I always felt a sense of betrayal when someone sought a new partner after their spouse dies. But when I read a passage by Freeman Dyson about Feynman's trip to Santa Fe to meet his new girlfriend, my view has significantly shifted. Dyson (or perhaps someone else; I don't recall exactly) spoke of Feynman as someone who cannot stay out of a romantic relationship for too long. Some men just always want to love and be loved.
You can hardly blame the school for that though. As others have said, it's not possible to cater to every student's interest and ability, so compromise has to be made and consequently things turn uninteresting.
Also, there's some confirmation bias and survival bias here. You won't read something that's boring and static to you, or you don't bother remembering reading/watching them. Whereas if something wakes your interest, you'll likely to explore further. At school, you were forced to learn things regardless of whether you might or might not like.
Also, 'you' of today is not the same 'you' back at school. You're now much more experienced and knowledgeable than before. So reading, understanding things are easier than at 15. It's like learning a new language, at first it is challenging because you know only a handful of words, but as you learn more, it gets easier. You know where things are in the big picture and they become interesting.
It's funny seeing American blame other unfriendly countries for their new problems, especially when it's ubiquitous on mainstream media. Odd that no one has blamed China, or Russia, or any aggressive foreign state for their overweight, obesity epidemic.
Ah, come on. Stop with the 'everyone is our enemy' America-centered xenophobic mindset. The issues with Tiktok are of the same family with issues of other social media, or internet phenomena. Other countries, other communities are facing those same problems. It's not like situation in China is different and better. I bet some folks in China certainly blame the west for their newly rising problems, too.
What men hate is excessive, badly done makeup. Most men would prefer the 'natural looking', which is actually makeup, but well done. People wouldn't notice a good makeup, but a bad one they will remember. Most men wouldn't love no makeup.
After playing with AI generated human photos for a while, now I've come to appreciate (little edited) real photos and people in real life much more than before. I love the flaws, the imperfections, the characteristics, the deviations that make each one of us unique. The AI is so good at creating the 'perfect average' that makes it so boring, monotonous, and tedious. People call it 'soulless'. But when it comes to variation, it starts generating the uncanny valley. It fails hard.
> This is just a sd checkpoint trained on output of Midjourney
Which is sub-optimal -> bad. You don't want to train on output from an AI because you'll end up with a worse version of whatever that AI is already being bad at (hands, foot, and countless other things). This is the AI feedback loop that people have been talking about.
So instead of figuring out what Midjourney has done to get such good result, people just blatantly straight copied those results and fed them directly into the AI, as true as the art thief stereotype they are.
Haha. This reminds me of a Redditor's story. Despite having no money to afford professional hardware, he still managed to take good astronomy photos using his phone. In one of his posts, his photos impressed a "kind stranger" so much that they gifted him one of the most expensive Reddit awards, whose value can buy him a third of his desired gear.
People forget things fast. JWST as a telescope is great, but as a project, is catastrophic. Massive budget overrun, delay after delay. It's certainly the sign/result of project mismanagement. Unless they figured out what's wrong on this run, there won't be the next 'JWST', like ever.
The origin of the name was due to a mistake of Steven Weinberg:
"In his recent book, The Infinity Puzzle (Basic Books, 2011), Frank Close points out that a mistake of mine was in part responsible for the term “Higgs boson.” In my 1967 paper on the unification of weak and electromagnetic forces, I cited 1964 work by Peter Higgs and two other sets of theorists. This was because they had all explored the mathematics of symmetry-breaking in general theories with force-carrying particles, though they did not apply it to weak and electromagnetic forces. As known since 1961, a typical consequence of theories of symmetry-breaking is the appearance of new particles, as a sort of debris. A specific particle of this general class was predicted in my 1967 paper; this is the Higgs boson now being sought at the LHC.
As to my responsibility for the name “Higgs boson,” because of a mistake in reading the dates on these three earlier papers, I thought that the earliest was the one by Higgs, so in my 1967 paper I cited Higgs first, and have done so since then. Other physicists apparently have followed my lead. But as Close points out, the earliest paper of the three I cited was actually the one by Robert Brout and François Englert. In extenuation of my mistake, I should note that Higgs and Brout and Englert did their work independently and at about the same time, as also did the third group (Gerald Guralnik, C.R. Hagen, and Tom Kibble). But the name “Higgs boson” seems to have stuck."