Saw this earlier today, I think it’s very flawed and ideological, unfortunately other posts mentioning this got flagged.
First there’s the idea that “nurturing” is somehow what kids need and better for them automatically, that whatever a stereotypical man does with kids is bad for them, and we need to be rewired by pheromones or whatever to be more sensitive.
And as a corollary the idea that a high-T man somehow is a worse caregiver, and that it needs to be reigned in by some adaptation.
The whole thing is definitely framed for a certain world view, it’s definitely not the only interpretation.
It seems pretty uncontroversial to say that kids need nurturing? What are we doing with them if we're not nurturing them?
The point of the article is that nurturing babies is one of those things that stereotypical men already do. Probably not as much as women, but it is a research result we could have guessed. Turns out that men care about the success of their children too, who knew.
> And as a corollary the idea that a high-T man somehow is a worse caregiver, and that it needs to be reigned in by some adaptation.
You're reading things that the article did not write. The article did make some political calls around more parental leave and a call for fathers to be more involved with their children, but that isn't any sort of knock against all the other hormones that humans have.
Sure people might believe that; lots of people believe a lot of wildly stupid things. But it isn't in the article. There isn't anything judgemental in observing that people's lifestyles can cause hormonal shifts.
It's worth noting though that the actions of the "stereotypical man" are strongly culturally informed, and not neccessarily indicative of whatever evolutionary pressures would've wired males brains whatever way they're wired for fatherhood. I don't think we have much direct evidence of ancient female and male parent roles (apart from being able to infer the obvious, like that females would've breastfed).
A lot of ancient cultures were collectivist if small. In some cases, matriarchal, in some cases, sex was "free" because the village owned the kids, and so establishing paternity was not as important because the burden was shared.
How do youvarrive at matruarchal while most male mammals display hormonal harem bloat? If nature blows you up into body building brute once you have a family, does that not indicate a clear pyramid of force and a violence monopoly?
Four things are needed. Stereotypically they're divided
Dad: Protect and provide
Mom: Nurture and nourish
You could do it differently, but that only works if you swap one, not share half half.
Both have been eroded. Kids are raised by strangers, our food is crap, you can't warn each other about dangers cause that's somehow an insult and a single income doesn't pay the bills.
The goal seems to be to set men and women against each other.
> Four things are needed. Stereotypically they're divided Dad: Protect and provide Mom: Nurture and nourish
> You could do it differently, but that only works if you swap one, not share half half.
I disagree. But I started nurturing early by planning and orchestrating all our births (home, birth center, birth center, twins/hospital) and her prenatal care.
Much later, my wife developed psych issues and in the end I was performing all roles to our 5 sons. But well before then I was deeply into nurturing our sons as infants, toddlers, PreK and grade schoolers. I changed most of the diapers (cloth! for sons 1 & 2.). I packed lunches, did cub scout leadership, cleaned up the wounds and encouraged them to go get more.
Compared to competent moms and dads, I wasn't substandard, insufficient or compromised in any way.
If I may attempt to clarify my stance. Stereotypically, on average, interpolate for your marriage and all that, if a man does a task/role, he has the ball. He doesn't share the ball. Doing X is my job? Aight, my job. No touchy. Mine. I've got this.
Wife starts doing X. Boom, clarity lost.
I know, I know, shades of grey and all that. But on average, divide it clearly and you know who is responsible for what.
You did all of it, while your wife was sick. Kudos man, tough job done well.
My point wasn't about the heaviness of the task, or about how well each could do it, but about clarity and role division.
I mean, how you clearly point out the immovable constraint and blow past it as if the whole thing is just a cultural fad is somewhat shocking.
Single income doesn’t pay the bills. Period. Everything else is downstream.
One could argue that your talking about the dangers of these downstream effects is insulting and classist. Who is gonna pay these bills? Do you think we prefer that strangers raise our kids?
If we had a trust fund, we would raise our kids ourselves, and backhand brag on forums about how it is the right way. Sadly, we don’t.
