Traditionally, Wikipedia encouraged you to "be bold", that is, if you think something is wrong, don't complain, don't ask for permission, just fix it. [1]
But now that Wikipedia is becoming more stable, I wonder if this policy is still pushed as much. My understanding is that on all articles there is an army of autistic and obsessive people who will make sure it stays clean (I mean it in a good way), so if you mess things up, it won't last long, as in, seconds.
Certainly not all articles; most edits I make stick. The problem is it sticks out as an extremely sore experience when it is the case, so that's what you hear about.
A dear friend of mine had a battle of sorts with a fan of mother theresa in the spanish version of her article.Of course the zealot maintainer won in the end, no place for evidence backed criticism in religious wiki articles.
Current models go beyond the simple embedding because you start to encode groups of concepts in the context-aware part of the model (attention heads or any other method). So it is never simply words/tokens in isolation anymore.
They are also competitively priced for computer stuff and you are sure they are not counterfeit which is not the case on amazon (especially but not only sdcards).
x% of the money distributed to shareholders for how long this was going on taken from current revenue, not benefits.
That should also push shareholders to do the right choices in who they support.
yeah they don't talk about cleaning them either... that's a massive problem in this kind of ion separation techniques, things splatter and stick everywhere.
Calutrons are using the same principle of separating ions by their mass/charge ratio, just in a preparative scale (you want to collect what is separated) rather than analytical (you just want to know how much of what).
We know that intelligence tests and tests in general can be impacted by motivation and potential monetary gains (the article brushes on that). Maybe they can also be impacted by the happiness and other emotional states of the test taker.
reply