Andreij Karpathy has a nice zero to hero lecture series that you can follow along and it will end with building your own simple GPT. First lecture is building your own MLP (multi-layer perceptron). At the end of that you have down backtracing and will finally understand what it means to train a model.

https://karpathy.ai/zero-to-hero.html

And LangChain is your friend if you want to use GPT as a component in a processing pipeline (as in integrating with Wolfram's alpha, etc.)

https://github.com/hwchase17/langchain

Rediscovered this Love and Rockets album again -- this is the old Bauhaus crew sans 'the dark one' and their message is unapologetically positive and spiritual (in their own way).

https://www.youtube.com/playlist?list=PLqL7l3nBydtrx8lwDMYRhiXYhp2g-PFol

Also stuff like this!

(Greetings Hubski! It's been a while. Did you miss me? /g )

So I haven't read this yet beyond the first few pages but the mention of Patrick Buchanan (then merely a lowly WH staffer) and his critique of networks as "an ideological monopoly" and regulatory oversight of network content was striking in its similarity with du jour discussions regarding social networks. Thought it might be of interest.

We were in a dorm with 3 floors of engineers. "Veg", the resident EE mad genius ran a cable up the pole, passed it through his homemade descrambler, and we were in business.

np my friend.

seriously hope that is not the front door key set to your home. For love of God people, don't post images of your keys to the internet.

Fun fact: Satoshi Nakamoto means 'cenral intelligence'.

The "press" has most certainly not "published the [Flynn] leaks". They have provided their own, and their anonymous sources' opinion, as to the content of the leaks.

Yassir & the Arafats.

Deceiving the public is very much modern governance doctrine. That should not be news but of course a component of implementing this doctrine is pervasive propagandizing of the public by established media, entertainment industry, alternative media (99.9% fake alt imo), and various "ex-" whatevers.

Flynn will not be missed. He demonstrated that he is too stupid, too careless, to merit his position.

But that is not the story here.

The story here is that the unaccountable spook community is a modern day Praetorian Guard and that our republic is effectively dead. What remains to be seen is whether we transition to an actual empirial regime, or, whether the "deep state" is in fact working for/with transnational entities that wish to proceed with the program of cutting down the sole superpower down to size.

Were we an educated nation not susceptible to trivial manipulation that set us against one another the corrective recourse, however painful, would be possible. But we are not (by design) an educated nation, and we are (by design) programmed from craddle to grave to manifest the required 'response' to the provided 'stimilus' and are deeply divided (again by design).

Bannon is somewhat unhinged & his revisionist take on history is 'interesting'.

He's straight out of spook central casting, with an appropriately just-so resume (with the requisite tour of duty in Goldman Sachs).

And of course Breitbret:

http://www.breitbart.com/big-journalism/2015/11/17/breitbart-news-network-born-in-the-usa-conceived-in-israel/

Then, there is the ever present man in the room looking like Machiaveli's Doppelgänger, linked to Lubavitchers, is not too loudly discussed in MSM.

On the Generals front, Thierry Meyssan has his own take on the current regime, in context of 9/11:

http://www.voltairenet.org/article195017.html

And in case you missed this apparently unprecedented stage event:

The Venn Diagram analysis of all above is Christian-Zionism & a military Junta behind the scenes.

[p.s. updated K's image links since someone yanked the original url /g]

I share your strong aversion to Facebook. Follow them on Twitter:

https://twitter.com/ScienceMarchDC

It would be lousy psyop if you could "deduce" true nature from propaganda. Thus: "reminder".

A reminder that the Soviet system had no respect whatsoever for Human Rights.

You can read about it from the horse's mouth. (And I do not wish to make a habit of contradicting kleinb100, but it is in fact called Globalism by its propents. Neo-Liberalism is the 'theoretical' framework that supports the political front of Globalists.)

http://www.cfr.org/sovereignty/sovereignty-globalisation/p9903

There are three general fronts opposing globalism: conservative, theoretical, and conspirational.

