I was of the impression that reading a graph also required understanding of regular writing/reading, but I’m no native speaker, so I’ll gladly stand corrected.
I’m not sure what you mean by “one of those little zigzag indicators”, do you perhaps mean leap/break in data denoted by the “Squiggle”? I don’t think any data below 7m is included in this graph, so, if I understand you correctly, then that wouldn’t be a proper use of said squiggle.
Seems fine to me, the axes are easy to understand and there would be a lot of unnecessary whitespace otherwise. Though, it does require some reading comprehension, and that one actually looks at it and not just skims over.
You thought journalism had reached rock bottom already? Watch this:
Oh, no no, I was talking about the down votes that you’ve been receiving. My bad!
Doesn’t matter, it’s fun to see how far you can bend definitions (and I did go rather far with that one).
Also, I’m not sure where those down votes are coming from. Showerthoughts don’t need to be fully logical, taking all edge cases into account, etc. After all, it’s just a showerthought to discuss and joke/awe about.
In that case, you’d never see anything through anything but a “screen” because of the lens in your eye. (Using the definition of “screen” to be a “barrier”, which in this case provokes a transformation, or projection, of light.)
Ideally, a .mp4, or any other non-executable file format, would not be able to execute rogue code on your computer, but the programs you use to open the files with might have security flaws which allow rogue code execution if done right.
You might have a hypothetical file, which might not be dangerous if opened with VLC, but which exploits a flaw in, say, Windows Media Player version x.y.z to execute a payload.
Sorry, for not including any examples, I’m currently not at the PC.
Dunno about kids, but I’ve seen my fair share of grown men who appear to think so.
Ladders tend to be more stable if you lean them on the tree trunk, and not the branch you’re about to saw off.
I think i read that fighter pilots need to be able to identify a plane in one frame at 300 fps, and that the theoretical limit of the eye is 1000+ fps.
Though, whether the brain can manage to process the data at 1000+ fps is questionable.
Not sure if i understand the request, but there’s the !trackers@lemmy.dbzer0.com community if you’re looking for open signups.
~~“Batteries” is a rather broad category.
Are we talking hydroelectric batteries? Other potential or kinetic batteries? Chemical batteries (and what subcategory)? Or maybe hydrogen-based power storages?
Since there’s a dam on the list, I’d imagine “batteries” to be electrolytic power stores or hydrogen fuel cells, but the visualization remains lazy and perhaps borderline misinformative (depending on how nit-picky you are).
EDIT: The illustration might also use a simplified definition of a battery (to store, excluding conversion between kinds of power) instead of the different battery technologies which exist or the full definition, which could have one argue that batteries aren’t renewable by definition.
Though, that might be reading too much into it.~~
Actually, never mind, I’m probably too tired to go out on an adventure about the technicalities of the definition of “battery” to make any real amount of sense and not fall into edge cases.
I also misread “energy source” as “renewable”…
I feel that a lot of posts lately have been very “ugly” in terms of data representation. Dunno what that’s about, or if it’s just me.
You don’t have to sanitize the weights, you have to sanitize the data you use to get the weights. Two very different things, and while I agree that sanitizing a LLM after training is close to impossible, sanitizing the data you give it is much, much easier.
Oh no, it’s very difficult, especially on the scale of LLMs.
That said, we others (those of us who have any amount of respect towards ourselves, our craft, and our fellow human) have been sourcing our data carefully since way before NNs, such as asking the relevant authority for it (ex. asking the post house for images of handwritten destinations).
Is this slow and cumbersome? Oh yes. But it delays the need for over-restrictive laws, just like with RC crafts before drones. And by extension, it allows those who could not source the material they needed through conventional means, or those small new startups with no idea what they were doing, to skim the gray border and still get a small and hopefully usable dataset.
And now, someone had the grand idea to not only scour and scavenge the whole internet with no abandon, but also boast about it. So now everyone gets punished.
At last: don’t get me wrong, laws are good (duh), but less restrictive or incomplete laws can be nice as long as everyone respects each other. I’m excited to see what the future brings in this regard, but I hate the idea that those who facilitated this change likely are the only ones to go free.
So now LLM makers actually have to sanitize their datasets? The horror…
When was this written, in the 1980’s?
And then links to a similar sounding but ultimately totally unrelated site.
To expand a little:
While it indeed is annoying, it did mostly go as expected, as in, law makers must always be ready for companies responding to new and more restrictive laws with malicious compliance.
The vast majority of websites don’t actually follow the rules for cookie banners or implement them in as roundabout a way as possible, making them needlessly annoying as it should always be easier and at least as fast to decline than to accept.
While this all sounds like cookie banners ultimately are a failure because of the misimplementations that companies provided in response, it does function as an eye opener for the common man and stepping stone for the EU for further laws and fines in regard to citizens’ rights to privacy.
Everything nowadays that attempts to give back a little autonomy or freedom to the user is called piracy.
As long as an app could theoretically be used for piracy, even if it was made to circumvent toxic behavior of users’ bought and paid for products, then it must be properly labelled as piracy and taken down.
I’ll better stop before this becomes a rant.
And the above was literally how I was thought to represent data in university. Maximize the areas of interest, make sure to properly label your axes (lest they become misleading), and remember to trim empty space where relevant.
But it appears that proper graphs for science and engineering reports may not be used for representing data to the common man, as it must be assumed that, even for the most simple of graphs, the common man will only look at the funny line, but not the graph itself.