Yep, dirt bike for me too. Maybe it's a lack of really creative imagination, but someone doing parkour couldn't have kept up. A dirt bike makes sense because it could do highway speeds.
merc
joined 2 years ago
Especially because the data it has been trained on is probably not typical for a CFO in the real world. In the real world it's a lot of boring day-to-day stuff, that isn't worth writing up. The stuff worth writing up is exciting thrillers where a CFO steals money, or news reports where a CFO embezzles.
Imagine prompting it with "It was a dark and stormy night" and expecting it to complete that with "so David got out his umbrella, went home, ate dinner in front of the TV then went to bed." It's probably what most "David"s would actually do, but it's not what the training data is going to associate with dark and stormy nights.
Generally not the entire lower face, the way men do.
Women shave all the time, they just don't tend to shave their faces.
I think "I don't know" might sometimes be found in the training data. But, I'm sure they optimize the meta-prompts so that it never shows up in a response to people. While it might be the "honest" answer a lot of the time, the makers of these LLMs seem to believe that people would prefer confident bullshit that's wrong over "I don't know".
Yeah, and it sometimes makes sense just from an acting PoV, so you can forgive it. It's hard to fit all the characters and cameras in a scene if someone lives in a typical cramped apartment. So, like in the Friends TV show, none of them has jobs that should indicate they're rich. But, the sets they use for the apartments suggest they have huge apartments. In that show, Joey's apartment isn't beautifully furnished, it looks fairly cheap. But, it's really spacious for NYC. But, it seems like it's all about giving the director the freedom to frame shots to get everybody involved, and to allow characters to move around.
OTOH, A recent movie, "Black Bag" was terrible for this. I hated the movie because it was just impossible to believe. This guy, who's supposed to be a British intelligence officer (i.e. living on government wages). His wife is also an intelligence officer. Yet, somehow, they live in this condo that looks like it would be about £5m to buy, or about £5000/month. Since the plot revolves around whether one of them is a traitor and is selling state secrets, it seems pretty obvious it's this guy or his wife because no civil servant is living in a place like that on just a government salary.
I remember that from S1, but it doesn't show up in S2, does it? Maybe they took it down?
If you're a Baron, maybe.
It's not just Home Alone for me. Almost every show I watch, I look at the places where the characters live with immense envy.
Lord of the Rings: Man, I'd love to live in that hobbit house. That looks incredibly cozy.
Daredevil: That is such a nice loft, and it has such great light. It's unfair that a guy who's blind doesn't truly appreciate his great apartment because he can't see.
Futurama: Fry's a delivery boy and he lives in a robot's closet, and it's still better than where I live.
Only Murders in the Building: NYC and these guys have those kinds of amazing places? (To be fair, this is a major plot element of the 4th season)
If you were white, and it was immediately after WWII when every other major country in the world had been pulverized in WWII while the US was essentially untouched.
Even if it were possible to bring back the strong unions from the end of the great depression, and to bring back the laws from the New Deal which were in force at the end of WWII. And even if you did those things while simultaneously taking away the rights from black people so that they had the pre-civil-rights lifestyle. Even then, you couldn't get to this level of wealth for a truck driver without also having a world war that smashed every other country and left the US whole.
What's interesting is that the ones who don't have peach fuzz are men who shave. If a perfectly smooth face is what you find attractive, you want a man's face.
It's amazing to me that they can even measure a 0.01 XG shot. This comes from James Benge's twitter account.
The XG graph is also interesting. Tottenham has a continuous stream of very low quality shots, resulting in the graph going up in tiny increments. Arsenal has a series of decent chances near minute 17, and then the one high-quality shot resulting in Gabriel's goal.
https://understat.com/match/26640
I'm sure part of it is Arsenal defending in a low block after scoring. But, it also smacks of desperation on Tottenham's part. If you're taking a shot that has a 1% chance of going in, rather than passing and waiting for a better opportunity, you don't believe that you're going to get a better opportunity.
view more: next ›
I wonder what it will do to kids these days that they don't use their imaginations like this. Kids today will be glued to electronic devices.