The conservative group -- whether cultural or political -- is opposed by the self evident fact that globalism will by necessity entail the erosion of national integrity (nationalism here meaing in essence that your life for better or worse is mainly impacted by your own nation's features, culture, politics, trends, etc., which in a democratic nation means you have some say in it).

The theoretical group objects to the neo-liberal (economic) and neo-con (martial) framework, by objecting to the reduction of all politics to mere economics ("end of history"); and the wars necessitated by the push to 'remove' (regime change) nations that stand in the way per the neo-con policy.

The conspirationist share some (or all, depending on the tin foil envelope) of above, but go further in asserting that globalism is not motivated by the overt neo-liberal ideology but is in fact a nefarious plan to affect a gray universal culture and entirely strip the mass of humanity of our cultural and political will, and reduce us to "slaves" in the grand global plantation of a few wealthy families that subverted Europe starting in 16th century. Typically, but not necessarily, this gets reduced to (or slandered as per your pov) as anti-semitism given that the said families are banking families of Rothschilds and the Rockefellers.

So you will find that conservative and conspirational opposition are highly sensitive to efforts to dismantle standing cultural institutions such as religion, family, sexual norms, etc. They view it -- and this is actually fairly supported by human history -- as a 'device' to reduce the individual into a highly programmable 'unit' in the larger socio-economic regime. Recent examples that these two fronts cite are the collectivist tyrannies of Soviet Union and Maoist China.

The theoretical front is keenly sensitive to the transfer of political power to trans-national corporations (institutionalized in secret treaties such as TPP).

My personal view is that some form of united Humanity is certainly inevitable short of some natural disaster or global conflict that would dismantle the current civiliation and sends us back to caves and the proverbial drawing board.

But I equally believe that the current self-elected global elite are entirely unsuited -- in terms of moral, intellectual, and administrative deficits -- to lead an unwilling (and I should add, not yet ready) humanity to such a union at this point in time.

Anyway, that is my 2cents and hope it is informative.

> The piranhas were starting to eat each other in the toilet.

Fishes mean dreams. Piranhas, bad dream. Toilet, bowel movement. Fighting fishies, conflicted anxieties.

So what did you eat that night? (Let me guess? Tacos? ;-)

Analytics tracks users and associates identity with access to information (which is the main problem).

It’s as if someone were out there making up pointless jobs just for the sake of keeping us all working. And here, precisely, lies the mystery. In capitalism, this is exactly what is not supposed to happen.

The "mystery" is why this anthropologist is making an unsupported claim that globalism equals to, or is the inevitable result of, "capitalism".

He then goes on to say:

Sure, in the old inefficient socialist states like the Soviet Union [...] the system made up as many jobs as [politically necessary]. But, of course, this is the very sort of problem market competition is supposed to fix.

Which is basically what we have these days, at the global level.

The American industrial base, for example, was "outsourced" and "offshored" due to geopolitical necessities. The two showcase countries in this context are India and China.

The integration of the Chinese Communist regime into the AngloEuropean financial system required the wholesale transfer of technology and production means ("capital") to China. This was the bargain that was reached in the 70s.

The goal of seperating India from the Non-Aligned movement also necessitated the quid pro quo of artificially jump starting the Indian software servies sector.

So the current state of the economic order is not a natural end-state of "Capitalism" but rather the result of top-down manipulation of national economies in service of the desired goal of a unified global order in control of the ruling elites.

The ruling class has figured out that a happy and productive population with free time on their hands is a mortal danger (think of what started to happen when this even began to be approximated in the ‘60s).

Do tell. Is that what happened in the 60s? [& p.s. is the professor aware of state of affairs in prosperous leave it to Beaver 50s or is his forgetfulness necessary to support his bogus narrative?]

The unrest of the 60s was due to structural flaws in society (racism), ideologically driven wars (militarism), and a healthy dose of agitation from academia and even national intelligence services (turn-on-tune-in-drop-out-ism).

