- My Forums
- Tiger Rant
- LSU Recruiting
- SEC Rant
- Saints Talk
- Pelicans Talk
- More Sports Board
- Fantasy Sports
- Golf Board
- Soccer Board
- O-T Lounge
- Tech Board
- Home/Garden Board
- Outdoor Board
- Health/Fitness Board
- Movie/TV Board
- Book Board
- Music Board
- Political Talk
- Money Talk
- Fark Board
- Gaming Board
- Travel Board
- Food/Drink Board
- Ticket Exchange
- TD Help Board
Customize My Forums- View All Forums
- Topic Sort Options
- Trending Topics
- Recent Topics
- Active Topics
lostinbr
| Favorite team: | LSU  |
| Location: | Baton Rouge, LA |
| Biography: | |
| Interests: | |
| Occupation: | |
| Number of Posts: | 11824 |
| Registered on: | 10/15/2017 |
| Online Status: | Not Online |
Recent Posts
Message
re: Flying private from Hammond to NOLA weekly
Posted by lostinbr on 5/14/25 at 6:53 am
quote:
It’s only a 15 minute walk for me to work, but I take my car so that I can have my vehicle of choice present with me if I need transportation.
Are you suggesting he’s taking the plane to NOLA just in case he needs it? :lol:
0
re: I shite a lot on Baton Rouge (and it's still bad), but the new College Dr exit is great
Posted by lostinbr on 5/13/25 at 10:21 pm
quote:
Realistically, how much traffic is going to need to take corporate blvd from college drive? It's maybe a 3 mile stretch of road at most and ends at Jefferson/Old Hammond. Unless you need to be somewhere specifically along Corporate, there are other options to get to where you need to go near the area.
It’s more than you would think. I try to avoid the area because getting back to College from Corporate is a pain in the nuts at certain times of day.. or at least it used to be.
That being said, I think the reasoning might be more about eliminating weaving on College than providing a dedicated route to Corporate. College would back up from the Corporate intersection because you have cars getting off the interstate trying to merge left, while cars on College going to Corporate try to merge right.
By forcing people going north on College from the interstate to pull up to the traffic light, you eliminate that weaving.. at the expense of making the intersection less intuitive.
re: the least efficient service related business
Posted by lostinbr on 5/13/25 at 7:00 pm
quote:
How would you expect the pharmacy to know about prescriptions they don’t have?
He’s saying they don’t have the drug. Not that they don’t have the prescription.
re: I shite a lot on Baton Rouge (and it's still bad), but the new College Dr exit is great
Posted by lostinbr on 5/13/25 at 5:28 pm
quote:
I agree with this except on college headed north, there is only one lane that turns onto corporate now and it backs up traffic.
Yeah I don’t really understand that decision. I fricked it up the first time I went through there going north, because normally you would expect the right turn only lane of the exit to let you go.. right. It’s a bit odd that you have to pull up to the intersection like you’re going left or straight to turn right onto College Drive.
I assume they did this to reduce congestion from people merging onto College from the Corporate turn lane, but it’s not super intuitive the way it’s currently laid out.
Everything else about the project is great though, and it definitely makes the 10/12 merge feel much smoother. I’m glad they did it now too because it’ll really pay off whenever they finally get the 4th lane open from Acadian to the 10/110 split.
re: Blackjack “money management” sites
Posted by lostinbr on 5/12/25 at 8:56 pm
“fricking the table over” is another fallacy. When someone hits on a 12 against a dealer 6, it makes absolutely no difference to the odds of the dealer busting.
If the dealer takes two cards off the top of the deck and lays them face down, both cards have identical odds of being a 10. The person hitting on the 12 is equally as likely to “save” the table as they are to frick the table. The only person they’re fricking is themselves because they’re using shite strategy.
If the dealer takes two cards off the top of the deck and lays them face down, both cards have identical odds of being a 10. The person hitting on the 12 is equally as likely to “save” the table as they are to frick the table. The only person they’re fricking is themselves because they’re using shite strategy.
re: Blackjack “money management” sites
Posted by lostinbr on 5/12/25 at 8:46 pm
You can’t find one because they don’t work like I said. Every single one has some built-in fallacy used as justification. All roads lead back to the house edge.
re: Blackjack “money management” sites
Posted by lostinbr on 5/12/25 at 8:37 pm
quote:
Again, I know the rules. I am looking for something that makes suggestions as to how to aggressively bet based on my previous winning/losing hands.