Where did I say anything about a cultural fad? Where did I mention "dangers of downstream effects"? Where did I claim that I think "we prefer strangers raise our kids"?
You're pulling your reply straight from the offended-rack
I didn't read the article but I'll stand in for the person you replied to and make my best guess at what he meant:
I think he's saying that a manly man might not be soft and cuddly with a small child like a traditional mother would. But that is not necessarily detrimental. For instance, a guy might not want to coo and caw, or change the pitch of his voice, or giggle, things that some men find weak. But (perhaps - I don't know anything about children) the child may still respond positively to a male who used his normal voice and interacted with them however he naturally felt.
Thank You. This is exactly why I read comments on HN before clicking on news. I am not looking for confirmation bias, I just trust people here more than the BBC.
It’s probably unnatural for adult men to spend much time with tiny children in the first place. Here and there, sure, and boys close to adult age, definitely, but nothing like what happens today. This is why many men find it difficult, it is contrary to instinct.
Do hunter gatherers split care of tiny children? Whatever they do is what we’re wired for, mostly.
I am sorry whatever you have observed convinced you that it’s unnatural for fathers to spend time with children.
It’s unnatural for adult men to NOT spend time with our tiny children. That’s how we bond, and that bond helps us stick around, protect, provide, nurture, and do all the other things that helps them SURVIVE.
It would be unnatural for us to not do the things that would help our offspring survive.
The only biological feature that makes women "better" at handling screaming kids is the inability to do anything about when frustrated men choose to deflect and defer reaponsibility to the helpless women if the tribe, because they are stronger & not physically burdened by child-carrying, usually with violence or threat of violence - for generations in a row, until we all sub-consciously accepted it as a truth.
Like the experiment where the monkeys wouldnt eat bananas for generations after the electric shocker attached to them was removed - they had internalised the idea that bananas gave shocks, we have also internalised these untrue ideas.
Near the beginning, the paper states that humans are extremely unusual in the rates of paternal investment that fathers do. With most species, the male dips out. Men don't always spend a lot of time on children, but they do have the wiring for it. It seems to be one of the many traits that sets humans apart from other species.
> It’s probably unnatural for adult men to spend much time with tiny children in the first place.
Sorry, what? The framing of this sentence alone has a very creepy vibe. I can't speak for all of us, but most us have strong protective instincts towards kids of all ages, especially the youngest ones.
> This is why many men find it difficult, it is contrary to instinct.
Contrary to whose instinct? If I had a kid, I would want to ensure his/her safety and success. Men in general yearn for it. And there's nothing that suggests men are incapable of it. Research indicates good outcomes. And I know fathers who are the sole care givers for young kids when life makes it inconvenient for the mother.
> Do hunter gatherers split care of tiny children? Whatever they do is what we’re wired for, mostly.
Hunter gatherer culture is at least ten thousand years old - plenty of time for social behavior to evolve. Modern humans, including men are very heavily invested in kids because humans can't have a lot of kids. Ensuring each one's safety becomes important.
Heck! Humans, including males are very nurturing and protective towards even children of other men and other species. Plenty of evidence that your assertion doesn't hold at all.
Woah. As an adult man with five kids, two of them infants, the most natural thing in the world is for them to be present in almost every second of my life.
It’s not difficult at all. Minutes after birth, naked baby was on my naked chest, and bonding started. This never felt contrary to my instinct.
Ok, you may consider it easy after 5, and kudos to you, but kids are definitely not “not difficult.”
I agree that it’s the most natural thing, and I consider most of my time spent elsewhere to be a waste, but our youngest is very active and worrying about her wellbeing for extended periods is definitely exhausting!
But it’s ok for child men to spend time with children? That seems dangerous. Who would teach them about scissors? Furthermore, when does a child stop being a tiny child? And at that point can any adult male of the species interact with them or is there some kind of age to height progression where it becomes safe?
In very much more serious, but perhaps less kind thoughts, do you not get halfway through writing things like that without considering how fundamentally broken that thinking is? My heart seriously goes out to you, unless it’s not ok given I am pretty tall and you might be 12 or something so it may still be a few years before we can talk, but I may be dead by then and it feels like you could use a pal, lil buddy.