Apparently the London (surprise surprise..) School of Economics is prone to grant professorships to anthropologists who have not read in history, for any reasonably well read student of history would be able to point out that hunger, tyranny, and gross societal imbalances are the factual causes of "mortal danger" to ruling classes.

Why not try creating a responsible advertising model? Like DDG [querying Google on your behalf], you could proxy between members and advertisers. Sell ads based on forum demographics & topic, while maintaining the virtuous model of non-tracking and anonymous readership.

"Because all sides are convinced that all other sides will happily annihilate the world rather than allow their opponents to triumph. This is high school social studies shit."

.

I agree, that is high school level analysis. High school level social studies also would have it that men facing off in battle armed with gun would not hesitate to kill, but actual facts show otherwise. A small fraction are willing to kill, even to defend themselves. Current neocons, for example, are betting that the Russians, like Soviets in '62 will blink. Russians, this time, are going out of their way to dispel that perception.

.

"Because of containment both the US and USSR could only know what they stole. It wasn't a cold spat or a cold disagreement it was a cold war."

.

Not sure what this non-sequitor of yours is supposed to mean. First of all, that only applies to technology. Russians and Americans had intelligence, diplomatic, press, and cultural assets in the other side. Second, the paragraph you are attempting to address says this:

.

"Although they did not want war, these same Soviet leaders assumed that the U.S. government was in the hands of a clique of greedy capitalists who were bent on not just destroying the Soviet Union but establishing a world capitalist hegemony. Therefore, nuclear arms were essential for the survival of their way of life."

.

In other words, they had the perception that they were faced with cold blooded "greedy capitalist bent on destroying [them]" and took that threat seriously.

.

"That's an opinion, not a fact. The likelihood of nuclear exchange has decreased every day since December 25, 1991. In fact, up until a couple weeks ago we were helping the Russians dispose of weapons-grade plutonium."

.

An informed opinion. Is your opinion that until "couple of weeks ago" likelihoo of nuclear was decreasing every day a "fact"?

.

"Of course they are. Same reason they invaded Crimea. "

.

Let's hear this. (Please spare me the CNN level talking points.)

.

"By the time of the Cuban Missile Crisis we had 2100 of them in the field. Yet we lived."

.

Because the Soviet Union was not projecting ultimate defeat after backing down in Cuba. And anyway, are you really taking 60s mininuke tech and delivery platforms out of its context and assuming equivalence to today's nuclear powers' strategic context and posture? More high school stuff?

.

Russia has no strategic depth to speak of. They have a shoot your wad once army, a rather embarrassing navy, fairly excellent area denial S2A and A2A, and lots and lots of ICBMs. They are going out of their way to communicate that they are worried and that this time, unlike '62, they will not be backing down. They have pretty much spelled it out, and this time unlike the old "containment" days, can read published papers by the Pentagon and those crazy neocons that spells out their worst fears.

.

I think it is appropriate to consider that the stand off today is a "bit" more unstable.

fyi: https://www.reddit.com/r/WikiLeaks/comments/58uff7/wikileaks_leak_early_leak_often_if_wikileaks_had/

Apparently random samples of the latest batches of emails can't be verified with the expected keys either.

possibly RIP'd.

He is addictive. Forewarned! :) Read the watergate paper.

The author of this take down of Elon Musk has some far out readings of history and historical events, and I haven't bothered to follow up to "fact check" :) but it's definitely an amusing read.

More seriously, Wendy Brown's penetrating critique in Undoing the Demos of neo-liberalism is a must read:

     My argument is not merely that markets and money are corrupting
     or degrading democracy, that political institutions and outcomes
     are increasingly dominated by finance and corporate capital, or
     that democracy is being replaced by plutocracy -- rule by and for
     the rich. Rather, neoliberal reason, ubiquitous today in statecraft
     and the workplace, in jurisprudence, education, culture, and a vast
     range of quotidian activity, is converting the distinctly political
     character, meaning, and operation of democracy's constituent elements
     into economic ones. Liberal democratic institutions, practices,
     and habits may not survive this conversion. Radical democratic dreams
     may not either.