Let’s play a game of “Fortunately, Unfortunately“. Respond the previous post (the first comment below this post) by replying this post (not the previous post!)
I’ll start with: “I found this website.“
Suggestion: the president candidate that got second on the election should become a vice president
Turns out the reason why my GPU doesn’t speed up my training is because I didn’t batch my data, because the dataset is ragged and I had no idea how to batch it at first
After figuring out how masking works, I got it batching my data. Now I have to figure out how to handle…
…this.
My new laptop will make ML projects faster than ever
sees the GPU at Task Manager barely being utilized
I think I just got scammed
Context since I have no more space left and beta is broken:
This is a snippet of my writing called "Me and The Internet", a highly critical writing about the Internet and their community from my perspective, and some rants about them. I have hesitated to share anything here since I know it will only bring verbal fights to the one reading them, and I really don't want that to happen on this place. This is one of the more chiller writings, but others regarding to human rights, anti-capitalism, and politics are way more spicy than this. If I ever posted them here, I will probably beat myself at "wasteof post worst than oren's" (IYKYK).
Criticality above All
I like to look at the comments when I watch YouTube, when I noticed that there's a theme of the top comment of some videos: the comments are almost all critical. Either they provoke some entity (usually big, greedy corps) or outlining mistakes or overall silliness of one's act. There's some exceptions of course; praises for being different than the others or simply just comments that's on topic with the content (usually funny ones) are some examples of the exceptions.
There must be some method to this madness. Being that the algorithm of YouTube is tuned for attention regarding to giving people content (because more attention = more watchtime = more ad revenue = more money), I have a theory that people just gravitate towards other's opinions, either to agree with them or to disagree with them. It doesn't matter if the opinion is agreeable or controversial; it will be pushed up by the algorithm. The more agreeable or controversial some post is, the more people will talk about it, and the more engaging that post will be.
It doesn't take much for this bias to become apparent; even a single like-dislike number is enough to bias content in this manner. Just look at Urban Dictionary; most of the top definitions are opinions.
This is an interesting fact to learn. Social networking services are tuned to prefer people's preferences, rather than the overall sentiment or relevance of the topic in question. And the Internet grown up to be this way.
Criticality above All
I like to look at the comments when I watch YouTube, when I noticed that there's a theme of the top comment of some videos: the comments are almost all critical. Either they provoke some entity (usually big, greedy corps) or outlining mistakes or overall silliness of one's act. There's some exceptions of course; praises for being different than the others or simply just comments that's on topic with the content (usually funny ones) are some examples of the exceptions.
There must be some method to this madness. Being that the algorithm of YouTube is tuned for attention regarding to giving people content (because more attention = more watchtime = more ad revenue = more money), I have a theory that people just gravitate towards other's opinions, either to agree with them or to disagree with them. It doesn't matter if the opinion is agreeable or controversial; it will be pushed up by the algorithm. The more agreeable or controversial some post is, the more people will talk about it, and the more engaging that post will be.
It doesn't take much for this bias to become apparent; even a single like-dislike number is enough to bias content in this manner. Just look at Urban Dictionary; most of the top definitions are opinions.
This is an interesting fact to learn. Social networking services are tuned to prefer people's preferences, rather than the overall sentiment or relevance of the topic in question. And the Internet grown up to be this way.
me when first past the post
edit: turns out I forgot how FPTP means, whoops. seeing how people voted though means my statement is not that wrong
Important announcement
After careful consideration, we will be changing the voting system. Each person will have one vote
alright let’s go back to English language international pop
yeg
don’t know what to listen
time to listen some local pop I guess
(GT-180) https://assets.scratch.mit.edu/57914bda3359b6d5586dcccb1da4841d.mp3 | The music at Mount Lineland kinda sounds like a BGM for some Japanese arcade game or a supermarket, so I made one
(Yes, this is a GT-180 broadcast here at wasteof. As my IP is at DroneBL, Corkboard and ChanSpec are inoperational at this moment. This might be the only broadcast aired here, though.)
I’ve been considering Jefallo’s 2022 idea of a password manager, but I quickly realized it’s not more secure than using this password pattern:
@Elisa@something.social|password123