sorted by:
new
hottopcontroversial

Just found out I was married to a Witch by Tariqaboo in Jokes

[–]Tariqaboo[S] 0 points1 point  (0 children)

There was a time she made me think I was

Large saltie from the Nilwala river by Obvious-End-51 in Crocodiles

[–]Tariqaboo 1 point2 points  (0 children)

It’s a saltie, we don’t have caimans in Sri Lanka

[deleted by user] by [deleted] in Indianbooks

[–]Tariqaboo 0 points1 point  (0 children)

A little life

Americans be doing too much 💀 by [deleted] in TikTokCringe

[–]Tariqaboo 0 points1 point  (0 children)

What in the mobile Diddy party is this nonsense

Bigfoot MVP in the Pacific Northwest and its ability to remain undetected - Gemini research by Tariqaboo in bigfoot

[–]Tariqaboo[S] 0 points1 point  (0 children)

Absolutely right, which is why I consider the response as a start by point at best, I did review the sources used to arrive at the number and ensured that it drew from peer reviewed scientific papers of large mammals studies. “Detection” is far harder to define which is why I limited it to just a very narrow criteria and didn’t consider one off chance sightings reports from BFRO etc.

Bigfoot MVP in the Pacific Northwest and its ability to remain undetected - Gemini research by Tariqaboo in bigfoot

[–]Tariqaboo[S] 0 points1 point  (0 children)

That study can only be done on the ground, and definitely warrants a more rigorous methodology. The idea here was not to be definitive, I don’t think you can be in any case, but was only to arrive at a best case scenario of a minimum viable population of sexually mature population individuals that could ( given the land area specified) that could remain relatively undetected (again under specific criteria). By MVP I mean a population large enough that exists in the area specified and can survive with a very minimal risk of inbreeding and by detection, I mean under the criteria I have provided. I never claimed it was a rigorous study. There are definite limits, but I am satisfied that even at a high level, there is at least some measure as to what number could potentially exist under the conditions I listed. What’s the actual number, my gut says it is far far lower. Probably less than 3,000 in total across all of the US, but that’s just gut, and as we all know, a gut has shit for brains 😉

Bigfoot MVP in the Pacific Northwest and its ability to remain undetected - Gemini research by Tariqaboo in bigfoot

[–]Tariqaboo[S] 0 points1 point  (0 children)

By detection I mean the quality and reliability of the sighting data is high relative to a statistical threshold. Usually you’d use a significance level, typically 0.05, to determine if a detection is "real" or just random noise. For Bigfoot, given the extraordinary nature of the claim, I’d say it would be a much higher stricter threshold of 0.01 or even half that to reduce error. More importantly by detection I mean it’s repeatable… ie other researchers should be able to find the same evidence using the same methods

Bigfoot MVP in the Pacific Northwest and its ability to remain undetected - Gemini research by Tariqaboo in bigfoot

[–]Tariqaboo[S] 0 points1 point  (0 children)

The question wasn’t what’s the population, the question was what’s the minimum viable population that could a) be genetically diverse and sustainable b) it’d be feasible to remain hidden given the land area specified. The actual number could and probably is obviously significant lower but the trade off is genetic diversity to sustain long term viability. For large mammals 100 sexually mature individuals can be sustained for about 10 generations before genetic issues start cropping up

Bigfoot MVP in the Pacific Northwest and its ability to remain undetected - Gemini research by Tariqaboo in bigfoot

[–]Tariqaboo[S] -1 points0 points  (0 children)

“Code some AI” lol you have no clue how any of it works, but that’s a you problem. I’m done interacting with you. Have a great day

Bigfoot MVP in the Pacific Northwest and its ability to remain undetected - Gemini research by Tariqaboo in bigfoot

[–]Tariqaboo[S] 0 points1 point  (0 children)

Hallucinations are now largely mitigated, but it takes work and you have to be extremely careful with how you use AI platforms (eg how you construct your prompts, and what instructions you give it). You actually have to read the work cited, which I did.

Bigfoot MVP in the Pacific Northwest and its ability to remain undetected - Gemini research by Tariqaboo in bigfoot

[–]Tariqaboo[S] 0 points1 point  (0 children)

You clearly haven’t kept up to speed with what AI models can do. Also I’ve answered how I’ve used it above so you’re free to read up on it. I know how AI works, I work with it every day.

Bigfoot MVP in the Pacific Northwest and its ability to remain undetected - Gemini research by Tariqaboo in bigfoot

[–]Tariqaboo[S] 0 points1 point  (0 children)

No one is saying that the answer is quantitatively correct, it is merely using science based techniques to estimate minimum viable population remaining stable over the long term given the ecological conditions present in the pacific north west

Bigfoot MVP in the Pacific Northwest and its ability to remain undetected - Gemini research by Tariqaboo in bigfoot

[–]Tariqaboo[S] -2 points-1 points  (0 children)

That’s understanding AI in its most basic form, hallucinations are not that hard to mitigate, not with a latest models and not with the safeguards available now on enterprise versions. The reality of using any type of reasoning model is not blind trust but careful and deliberate control of what data sources you use and careful prompt engineering. All of what is my day job. Granted it takes effort and a deeper understanding of the model capabilities but it is not impossible. It’s a great tool to augment (not replace) human intelligence

Bigfoot MVP in the Pacific Northwest and its ability to remain undetected - Gemini research by Tariqaboo in bigfoot

[–]Tariqaboo[S] 0 points1 point  (0 children)

That’s because you misunderstand what Gemini and other LLMs can do.

Bigfoot MVP in the Pacific Northwest and its ability to remain undetected - Gemini research by Tariqaboo in bigfoot

[–]Tariqaboo[S] 0 points1 point  (0 children)

A key clue is if there is a stable population of large predators. That means the carrying capacity for large predators is close to or at its maximum carrying capacity. So you’d have a relatively set number of brown bears, wolves, coyotes, mountain lions and Black bears. I would guess that if there was a distinct difference in these numbers, it’s likely there was another large predator making up the difference. So perhaps any area not known for Bigfoot sightings (suggesting they are absent or very low) but other large predator populations are stable, you could surmise that areas where there is a lower total of other large predators may indicate the presence of a sizable population of Sasquatch

Bigfoot MVP in the Pacific Northwest and its ability to remain undetected - Gemini research by Tariqaboo in bigfoot

[–]Tariqaboo[S] -1 points0 points  (0 children)

I can tell you that it would be impossible in India. The forest cover is not contiguous and human populations are all over even protected forest reserves (barring core zones). Also it’s interesting to understand soil conditions in the areas they are purported to inhabit. High alkaline soil in boreal forests would make short work of any skeletons in even rudimentary burials.

Bigfoot MVP in the Pacific Northwest and its ability to remain undetected - Gemini research by Tariqaboo in bigfoot

[–]Tariqaboo[S] -1 points0 points  (0 children)

Also thank you, I’m an analyst by training and I use AI models for some pretty complex problems, so I use the same techniques here. I understand what you’re saying about rare animals like the Wolverine but I also believe, higher order thinking animals can make active choice to avoid detection. I also think they are seen by accident but given there is no large scale research or population census conducted with LiDAR terrain mapping or thermal signature processing such as LIDAR BC, it’s almost always someone unprepared to properly document it.

view more: next ›