I can't speak for the person you're responding to, but my default reaction to people who say things like this is that they probably don't have kids, and if they do, I wonder about the well-being of their family life. I don't mean that to be insulting at all. It seems completely incompatible with being a family- or community-involved person.
And what's society without kids? Whether you're a parent or not, we need kids to do well. It makes no sense at all not to learn to be good with kids, to care about them, to invest in them, etc. They're firmly a core component of human society, certainly not going anywhere.
And I can't imagine not spending a lot of time with my kids. It's one of the things I think about most. I like to do a lot of things, but they're one of the few things I can always say yes to. I want to take care of them, teach them, learn from them, listen to them, see them grow, whatever. It just feels good to be in their lives. There's nothing unnatural about it.
> I can't speak for the person you're responding to, but my default reaction to people who say things like this is that they probably don't have kids,...
I don't have kids and it still sounds nonsensical. As a man, my instinct isn't to run away from my child if I had one. If life keeps men and their children apart, that's a different matter altogether. But I have seen other men yearn to be with their little kids. My father did the same when I was young. Some of them are their kids' sole caregiver for the majority of the time because life keeps the mother away from the child. And in all instances, I see strong paternal affection and instincts at play. I'm baffled by an assertion otherwise.
The bond I have with my children is profound and primal. The idea that it’s “unnatural” for me to spend much time with them is so ridiculous as to be instantly dismissed.
GP clearly doesn’t have kids or have close male friends who are involved with their kids.
N = 1. now compare the number of single mothers (≈ children abandoned by their fathers) vs the number of single fathers (≈ children abandoned by their mothers).
for every helicopter dad there are ten guys who don't care about their offspring.
The more typical AI fondation model company claim of “it’s so dangerous only we and people that pay us enough should hand access” is what I think is BS.
I don’t see anything wrong with trying to understand something, which is what this seems to be about. I also don’t see anything wrong with an AI operated store generally, and it of course makes sense, and is valuable, to learn about how the limitations.
This is a question about insurance generally. Insurance for something catastrophic and very rare makes the most sense because individual premiums are low and risk is pooled. The opposite kind of insurance, and the dumbest, is getting a warranty at Best Buy (if they still exist) for 1/3 of the cost of the product, or those wheel rim warrantees. Having the product break isn’t catastrophic, and you’re not really pooling risk because the premiums cost more for you individually than you’d expect to get back if a loss happens. In those cases you’re better just setting aside the premium in the bank. But if you did this with life insurance, you would never accumulate a value anywhere near the payout.
It’s not an expansion, they are selling the shoe assets. It’s basically just starting a new business and redeploying capital (if there is any). It’s just a really odd way to announce and undertake it.
While true, the predominance of evidence for evolution has reached the point that anybody attempting to argue against it would have to produce absolutely enormous amounts of self-consistent evidence that explains our observations better than modern theories of evolution. It's sort of like the laws of thermodynamics, or relativity, or quantum physics- if you found convincing evidence that any one of those was not accurate, and came up with a better explanation, it would both completely transform science, and open up new avenues for discovery.
And if you want to do that, you should probably get a deep set of experience; otherwise, it's not much different from a flat earther.
theres nothing stopping the entirety of existence as being experienced via wires connected to some brain matter suspended in a jar, one would have to disprove this issue at a meta level to conclusively state any given existential theory as true. therefore all existential theories including atheism are faith based, so to state any one particular theory as true is dogmatic and unscientific
If I’m remembering correctly, I had bought a Borland Turbo C++ compiler circa 1994 (for DOS) that came with a demo sheets application you could build and run.
What does one achieve with 25 GB internet? Are speeds actually usefully faster, or is there some other bottleneck that makes the practical speed the same as in the US?
Also any workload I have that is bandwidth heavy would be on clouds machines between data centres and generally very fast. Are there reasons why someone at home would benefit from 25GB internet beyond whatever is available?
Is this a case of over engineered central planning instead of a blow against the free market?
