Dinner happened tonight. It has been hosted consistently in downtown Berkeley on North Shattuck.
Folks dined at Da Lian at 7pm.
Dinners are announced reliably to https://groups.google.com/g/bayarealesswrong and Bay Area Discord.
Thank you, I was looking for a post.
Of interest, Daniel Dennett | From Bacteria to Bach and Back | Talks at Google in 2017. It's worth reviewing his other notable ideas and views of philosophy that he explored, from his Wikipedia page. I look forward to reading other testimonies of his influence and the effects of his work.
It looks like kale has been absolved of high oxalate concerns, in contrast to spinach.
You might benefit from mixing in ground mustard seed (or fresh / thawed chopped cruciferous vegetables), per https://nutritionfacts.org/topics/kale/.
Chopping it and then waiting at least 40 minutes before cooking it or mixing some mustard powder to cooked kale helps produce the anti-cancer nutrient, sulforaphane.
For other dark leafy greens, boiling is not best nutritionally, although if you're drinking the water, you're probably well covered.
... (read more)“The main purpose of cooking vegetables is to make them more edible, palatable, and digestible.” The downside, though, is that “cooking may adversely affect the levels of nutrients, especially the heat-sensitive and water soluble ones.” But even
It reduces a lot if you exclude the water. It's quite easy to eat if you can serve it mixed with grain and protein, rice, lentils, thick stew, as a kind of hot salad (in cuberule.com sense, or "nachos").
And timely reminder to take with Vitamin C which promotes absorption, and not with Zinc which is absorbed competitively.
I find myself wanting to react (Actionable) / (Non-actionable). Or to say: yes, let's act on this. This reflection makes me want, (Can we make this actionable) / ... I suppose the opposite is covered by existing Concrete and Examples reactions. I don't find my thinking well-factored to these categories of reactions.
I find myself a little frustrated needing to scroll out sideways to engage with reactions. Maybe a pop-down option, and maybe a more stateful modal, I might find easier.
These reactions strike me as remarkable compatible with Web Annotation WG recommendations and standards at W3C, and currently fairly usable, and social, within hypothes.is. I have created reading groups with multiple groups of friends with great satisfaction on hypothes.is. It would be nice to grow toward eventual compatibility, and these W3C standards seem much more succinct than the largest they're known for.
Updating the online meeting link to https://meet.google.com/khc-enob-xzi
Meet with local Wikipedians and work on your Wikipedia to-do list, either online or in person! This meetup is intended for existing contributors primarily, but new contributors are welcome. All contributors, active or not, on any Wikimedia project, welcome. We're doing a potluck! Bring some food/snacks but most importantly bring your wonderful selves! :) Please sign up if you plan on attending and let us know if you can't make it!
(I heard great interest in Wikipedia meetups from people attending an SF SSC/ACX meetup. To interested parties, sorry for a late crosspost. Even if you missed this event, please comment, or RSVP after the fact, or PM me, so to validate cross-posting here.)
It's nice to think about this paper as a capability request. It would be nice to have language models seamlessly run with semantic triples from wikidata, only seen once, and learn bidirectional relations.
For this particular question, you could try both orderings of the question pair. (Or long question sequences, otherwise confusing, overloading, semantic satiation)
With this question and others where reversal generalization is hoped for, they have to be uncommon enough that the reverse doesn't appear in the dataset. Some things society (*social text processing) has not chewed on enough.
While I disagree with the premise of the abstract, I laud its precision in pointing out differing, critically differing, understandings of the same words. It also gives me the sense of being sniped by a scissor statement, like the dress color / display gamma kerfuffle.
Please fix (or remove) the link.
I'm trying to re-find a nested folding docs site. It was styled to look like Google Docs.
I read an article there, a detailed report, possibly from Redwood Research, covering an argument and deep, iterative explanation that could be read as a single paragraph of headers, each unfolding into a paragraph of sub-headers, readable as coherent paragraph or outline, each of which again, had anything from 2 lines to a few paragraphs of argument, description, and diagrams.
I haven't found it in my browser bookmarks, full-text archives, HN search, nor searching familiar looking LessWrong and AlignmentForum links.
The site, and the particular document's structure and content, offered presentation of information made enough of an impression that I've described it to a few people. I'd like to find the site again, use it, and share it with some other people who want to make some documents with deep detailed explanations, accessible through incrementally unfolded explanations.
Many of the ACX meetups, especially above some threshold size, have a certain flavor, people want to engage deeply with the ideas---their own, some one else, something read recently. This conference is similar, but more dense, more quick in the experience, stretched over a long time.
If they greatly enjoy at least one writer listed, and don't have some general dislike for a majority of them, they'll have a great time. It will be colored by self-purchasing attendees more actively flitting around to events and taking advantage of more opportunities to speak to more people. They can expect some depth, but not getting to monopolize anyone's attention.