You won’t find a ton of (credible) strategies because progressive betting systems don’t work. The only one that works on a theoretical/mathematical level is martingale, but it doesn’t work in reality because you will eventually either run out of money (losing everything) or hit the table limit (losing a shite ton).
The only betting systems that actually work are those that involve betting more when your EV is highest - in other words, counting.
re: Must Jay sit out Thursday vs USCe?
Posted by lostinbr on 5/12/25 at 7:31 pm
quote:
Jay definitely told the 1B umpire to watch the game while pointing at the field.
Even Dave and Ben commented on it.
That’s what I said. He tells the ump “don’t look over here, look at the game. Watch the game” way after the original exchange. But he doesn’t call him a “fricking idiot”, ask him if he’s watching the game, or otherwise “unload” over the actual call. Not on camera, anyway. If anything he looks pretty calm, but frustrated that the ump is staring him down in the dugout.
There’s a difference between asking an ump “are you watching the game?” after a bad call vs. telling the ump “don’t look over here, watch the game” when he’s staring into the dugout while play is restarting.
ETA: Just listened again and Dave says “he’s hearing it from the dugout right now” right after the initial call. Then after the replay and the shot of Jay, Dave says the ump is “staring down that LSU dugout right now trying to pinpoint where some of that chirping was.” Ben says “Jay’s like ‘put your eyes on the field. Don’t stare into the dugout. The game’s not in the dugout, the game’s on the field.’” All of this right after Jay motions to the team (maybe to Evans?) to calm down.
re: Must Jay sit out Thursday vs USCe?
Posted by lostinbr on 5/12/25 at 7:23 pm
quote:
I wasn’t at the game, it all rolled live. Normally when a coach is getting heated up they cut away.
I mean I’m telling you I just watched a replay of the actual broadcast and none of that happened the way you suggested.
re: Must Jay sit out Thursday vs USCe?
Posted by lostinbr on 5/12/25 at 7:10 pm
quote:
Jay absolutely unloaded on the first base ump, called him a fricking idiot and asked him if he was watching the game. He was getting tossed after that.
Unless you were at the game watching Jay intently during the whole exchange, I don’t see how you can possibly know this.
I just watched the replay. All you see is:
- First base ump looks at Jay and says “he didn’t go.”
- Broadcast cuts to a replay.
- Broadcast cuts back to the first base ump, who is staring Jay down for a good ~10 seconds.
- Broadcast cuts to Jay in the dugout for the first time. He’s got his hand to his ear as if he was trying to hear something from the ump and then backs up into the dugout.
- A full 20 seconds after the original exchange, Jay looks back over to the first base ump and says “don’t look over here, watch the game” which implies the ump was still staring him down.
At no point do you see Jay ask him if he’s watching the game, call him a fricking idiot, or “absolutely unload” on him as you suggested. If any of that happened, it was off-camera.
re: ChatGPT vs Grok - Wildly diff answers to simple question. Asian women vs white men income
Posted by lostinbr on 5/12/25 at 6:39 pm
quote:
Because the developers of ChatGPT built in their own biases when they developed the AI.
I think it’s more complicated than that. Intentional training for “safety” reasons is part of the issue, but a lot of it still comes down to unintended hallucinations.
You have to realize that the way LLM’s work is by creating a response that seems appropriate, through next-word generation, based on their training data. It wasn’t that long ago that ChatGPT didn’t even have access to real-time search results - everything it produced was knowledge from its (outdated at the time) training data.
And this is where a problem appears. LLM’s like GPT are incredibly good at picking up information from their training data, but they often aren’t particularly great at separating the “truth” from the noise without direct access to search results in order to validate information. So if the common public perception among the training data is that white men make more than Asian women, the LLM might make a convincing argument that it’s true.
And then, because it wants to generate an intelligent, appropriate-sounding response, it might hallucinate some source data that doesn’t actually exist in support of this conclusion. Keep in mind that LLM training data isn’t actually stored directly within the model. It’s complicated, but the simplest comparison is to say the neural network “learns” in a manner similar to humans and can therefore misremember (or make up) facts like a human. Combine this tendency with the active “safety” training, and you get stuff like OP.
