rekabis

You know, I’m seeing such levels of thought-terminating clichés, reality denialism, and outright brainwashing from you that all I am going to do is punt you a wonderful little piece of copypasta from GirlWritesWhat:

So what you're saying is that you, a commenter using a username on an internet forum are the true feminist, and the feminists actually responsible for changing the laws, writing the academic theory, teaching the courses, influencing the public policies, and the massive, well-funded feminist organizations with thousands and thousands of members all of whom call themselves feminists... they are not "real feminists".

That's not just "no true Scotsman". That's delusional self deception.

Listen, if you want to call yourself a feminist, I don't care. I've been investigating feminism for more than 9 years now, and people like you used to piss me off, because to my mind all you were doing was providing cover and ballast for the powerful political and academic feminists you claim are just jerks. And believe me, they ARE jerks. If you knew half of what I know about the things they've done under the banner of feminism, maybe you'd stop calling yourself one.

But I want you to know. You don't matter. You're not the director of the Feminist Majority Foundation and editor of Ms. Magazine, Katherine Spillar, who said of domestic violence: "Well, that's just a clean-up word for wife-beating," and went on to add that regarding male victims of dating violence, "we know it's not girls beating up boys, it's boys beating up girls."

You're not Jan Reimer, former mayor of Edmonton and long-time head of Alberta's Network of Women's Shelters, who just a few years ago refused to appear on a TV program discussing male victims of domestic violence, because for her to even show up and discuss it would lend legitimacy to the idea that they exist.

You're not Mary P Koss, who describes male victims of female rapists in her academic papers as being not rape victims because they were "ambivalent about their sexual desires" (if you don't know what that means, it's that they actually wanted it), and then went on to define them out of the definition of rape in the CDC's research because it's inappropriate to consider what happened to them rape.

You're not the National Organization for Women, and its associated legal foundations, who lobbied to replace the gender neutral federal Family Violence Prevention and Services Act of 1984 with the obscenely gendered Violence Against Women Act of 1994. The passing of that law cut male victims out of support services and legal assistance in more than 60 passages, just because they were male.

You're not the Florida chapter of the NOW, who successfully lobbied to have Governor Rick Scott veto not one, but two alimony reform bills in the last ten years, bills that had passed both houses with overwhelming bipartisan support, and were supported by more than 70% of the electorate.

You're not the feminist group in Maryland who convinced every female member of the House on both sides of the aisle to walk off the floor when a shared parenting bill came up for a vote, meaning the quorum could not be met and the bill died then and there.

You're not the feminists in Canada agitating to remove sexual assault from the normal criminal courts, into quasi-criminal courts of equity where the burden of proof would be lowered, the defendant could be compelled to testify, discovery would go both ways, and defendants would not be entitled to a public defender.

You're not Professor Elizabeth Sheehy, who wrote a book advocating that women not only have the right to murder their husbands without fear of prosecution if they make a claim of abuse, but that they have the moral responsibility to murder their husbands.

You're not the feminist legal scholars and advocates who successfully changed rape laws such that a woman's history of making multiple false allegations of rape can be excluded from evidence at trial because it's "part of her sexual history."

You're not the feminists who splattered the media with the false claim that putting your penis in a passed-out woman's mouth is "not a crime" in Oklahoma, because the prosecutor was incompetent and charged the defendant under an inappropriate statute (forcible sodomy) and the higher court refused to expand the definition of that statute beyond its intended scope when there was already a perfectly good one (sexual battery) already there. You're not the idiot feminists lying to the public and potentially putting women in Oklahoma at risk by telling potential offenders there's a "legal" way to rape them.

And you're none of the hundreds or thousands of feminist scholars, writers, thinkers, researchers, teachers and philosophers who constructed and propagate the body of bunkum theories upon which all of these atrocities are based.

You're the true feminist. Some random person on the internet.

As I pointed out in another root comment, the average - depending on the model being tested - tends to sit between 60% and 80%. But this is with no restriction on source materials… the LLMs are essentially pulling from world+dog in that case

So this opens up an interesting option for users, in that hallucinations/inaccuracies can be controlled for and potentially reduced by as much as ⅔ simply by restricting the model to those documents/resources that the user is absolutely certain contains the correct answer.

