> Why would any group of people book a single room?
To save money.
> Is there some secret trick where multiple people turn up and bring their own beds with them, only to be foiled by a missing toilet door?
Beds? Probably not. But, people (especially younger people, can sleep on the floor with climate appropriate (which, depending on the season and available heating, can be "none") coverings for warmth; I did this happily a fair amount in various groups aroun high school age, but I certainly wouldn't want to now in middle age.
If they want to save money, hostels are usually half the price of hotels. Why would they even choose a hotel in the first place?
Plus, my experience is that hotels will simply cancel your booking, or force you to upgrade, if multiple people turn up to check in for a single room. They don't need some passive-aggressive doorless bathroom, they have the right to tell you to book a 2-person room (whether twin or double bed) for 2 people.
> Result declares a type-level invariant — an assertion enforced by the compiler, not runtime — that the operation can fail.
“Can do X” is not an invariant. “Will never do X” (or “Will always do Y”) is an invariant. “Can do X” is the absence of the invariant “Will never do X”.
> Using `.unwrap()` is always an example of a failure to accurately model your invariants in the type system.
No, using .unwrap() provides a narrower invariant to subsequent code by choosing to crash the process via a panic if the Result contains an Error.
It may be a poor choice in some circumstances, and it may be a result of mistakenly believing that code returning the Result itself had failed to represent its invariants fully such that the .unwrap() would be a noop—but even there it respects and narrows the invariant declared, it doesn't ignore it—and, in any case, as it has well-defined behavior in either of the possible input cases, it is silly to describe using it as a failure accurately model invariants in the type system.
“Narrowing” a compile-time invariant without a corresponding proof is formally unsound and does not “respect” the declared invariant in any reasonable sense.
What’s silly is the desire to pretend otherwise because it’s easier.
> “Narrowing” a compile-time invariant without a corresponding proof is formally unsound and does not “respect” the declared invariant in any reasonable sense
The invariant is that either condition X applies or condition Y applies. "Panic and stop execution if X, continue execution with the invariant Y if Y" is not unsound and does respect the original invariant in every possible sense.
It may be the wrong choice of behavior given the frequency of X occurring and the costs incurred by the decision to panic, but that’s not a type-level problem.
Formal verification is well and good, but that is not what unsoundness means.
If a proof trivially demonstrated that a given program’s behavior was indeed “proceed if a condition is satisfied, crash otherwise”, then what? Or do we not trust the verifier with branching code all of a sudden?
PRs aren't an optional feature, though acting on PRs is obviously optional; nothing prevents you from ignoring or (even automatically) closing all PRs from anyone who is not on a list of approved contributors.
Considering how little (and sometimes negative) benefit it provided in most of them compared to just using the biggest encoder model and having a null prompt on the rest (not just those using the specific combination Flux.1 did, but for most of the multi-encoder models), its actually pretty weird that people kept doing it.
> Even a 5090 can handle that. You have to use multiple GPUs.
It takes about 40GB with the fp8 version fully loaded, but ComfyUI can (at reduced speed), with enough system RAM available, partially load models in VRAM during inference and swap at need (the NVidia page linked in the BFL announcement specifically highlights NVidia working with ComfyUI to improve this existing capacity specifically to enable Flux.2) to run on systems with too little VRAM to fully load the model.
> Porn, obviously, though if you look at what's popular on civitai.com, a lot of it isn't photo-realistic.
I don't have an argument to make on the main point, but Civitai has a whole lot of structural biases built into it (both intentionally and as side effects of policies that probably aren't intended to influence popularity in the way they do) that I would hesitate to use "what is popular on Civitai" as a guide to "what is attractive to (or commercially viable in) the market", either for AI imagery in general or for AI imagery in the NSFW domain specifically.
> Saying that the men's vitality clinic "pushed you" into a treatment protocol is like saying that a fertility clinic pushed you into getting pregnant.
No, it isn't. “Men’s vitality” doesn’t mean “getting pumped with testosterone regardless of indications” the way “fertility” means “getting pregnant” in either literal denotation of words or the understanding of the general population.
> Sure, it's a common outcome, but you had an idea of what you wanted out of it before you walked in the door.
Yes, but in the case of fertility clinics, getting pregnant aas definitely the outcome beinf sought. Being pumped with testosterone isn’t the outcome being sought from a men’s vitality clinic, it is (even for the people who are actively thinking about it) a mechanism (and not an appropriate one for every patient) for atteempting to acheive the desired outcome.
If you go to a fertility clinic and they don't attempt to identify the source of your fertility issues and just pump you with hormones not indicated for your specific issue, that would be wrong, too.
> No, it isn't. “Men’s vitality” doesn’t mean “getting pumped with testosterone regardless of indications”
When I Google "men's vitality clinic", the top result I see is titled "Your experts for testosterone replacement therapy...". TRT is front and center.
> Being pumped with testosterone isn’t the outcome being sought from a men’s vitality clinic, it is (even for the people who are actively thinking about it) a mechanism (and not an appropriate one for every patient) for atteempting to acheive the desired outcome.
This is such a weird distinction to try and make.
I frequently see ads for these services, and even when they're not so explicit as that one is about what they're selling, it's extremely clear what demographic they're going after and what the hook is.
Testosterone being a Schedule III substance, "men's vitality" is the way that they can legally advertise an service that prescribes AAS. It's no more of a secret that men's vitality clinics prescribe testosterone than it is that fertility clinics are prescribing estradiol. Both of these are sex hormones that induce a specific effect on the body which the patient is looking for.
Can I imagine someone walking into a men's vitality clinic and being surprised that they're getting offered testosterone? Sure, and there's also that German couple who went to a fertility clinic because they weren't having a baby, and were surprised to learn that they needed to start having sex.
Clueless people exist. That doesn't mean that it's not readily obvious to anyone who's paying attention what these clinics exist to do, and how they do it.
The entire value proposition of agentic AI is doing multiple steps, some of which involve tool use, between user interactions. If there’s a user interaction at every turn, you are essentially not doing agentic AI anymore.
To save money.
> Is there some secret trick where multiple people turn up and bring their own beds with them, only to be foiled by a missing toilet door?
Beds? Probably not. But, people (especially younger people, can sleep on the floor with climate appropriate (which, depending on the season and available heating, can be "none") coverings for warmth; I did this happily a fair amount in various groups aroun high school age, but I certainly wouldn't want to now in middle age.
reply