Real-time access to search results should eliminate a lot of this, in theory, but sometimes ChatGPT’s LLM tendencies can override whatever it finds in real-time data. Other times, it can bug out and not source any real-time data at all.
To OP: When you got the ChatGPT response, did it provide any actual source links under the statements? If not, it might have just bugged out on you. My understanding is that Grok was designed to be more of a “data source” all along so it might just be better at this sort of thing.
re: 'The Last of Us' Season 2 Discussion Thread | No Game Spoilers/Discussion
Posted by lostinbr on 5/12/25 at 5:36 pm
quote:
Forbes is one of us
I think that article mostly has the issues pegged, except for how they go out of their way to say that none of it is Bella Ramsey’s fault. The writing hasn’t done her any favors, but it’s a little silly (IMO) to act like she hasn’t contributed to the issues at all.
re: Must Jay sit out Thursday vs USCe?
Posted by lostinbr on 5/12/25 at 3:45 pm
quote:
Ahh ok, I really had no idea about Sankey’s little rule book. That’s stupid for the SEC to have a rule/policy that is MORE strict than the NCAA rules, you know? Like why would a conference want to punish its own team beyond what the NCAA would…
The “Commissioner’s Regulations” is just the name the SEC gives to the conference rule book. It covers stuff like SEC championship/tournament formats, weather policy, run rule, replay procedure, media requirements, officiating, communications, etc.
For example - the fines for storming a field/court are part of SEC rules, not NCAA rules.
re: Must Jay sit out Thursday vs USCe?
Posted by lostinbr on 5/12/25 at 2:26 pm
quote:
No im pretty sure that’s not right…
What you posted is from the NCAA baseball rule book. OP’s quote is from the SEC Commissioner’s Regulations, which are stricter than the NCAA rules.
re: 'The Last of Us' Season 2 Discussion Thread | No Game Spoilers/Discussion
Posted by lostinbr on 5/12/25 at 10:38 am
quote:
I saw earlier that its only 7 episodes which is a tragedy. They will definitely speed through some good content unless they are stretching it out for a season 3 which is kinda dumb too. I guess you can't have it both ways though.
They did stretch it out for a 3rd season. I think it’s already been renewed. Big mistake IMO.
ETA: To clarify, I mean big mistake stretching it out with a 7-episode season 2. Not renewing it.
re: 'The Last of Us' Season 2 Discussion Thread | No Game Spoilers/Discussion
Posted by lostinbr on 5/12/25 at 10:34 am
quote:
Also, they've made Ellie dumb to make Dina look smarter. Really odd choice.
Yeah this has been puzzling me. At first I thought it was mostly just Bella Ramsey’s demeanor but it’s now clear that they are intentionally making her look dumb (see: the map scene). I can think of a couple of reasons they might want to make Dina look like the smarter of the two but let’s be honest.. they probably didn’t need to try very hard.
The route they’ve taken is kind of like throwing the baby out with the bath water, because now it’s just not believable that Ellie can really accomplish anything without dumb luck and incompetent adversaries.
re: Mobland - Paramount+ (now w spoilers)
Posted by lostinbr on 5/12/25 at 10:13 am
For some reason the British/Irish mob thing is way more interesting to me than the typical American/Italian mob shows. I guess just because it’s different.
re: Tre' still flashing the leather
Posted by lostinbr on 5/12/25 at 7:55 am
I’ve always assumed they operate at a loss and are basically floated by the major league organization.
re: Mobland - Paramount+ (now w spoilers)
Posted by lostinbr on 5/11/25 at 9:47 pm
quote:
Government, MI6/5???
Wasn’t she American? The guy working for her definitely was. For whatever reason it stuck out to me.
re: 'The Last of Us' Season 2 Discussion Thread | No Game Spoilers/Discussion
Posted by lostinbr on 5/11/25 at 9:42 pm
quote:
I know this is a no game spoilers thread, but now that tonight’s episode has come and gone, can anyone with knowledge say if this episode was true to the game? Particularly the basement and ending scene. Or has it gone off the rails and they’re just writing their own story now?
It’s been too long for me to remember if it played out exactly like it did in this episode, but they’re hitting the high points. There is one major plot difference from a couple of episodes ago that has rearranged a lot of the smaller details since then, but they’re definitely not way out on a limb making a whole bunch of new shite up.
Popular
56