I mean, 25% is still stupidly high. In any prior era, even 2.5% would have been an unacceptably high error rate for a business to stomach. But source-restriction seems to be a somewhat promising guardrail to use for the average user doing personal work.

How much do large language models actually hallucinate when answering questions grounded in provided documents?

Okay, this is looking promising. In terms of the most important qualifications being plainly stated in the opening line.

Because the amount of hallucinations/inaccuracies “in the wild” - depending on the model being tested - runs about 60-80%. But then again, this would be average use on generalized data sets, not questions on specific documentation. So of course the “in the wild” questions will see a higher rate.

This also helps users, as it shows that hallucinations/inaccuracies can be reduced by as much as ⅔ by simply limiting LLMs to specific documentation that the user is certain contains the desired information.

Very interesting!

That may be the case, but the most irritating thing is that thy fill all available spots with the lowest-capacity chips that meet the requested provisioning spec, instead of taking the requested provisioning and using the fewest higher-capacity chips needed to meet the provisioning spec. The latter, at least, would leave spots open for an authorized repair location to manually solder on more approved chips of compatible spec.

It has made me inordinately sensitive to systemic societal hypocrisies. Especially differences between how the genders are treated.

Like, yes, there are still a lot of issues with how women are treated that needs improvement. But holy hell, compare a serious problem that isn’t gender-specific - DV, homelessness, suicide, workplace deaths, even rape - and how that issue gets handled depending on the gender means the average man instantly becomes a second-class citizen behind any woman. Or worse - not even worth consideration in any capacity, despite men being either equally victimized or the majority of victims. Men are literally being treated as trash for the crime of having been born male.

And no, in general it’s not other men doing this to men. They are forced to look away and do nothing to help other men, or risk being accused of being “misogynists” themselves because helping male victims “takes resources/attention away from women in need”.

This is why, as one example, political support for so many men’s issues is absolutely radioactive and invariably terminates careers at the very next election. So nothing ever gets done, while the other side has help galore shovelled at them from all directions.

It’s why, despite fully supporting women’s rights, I call myself an egalitarianist. Because I am not a gender bigot. I fight for rights on both sides, because that is the dictionary definition of “equality”.

Read it again. It occurs even with a full system wipe and re-install from Microsoft-direct media, or even a full hard drive swap. It is wholly independent of what is on the hard drive, the only restriction being that it can only successfully run when injected into Windows.

You are fueling the gender war.

So true equality is “fuelling the gender war”, eh?

Why call feminism “equality”, then, if it is nothing of the sort?

OpenSUSE user since about 2005/2006.

My headcanon (in this theme) is OpenSUSE being a tall androgynous-y female tomboy cosplaying as a strait-laced male exec done up in the latest tailored pinstripe German banker fashion, including matching waistcoat and fedora, with black trenchcoat suavely draped over the shoulders and hands in black leather gloves. And with the hair having just enough length and curl to be barely toeing past the line of decorum.

F-35 dominated the Gripen in terms of military capabilities.

…And?

In WWII, the German Tiger absolutely dominated the American Sherman. To the point where an average of 8 Shermans were needed to reliably take out a Tiger. There were frequent reports of Sherman ordinance just bouncing off of the Tiger’s armament like rubber balls, and it took a precise hit in just a handful of hard to target places in order to disable a Tiger, much less destroy it. Shermans needed to get stupidly close - frequently just a few tank lengths away - to make those shots count. Which means most were destroyed just trying to get close enough to actually be useful in the first place, or as distractions for other tanks to slip in.

And yet, America helped win that war. Because when 10, 20, or even more Shermans came boiling out of the woodwork for every Tiger that was fielded, the tide turned very quickly.

Canada’s initial quote for 88 F-35 fighter aircraft could obtain about 420 Gripen aircraft at current market prices.

Combine the gratuitous F-35 cost overruns, the maintenance that costs many multiples of what Gripen maintenance costs, and the massive cost savings inherent in building Gripens domestically, and we could conceivably field 7× or 8× as many Gripens as we could F-35 aircraft for the exact same cost.

Plus, Gripens can be fielded from many more places in Northern Canada than F-35 aircraft can. Sometimes as little as a straight section of highway.

And numbers win wars. Always.