* My MacMini was constantly beachballing and, unfortunately, it took me a long time to realize that there was a problem with the device.
* I now have a 2023 MBP that screams like a "Formula Un" racing car.
I suspect you have a faulty device.
edit: Just saw that you live far away from an Apple store. I imagine you could mail it in for some type of service, but obviously, that's not optimal if you have no immediate replacement.
this reads like someone who hasn't seen dementia up close. I don't see his behavior as much different than term 1. simply more malevolent.
there's no obvious word searching. he's always been simplistic and unencumbered by the need for logical consistency. he was never a word smith. he has his stock phrases (eg, "many people are saying...<insert lie>"), which he uses as a crutch, but also to great effect.
as someone who HAS seen dementia from a to z, I don't see it here.
Yeah I don’t see it either. What I see is a guy openly admitting he’s a dictator because he thinks that’s what’s needed. A guy that knows he doesn’t have much to lose and wants to do whatever crazy shit comes into his head
my youngest son visited a handful of "fancy" schools near the end of highschool and he thought the whole process was nuts.
he said something like "seems like we're all expected to make a decision based on how nice the weather was when we visited and the architecture... and I don't care about either one."
> I am willing to wager the overwhelming majority of extant flagrant errors are due to humans making shit up
In general, I agree, but I wouldn't want to ascribe malfeasance ("making shit up") as the dominant problem.
I've seen two types of problems with references.
1. The reference is dead, which means I can't verify or refute the statement in the Wikipedia article. If I see that, I simply remove both the assertion and the reference from the wiki article.
2. The reference is live, but it almost confirms the statement in the wikipedia article, but whoever put it there over-interpreted the information in the reference. In that case, I correct the statement in the article, but I keep the ref.
Those are the two types of reference errors that I've come across.
And, yes, I've come across these types of errors long before LLMs.
If you took fencing at an Ivy League school for you PR requirement you would know all about foil, saber, and epee fencing. Not everyone gets to row crew.
Just to throw my anecdote in ... In the 1980s, I met a handful of white people (on different occasions) who each complained that they needed a near perfect score on the State Police entrance exam whereas "other" people could be accepted with far lower scores.
So, these types of policies did exist at the time. But I'm sure there was a continuum of policies in effect at different institutions in that era.
Of course, to me it's perfectly plausible that Adams' boss told him they weren't promoting white men, but largely because I could see the supervisor lying to Adams simply for the purpose of not looking like the bad guy. ("Hey, I wanted to promote you, but you know how the Dems keep meddling in corporate affairs, right? My hands were tied.")
> a handful of white people (on different occasions) who each complained that they needed a near perfect score on the State Police entrance exam whereas "other" people could be accepted with far lower score
Were these people trustworthy? Because that sounds exactly like the kind of urban legend that people like to parrot, or like a pretty standard way to cope with not getting hired. I heard a bit of very similar chatter about college admissions back in the day. “Maybe I would have had a shot if I was Asian.” Etc.
> I heard a bit of very similar chatter about college admissions back in the day. “Maybe I would have had a shot if I was Asian.” Etc.
I’m not sure you can really say this was an urban legend, as there was a number of court cases regarding it (At least one from that far back) and a recent SCOTUS (2023) ruling specifically ending the capability of colleges to utilize affirmative action considerations for admissions. Not to say that every person who claimed such a thing was accurate, but it was happening.
It was a long time ago (obviously). In general, yes, they were trustworthy, but they themselves could have been victims of misinformation--I don't really know is the short answer. But this is true for just about any bit of "news." Unless you have direct knowledge of a piece of information, you evaluate the information (and the person relating the info) and you make your best guess as to its "truth/falsity."
These days, I find it extremely difficult to trust a lot of federal "truth", so I get your overall point. :-(
Since we're reminiscing, I remember Sears sold a "Sears-version" of the Atari 2600. I forget what it was called, but it was identical to the 2600.
My 9 year old brain was convinced that it was somehow inferior to the Atari-branded version of the 2600 and I was sad when my parents got me the Sears version for Christmas (it was probably cheaper than the Atari, I can't remember).
It didn't take me long, however, to realize it was the same thing with a different logo.
$99.85 at Sigma-Aldrich
reply