I think you misunderstood the article, or perhaps didn't read it?
So the way the system works is each house has 4 physical fibers into it, that go into a central office without being aggregated up. Inside the central office any ISP can offer any speed vs price option they want, because they just patch you in at layer 1.
So of course, most people wouldn't necessarily need to get 26Gbit. But if you want to offer it as an ISP you can, and it's up to customers to decide if it's worth the price.
One obvious use case would be folks that work with high resolution video. Uncompressed 8K is about 8TiB per hour of footage. Compressed raw like RED cinema et all are more like 1TiB per hour at the high quality settings.
25Gbit vs 1Gbit for moving 1TiB is 5 minutes vs 2 hours.
A quick google says the 25Gbit service from Init7 is $80 bucks a month.
Sounds like an astoundingly good deal vs what's available in the US to me.
I routinely max out my 1Gbps connection downloading large files for work. 25Gbps would cut my waiting substantially. I'm not sure how likely it is that the server would be able to fill that pipe, but if such connections were common, they'd probably make it happen.
If people don't actually use the extra speed then it's effectively free to provide, anyway. If providers could advertise 25Gbps while only needing the same capacity they do for 1Gbps, I imagine they'd do it just to bring in a few more customers. The fact that they don't suggests it would result in more usage suggests it would be useful.
Workloads emerge with higher capacity not other way around. Lossless media, to virtual reality applications all scale better with more available bandwidth.
An average AAA game is 100-200GB today. That is not by accident, The best residential internet of 1Gbps dedicated it is still 30 minutes of download, for the average buyer it is still few hours easily.
A 2TB today game is a 5 hour download on 1 Gbps connection and days for median buyer. Game developers can not think of a 2TB game if storage capacity, I/O performance, and bandwidth all do not support it.
Hypothetically If I could ship a 200TB game I would probably pre-render most of the graphics at much higher resolutions/frame-rates than compute it poorly on the GPU on the fly.
More fundamentally, we would lean towards less compute on client and more computed assets driven approach for applications. A good example of that in tech world in the last decade is how we have switched to using docker/container layers from just distributing source files or built packages. the typical docker images in the corporate world exceed 1GB, the source files being actually shipped are probably less than 10Mb of that. We are trading size for better control, Pre built packages instead of source was the same trade-off in 90s.
Depending on what is more scarce you optimize for it. Single threaded and even multi-threaded compute growth has been slowing down. Consumer internet bandwidth has no such physics limit that processors do so it is not a bad idea to optimize for pre-computed assets delivery rather than rely on client side compute.
I'll assume by "game servers" you mean "video game binary and asset distribution servers that support game stores like Steam and Epic and others".
When I paid Comcast for 1.5Gbit/s down, Steam would saturate that downlink with most games. I now pay for service that's no less than 100mbit symmetric, but is almost always something like 300->600mbit. Steam can -obviously- saturate that. Amusingly, the Epic Games Store (EGS) client cannot. Why?
Well, as far as I can tell, the problem is that -unlike the Steam client- the EGS client single-threads its downloads and does a lot of CPU-heavy work as part of those downloads. Back when I was running Windows, EGS game downloads absolutely pegged one of my 32 logical CPUs and left a ton of download bandwidth unused. In contrast, Steam sets like eight or sixteen of my logical CPUs at roughly half utilization and absolutely saturates my download bandwidth. So, yeah... if you're talking about downloads from video games stores it might be that whatever client your video game store uses sucks shit.
OTOH, if you're talking about video game servers where people play games they've already installed with each other, unless those servers are squirting mods and other such custom resources at clients on initial connect, game servers usually need like hundreds of kbps at most. They're also often provisioned to trickle those distributed-on-initial-connect custom resources in an often-misguided attempt to not disturb the gameplay of currently-connected clients.
Game downloads, whether on a console or a PC, come from a CDN. The difference is that Steam has a lot of capacity. They can have millions of players all downloading the same game on the same day at gigabit speeds. Console makers invariably cheap out and cannot reach the same level of service.
