masterspace

joined 2 years ago
[–] masterspace@lemmy.ca 4 points 3 weeks ago

The original Copilot is GitHub Copilot which is a coding assistant and it's very popular and useful for developers. I think most of the paying copilot customers and usage are coming from there.

[–] masterspace@lemmy.ca 0 points 3 weeks ago

3x increase makes sense to me.

GitHub Copilot (the original copilot) is wildly popular amongst professional software developers, and is used more and more as it gets more powerful.

I suspect most of the original paying customer base are developers and they're seeing a 3x usage, primarily amongst them, with a small bump from users of all the other copilots.

[–] masterspace@lemmy.ca 1 points 1 month ago* (last edited 1 month ago) (1 children)

Lol I know, but they were essentially making the point that beans are just an overall better protein source.

Now, don't get me wrong, beans are a great and nutritious food, and a good source of protein, but if you're analyzing them just as a protein source, then they're just objectively not as good as most meats, or like you pointed out, eggs.

I do agree that you should want to eat a healthy and balanced diet with a large variety, but at the end of the day macros do still matter, especially if you need to gain or maintain muscle mass. That can be because you're an athlete, or because you're over /under weight, or because you're elderly and need to prevent muscle mass loss to maintain the rest of your health, or if it's because your sick or recovering from an injury. In all those situations, where macros do actually matter, then it's perfectly possible to gain muscle while eating vegetarian or vegan, but just normal beans are not the protein source to do it. You're either going to want to eat quite a decent number of eggs on the reg, or supplement with a concentrate like whey or pea protein powder.

My point is just that beans are not an equivalent protein source to meat, and there's no point pretending like they are. No one is going to fall for it and suddenly convert. You'll have more success convincing people to go meat free by actually giving them viable alternatives, not gas lighting them.

[–] masterspace@lemmy.ca 0 points 1 month ago* (last edited 1 month ago)

Lmfao you don't even understand the analogy.

Cite your source on protein needs or shut the fuck up.

[–] masterspace@lemmy.ca 0 points 1 month ago (2 children)

And you're definitely so simple minded that you need to put people in buckets.

[–] masterspace@lemmy.ca 1 points 1 month ago* (last edited 1 month ago) (4 children)

Lmao, stop projecting bro. You're so social media pilled that because rfk likes protein, you reactionarily think protein is bad.

Educate yourself on the very basics of nutrition, and then go touch some grass.

[–] masterspace@lemmy.ca 16 points 1 month ago* (last edited 1 month ago)

The standard Daily Recommended Allowance for protein intake is ~0.83g / kg body weight. I.e. that is the minimum amount of protein you need to eat every day to maintain your basic nutrition, which for a 180lb person is about 70g of protein per day, at minimum.

You need more it you're an older adult, and you need close to double that if you're an athlete trying to gain muscle.

[–] masterspace@lemmy.ca 17 points 1 month ago* (last edited 1 month ago) (17 children)

Beans are great, but you need to eat 7 cups of beans, ~1.75 Litres of beans to get 100g of protein.

Even if you're vegetarian there are better sources of protein then that.

[–] masterspace@lemmy.ca 1 points 1 month ago

I mean, this is literally an argument against using oxen to plough fields instead of doing it by hand.

The answer is always that society should reorient around not needing constant labour and wealth being redistributed.

[–] masterspace@lemmy.ca -5 points 1 month ago* (last edited 1 month ago) (1 children)

If you want a heavy brick that doesn't need to move around, then buy a desktop for the power.

If you want a heavy brick that does need to move around, then buy a Think Book so that it can survive a fall.

And if you want a light laptop that's easy to carry around, then buy a Gram so that it can survive a fall and do basic 2007 things like include a numpad.

MacBooks heavy feel is literally just them overcharging you for something brittle. It's like being charged more for furniture because it's heavy only to find outs it's made with MDF.

Macbooks have decent chips that are limited by Apple's crappy software, a flat out badly designed OS, nice screens, and way too much weight for their utility.

[–] masterspace@lemmy.ca 2 points 2 months ago

It's not entirely clear what he's referring to, he just uses the term AI broadly in the context of people being worried about job losses, then talks about the reduction in secret police costs that enables, then discusses applying AI to physics.

[–] masterspace@lemmy.ca 46 points 2 months ago* (last edited 2 months ago) (12 children)

Tl;dw: he has two points:

  1. That between cameras and now AI monitoring, it has just drastically reduced the cost of running an authoritarian regime. He claims that running the Stahsi used to cost like 20% of the government budget, but can now be done for next to nothing and if will be harder for governments to resist that temptation.

  2. That there hasn't been much progress in the world of physics since the 70s, so what happens if you point AI and it's compute power at the field of physics? It could see wondrous progress and a world of plenty.

Personally I think point 1 is genuinely interesting and valid, and that point 2 is kind of incredible nonsense. Yes, all other fields are just simplified forms of physics, and physics fundamentally underlies all of them. That doesn't mean that no new knowledge has come from those fields, and that doesn't mean that new knowledge in physics automatically improves them. Physics has in many ways, done its job. Obviously there's still more to learn, but between quantum mechanics and general relativity, we can model most human scale processes in our universe, with incredible precision. The problem is that that the closer we get to understanding the true underlying math of the universe, the harder it is to compute that math for a practical system... at a certain point, it requires a computer on the scale of the universe to compute.

Most of our practical improvements in the past decade have and will come from chemistry, and biology, and engineering in general, because there is far more room to improve human scale processes by finding shortcuts, and patterns, and designing systems to behave the way we want. AI's computer scale pattern matching ability will undoubtedly help with that, but I think it's less likely that it can make any true physics breakthroughs, nor that those breakthroughs would impact daily life that much.

Again though, I think that point number 1 is incredibly valid. At the end of the day incentives, and specifically cost incentives, drive a massive amount of behaviour. It's worth thinking about how how AI changes them.

view more: ‹ prev next ›