In some circumstances it has a registration wall. I recently ran into it on one of my computers, and it prevented me from reading some articles until I removed the modals with browser devtools. Stupid and pointless, and just pushes people away or towards workarounds like archive.is. I've given The Guardian money in the past but I don't have or want an account.
From the second sentence, "over a year and a half of preparations". The third paragraph gives a starting agreement date of 7 March 1978, and the successful flight was 16 September 1979.
While this is interesting and impressive, I kinda relate more to OP's link of more "normal" trees. Going through the list gives me a feeling how many cool trees there are all over the place.
I've been to the Ancient Bristlecone Pine forest in Inyo County, CA where the Methuselah tree lives. Though I didn't get to see that specific tree because the sun was fast setting and I wasn't prepared to hike around in darkness, I had a pretty amazing experience being the presence of 4000- and 5000-year old trees.
This might be easier than refusing permission every time - it sounds like I can just not click it. I really dislike location permission things. I don't know what location will be shared, I don't use anything that needs a precise location, and I don't ever want to share my actual location. If location permission things showed me a map with where they think I am and let me click a (vague) location to share, I might use them, but currently to find nearest stores or whatever I just type in a postcode or use their map.
Edit: this has prompted me to go find a way to turn off location permission requests in the browser settings. It turns out you can do it under Privacy and Security > Site Settings in Firefox and Chrome.
This element has an autolocate attribute that will request permission automatically, plus it doesn't supersede the JS api, it simply provides a declarative alternative to it, so sites that follow this negative pattern will keep doing so.
At the same time, there is no reason to not implement this pattern today and require user intent prior to requesting the permission
According to the post, autolocate only does something after a user initiated permission has been granted.
So on the first vist you still need to click the button. On the second visit the callback will be triggered directly.
But, well, nothing prevents a big fat html modal on the page pointing to the button, now does it? If you want to annoy your product^H^H^H^H^H^H^Husers then you can always find ways to do so.
Safari lets you differentiate. I can set all sites to deny by default, configure Home Depot to always ask for permission (resets every 24 hours), and configure still others to always allow.
Me too. I don't share precise location but will happily click on a map if a website gives me the option. For things that i really need, i just use dev tools to manually set the location :)
This is very narrow AI, in a subdomain where results can be automatically verified (even within mathematics that isn't currently the case for most areas).
Not really. A completely unintelligent autopilot can fly an F-16. You cannot assume general intelligence from scaffolded tool-using success in a single narrow area.
I assumed extreme performance of a general AI matching and exceeding average human intelligence when placed in an F16 or an equivalent cockpit specified for conducting math proofs.
That’s not agi at all. I don’t think you understand that LLMs will never hit agi even when they exceed human intelligence in all applicable domains.
The main reason is they don’t feel emotions. Even if the definition of agi doesn’t currently encompass emotions people like you will move the goal posts and shift the definition until it does. So as AI improves, the threshold will be adjusted to make sure they will never reach agi as it’s an existential and identity crisis to many people to admit that an AI is better than them on all counts.
That's called a hypothetical. I didn't say that we put an AGI into an F-16. I asked what the outcome would be. And the outcome is pretty similar. Please read carefully before making a false statement.
>You're claiming I said a lot of things I didn't; everything you seem to be stating about me in this comment is false.
Apologies. I thought you were being deliberate. What really happened is you made a mistake. Also I never said anything about you. Please read carefully.
Try finding a new 1080p screen small enough to count as high DPI; there aren't many! Using 218ppi from elsewhere in the thread as the threshold, you'd need a 10 inch 1920×1080 screen to achieve it, so a 1080p computer screen is almost certainly low DPI.
reply