Hell, it might be the case that console manufacturers are doing the same stupid shit that EGS is doing. Perhaps they wrote their download code back when 50mbit/s was a dreadfully fast download speed for the average USian to have and they haven't updated it since. (And why would they? What's a consumer's alternative other than "Pay 1k or more for a gaming machine that can run games delivered through Steam" or "Don't play video games"?)
> I'd need to upgrade my entire lan just to make use of it.
If the concern is cost (rather than recabling the house) Mikrotik sells solid, inexpensive gear. Its management UIs take a bit of getting used to, but are fine once you've figured them out. You can also find two-port Intel 10gbit NICs on the Newegg "Marketplace" for ~40USD [0], and -while most already come with modules (and you will be informed if they don't)- if the X520s you're sold don't permit non-Intel transcievers, the NIC's firmware can usually be easily modified to change that. [1]
It’s not official, but you don’t always need to replace Cat5 cable with Cat6 to support 10Gbps Ethernet. Cat5 might only get you a quarter of the range of Cat6 on a good day, but since the range of Ethernet is 300 feet you would need a really big house to have cables that were too long.
But generally the real question is how often the extra speed would give you a real measurable advantage. If it’s only a few times per month then it’s probably not worth the extra subscription cost.
I’ve heard this, I don’t automatically believe it nor do I understand why it would need to be true, I’m still caught on the old fashioned idea that the only “thinking” for autoregressive modes happens during training.
But I assume this has been studied? Can anyone point to papers that show it? I’d particularly like to know what the curves look like, it’s clearly not linear, so if you cut out 75% or tokens what do you expect to lose?
I do imagine there is not a lot of caveman speak in the training data so results may be worse because they don’t fit the same patterns that have been reinforcement learned in.
We’re years into the industry leaning into “chain of thought” and then “thinking models” that are based on this premise, forcing more token usage to avoid premature conclusions and notice contradictions (I sometimes see this leak into final output). You may remember in the early days users themselves would have to say “think deeply” or after a response “now check your work” and it would find its own “one shot” mistakes often.
So it must be studied and at least be proven effective in practice to be so universally used now.
I have seen a paper though I can’t find it right now on asking your prompt and expert language produces better results than layman language. The idea of being that the answers that are actually correct will probably be closer to where people who are expert are speaking about it so the training data will associate those two things closer to each other versus Lyman talking about stuff and getting it wrong.
How is that a low trust signal? It's grounds to sue. Crank the number up to the limit of small claims in whatever jurisdiction you're based in.
If it was legal to say "If I break this oath, you can fucking shoot me" in a contract, I'd suggest that. The entire point of the exercise is "we promise do the right thing, and to keep us honest we have set up a system by which you can destroy us if we violate that promise".
Corporations can't swear on their life, as they have no life to offer. They can swear on their cash, and by such their ongoing existence.
Yeah, I was thinking the same. Surface tension, convection currents? Maybe the author is overthinking it a bit, giving too much weight to small contributors.
But that has presumably always been a pitfall for humans: trying to second guess the physical world and sometimes being "non-intuitively" wrong.
Latitude may affect the eddy currents and resulting convective shear on the film surface imparted by angular momentum from the earth’s spin.
This is what humors me about analytical minded computation focused people vs dumb simple engineer and physics (practical) people. That is imagining all the infinities of what may change a physical result vs knowing by experience or education.
ANOVA: analysis of variance from linear fit parameters will show you in experimental data or simulation the contributing factors. Or you can read a chapter in an undergraduate heat transfer book.
Decay rate of (T(t) - T_inf)/(T(0) - T_inf) is probably dominated by the wind speed in your room. For an 8-12oz cup a sphere or cylinder will get you pretty close.
First there’s the idea that “nurturing” is somehow what kids need and better for them automatically, that whatever a stereotypical man does with kids is bad for them, and we need to be rewired by pheromones or whatever to be more sensitive. And as a corollary the idea that a high-T man somehow is a worse caregiver, and that it needs to be reigned in by some adaptation. The whole thing is definitely framed for a certain world view, it’s definitely not the only interpretation.
reply