect them.