Will they approve installing it on the remoted machine?

As a user of bionic reading, wtf did you do to your text

Thanks. The oblique narrative flow of this text is pretty confusing and I don’t think I understood it. The expression in question is “dictatorship of the party”, right? Was the vote inside the Presidium? From what I gather, the expression was in line with what the party elite wanted, meaning the soviet did not vote against the presidium?

as you sneer

My English level is only near-native, sorry. That’s not what I meant. You answered my question directly with a source that I’d trust.

Showing nuance, nice.

Okay, I’ll try that book when I get home and get back later.

There’s a difference between wrecking and having different opinions.

And Mendelian genetics wrecks the party with the unhinged liberalism of accurate science supported by half of Pavlov’s students?

As for your books, you may realize that I am a bit short on time and do not have the energy to read 4 entire novel-length books instead of specific pages or chapters.

Excerpts from a book from a reputed US academic institution, which I’m not sure whether you would favor over a book written by one of your comrades. Just give me the biggest example of when the Supreme Soviet voted against the Presidium starting with Stalin and before Gorbachev.

I appreciate that you’re taking the time to politely respond.

Obviously, the lower bodies decide more minutiae and local stuff and can’t go against the upper bodies’ decisions, and that goes for pretty much every democracy, just like you said. I was talking about specifically the Supreme Soviet and its Presidium, which could also be abstracted into the presidiums of every soviet. I think that’s the source of our confusion here. I’m looking at principles in making wide-ranging decisions, which are the things that can cause division. Not sure why I said üpper body".

what was purged was liberalism and fascism

Ah yes, known liberals and fascists such as the other two people who ruled with Stalin and whoever believed in genetics. If diverse opinions were allowed, what was the entire focus on eradicating factionalism?

Could you cite some sources or elaborate on fighting against bureaucracy? Why was bureaucracy established and why did it remain after the war? How wasn’t Stalin before Lenin’s death a career politician?

I have to sign off now until tomorrow.

Without a specific page or chapter number, I’m assuming you’re pointing to the only paragraph that mentions “centralism”. It just seems to repeat what I already replied to.

I’ll explain further, then: At first, the lower body elects the upper body. The upper body decides everything. Then:

1. Why not just skip the waste of time of the lower body voting on stuff? I can’t find any time something like jury nullification of a really awful presidium policy happened.
2. Since whoever disagrees with the upper body gets expelled, the lower body will perpetually elect whomever the upper body wants. While this may have enabled a dictatorship of the proletariat for a while, this behavior blocked out a ton of new ideas and became problematic after Stalin’s straight-up purging of opponents and entrenched an oppressive old guard, by whom Khrushchev got ousted trying to get rid of.

Just like many things in the USSR, It was perhaps that way in principle, but nefariously twisted in practice, where it means that everyone must vote whatever the elite thinks, majority requirements be damned. Like the ancient parable of Yu the Great choosing a successor, a dictating elite are bound to self-perpetuate and stray away from the proletariat, even if that’s what they were once.

Yes, autocorrect may use text predictors. No, that does not make text predictors “spicy autocorrect”. The denotation may be correct, but the connotation isn’t.

Text predictors (obviously) predict text, and as such don’t have any actual understanding on the text they are outputting. An AI that doesn’t understand its own outputs isn’t going to achieve anything close to a sci-fi depiction of an AI assistant.

There’s a large philosophical debate about whether we actually know what we’re thinking, but I’m not going to get into that. All I’m going to elaborate on is the thought experiment of the Chinese room that posits that perhaps AI doesn’t need to understand things to have apparent intelligence enough for most functions.

It’s also not like the devs are confused about why LLMs work.

Yes they are. All they know is that if you train a text predictor a ton, at one point it hits a bottleneck of usability way below targets, and then one day it will suddenly surpass that bottleneck for no apparent reason.

Anarchy’s free association. We simply have them split and control their own part of land unless there’s agreements to use certain parts of common land. Would work for everything except global warming.

Could work if you remove the democratic centralism part, which is an effect of one of the main reasons the USSR was undemocratic most of the time

It’s not autocorrect, it’s a text predictor. So I’d say you could definitely get close to JARVIS, especially when we don’t even know why it works yet.

I mean, their goal was readability, and at least they’re trying new things.

But what about their 307cu³ and counting of spent fuel?

Ooooh. Is there a catch? Are the Fukushima spent fuel caskets all fully recycled?

I live within two hours of a decommissioned nuclear power plant and 10 seconds of a sink.

You either just treat them like normal buildings, treat them like tourist buildings, or just sell them to Holtec.

plumbing

Do you really think that out of the millions of demolished buildings, none had toilets‽

Like I said below, it’s basically recycling, which also doesn’t make the waste disappear. I’m with you on this one, but you also did ask how reprocessing works, so there’s that.