So the broken records are just coincidence? There's no need to study this a priori, just let them compete and see all records get broken. I don't see why people even discuss it. Just let women not win anything for a few years and this discussion would be over.
> The workers can own the means of production and you can have a market economy
How? Will you also advocate to killing a bunch of people to get from now to the state where workers own the means of production like Trotsky and friends?
That's like saying it'd be actively bad to make the code more resource intensive simply because we have machinery that helps us deal with the extra requirements. And as we know as computers got more powerful code didn't get lighter. If it can, it will.
What I mean is we have evidence that if it's easy and possible people will do it. There's no need to predict anything. That it is bad is besides the fact, although obviously less performant software is worse, its easier to create.
> Compute has already lost value for me. Six months ago I thought you needed a 1T+ model to be useful coding. Now I am able to get by just fine with a 27b model.
and I was explaining why the complexity question is important in that context. Specifically, because it's part of why people judge the 27b model to be adequate compared to the 1T+ one.
Yes, lots of people are slopping out low-quality things with powerful models because they don't know how software quality works and expect magic. I think we are talking at cross purposes but have no real disagreement.
Well, thank you for editing your post to not ask me if I only like microwave dinners.
I guess maybe it's a cultural thing - I've never seen anyone ever make mash potatoes with skins inside, and mash is a dinner staple here(in fact both here in the UK and Poland where I'm originally from).
I know many people who watch, I watch myself, and we all know it's semi scripted and that the overall arcs are decided in advance. The really interesting thing about reality tv is once you realise that this is happening, the "Reality" part really comes back into play even stronger because you can see how people react in such situations (the situation being them being part of a scripted reality tv show while wanting to increase their social media following etc). These days there's also the whole component of social media posts and real life events between the seasons that sometimes are more juicy than the show itself, but only get exposed because of the show.
It's just that most people who don't watch, or like to feel smarter than those who watch, think that you just sit there and suspend all belief instead of seeing it for what it is and acknowledging it's pretty interesting.
I don't think it's a matter of "feeling smarter" (at least not for me); I don't like most reality TV because the things you mention just don't resonate with me as being interesting or worth watching. I don't particularly care how a bunch of "regular people"[0] react in the situation of being fed scripts while wanting to increase their social media following. I don't care about random people I don't know and their "juicy" events. Some people do, and that's fine; it just isn't my cup of tea.
My partner got me into The Challenge early in our relationship. There's a lot about it that I don't like, and it's pretty clear that the competition itself is steered by the production team in ways that aren't really natural, and the outcome week to week is often likely not what would happen if the cast members weren't interfered with. I'm not on social media and don't care what the cast is up to off-screen, and I never watch the "reunion" episode at the end of each season because it's just a bunch of big-personality drama and performances made for internet points. But the show itself can be fun to watch sometimes, and some of the challenges they have to complete are genuinely difficult and cool to watch.
[0] The "regular people" thing is also really blurry. Sure, most (all?) reality shows pull from people who aren't otherwise actors or famous, but being on a long-running reality TV show can create that fame and lead to other (no-reality-TV) acting gigs. (Arguably many of the long-time cast members of The Challenge are celebrities in their own right, with curated public presences, and some of them have since taken on regular non-reality acting roles.)
I don’t see how that differs from any other fiction. Either the whole thing is non fiction, or it’s fictional.
I would even go so far as to label only videos of an event itself, like security recordings, to be non fiction as re-enactments and whatnot can have a lot of extra information that was not there in real life.
It would be very difficult for any TV show or film to meet this bar for non-fiction, because even if the footage is real there's still an edit.
The Senna documentary[1] is in the grey area. It's entirely composed of archival footage - no reconstructions, no talking heads, no voiceover. But the filmmaker has still chosen which footage to include and omit and in what order to construct a narrative. I don't think that neatly falls into fiction or non-fiction in your model.
What am I missing out on if I cannot tell what is and is not fiction? It seems detrimental to assume something is real and then it turns out to be fake (but I will never know).
I'm not sure if anything I say will convey the point because I think you already got what I meant, but think of Santa. During childhood it goes from reality to the middleground of "I wonder if" to later clearly being fiction. Not knowing what is what and later finding out or not is interesting in itself.
I don't think that follows. It's fine to recognize that something that isn't non-fiction is fiction, and, frankly, that's the only reasonable thing to do, since you can't know what's true and what isn't. But that doesn't mean you can't enjoy it just as much as the next person, or get something good out of it.
reply