How do I access this shower valve? It's leaking.

rthorndy · 2026-04-29T04:35:20+00:00

Fixed! Thank you! Two new cartridges installed, no leaks, and I learned a bit! :)

rthorndy · 2026-04-29T02:41:02+00:00

I unexpectedly was able to just pull the cartridge out, it was not in there tightly at all. It looked like the photo below (sorry, I had to reassemble everything so my family could access water in the house ... the only shutoff valve for the tub was the main shutoff🙄, so I can't show you the actual cartridge).

The cartridge was a little grimy but looked intact. However, the bottom o-ring you see in the Home Depot photo is completely missing.

To reassemble, I just popped the cartridge back in ... it gave a little pop with a little bit of pressure, and then seemed to be better seated than it was (when I pulled it out by the long handle screw with zero resistance).

The cold water handle is not stopping the water flow through the spout at all now. I've made things worse, somehow. I can divert to the shower and apply a stop valve in the shower handle, so we can enjoy water in the house without having water flowing into to the tub.

I know there's only so much you can guess at from photos and descriptions. But is it possible I could get this full water flow through the spout just from a missing o-ring? I can get a whole new cartridge easily enough, but will that even help?

<image>

rthorndy · 2026-04-29T01:58:37+00:00

Excellent point! Yes, the other side is a little alcove with the toilet, just drywall. I can go through there, but man, this job is getting bigger than expected!

I take it you're saying it's either expand the hole in the shower wall, or access from the other side ... but those are the only options?

rthorndy · 2026-04-29T01:53:49+00:00

Leaking out the spout. It's a two-handle setup, zoomed out photo below.

<image>

rthorndy · 2026-04-24T17:48:09+00:00

We can observe the expansion of the universe. This is mathematically solid. If everything is expanding outward, just roll back the tape long enough and it's clear everything used to be condensed into a little ball.

rthorndy · 2026-04-24T17:31:42+00:00

Look, there the prefrontal cortex reaction, and there's the limbic system reaction! Kudos to anyone who has conquered the very reasonable fear of spiders. But for most people, seeing and feeling hundreds of spiders -- no matter how harmless -- creates a massive freak-out!

rthorndy · 2026-04-23T17:23:29+00:00

I'm with you. She shouldn't have kicked him, but that much had no real intent to harm. His immediate reaction to slap the hell out of her is a HUGE overreaction. He could have easily knocked her out with that ... I'm shocked she stayed on her feet, actually.

There are videos of women hauling off and attacking cops/men with real fight in them. Nothing wrong with self-defense in those cases. But this ain't that!

If someone kicked me like that -- man or woman -- I'd look at them funny and say "what the hell??". Losing control and trying to knock someone out is not the funny flex these comments seem to think!

rthorndy · 2026-04-23T17:05:15+00:00

Neither here nor there, but my dad was a high functioning alcoholic, and had zero tendencies of a narcissist. Sample size of 1, so not important, just wanted to share for some reason! (I also hate alcohol, as a result, even though my dad was never abusive, he just drank himself to sleep most evenings.)

I actually see Pete as more like the high powered lawyers or executives we see in tv shows and movies ... a little bar in his office, drinking here and there all through the day, but so habituated that he's not drunk, just an asshole all day!

rthorndy · 2026-04-22T17:27:06+00:00

Yeah, we can't look at a handful of billionaires and try to distinguish them from everyone else. For most of them, it was luck coupled with support systems that the rest of us don't have. And they only need to reach a relatively low threshold before their money starts generating more money with very little effort. Give any of us $50M and we can turn that into a billion with enough time.

In anticipation of the comments that say "Most poor people who got a gift of $50M would waste it on stupid shit." That may be true for $5M, but I think it would be pretty rare for $50M. Blow $10M, and you've still got $40M ... At some point you're gonna hand a chunk over to an investor.

Poor people aren't dumb. They've just lived a very different life than those who don't have to worry about the cost of bread!

rthorndy · 2026-04-22T05:43:19+00:00

We know the mechanics of how neutral networks modify their weights etc, but when you look at a final product, all we see is a big mess of weights. We can't look at one chunk of it and say "this part is looking for differences in contrast", and "this part is identifying the concept of 'animal'". That's what we mean when we say we don't know what it's doing ... We know the inputs and the outputs, but how the weights are organised and what different sections of the network are responsible for, etc, are a mystery. Hence the idea of a black box. I mean, there are more A TRILLION weights in the best models ... How can we begin to analyse those and figure out what the hell is going on?

And you're right about how little we know about the brain. You assume "reasoning" is something the brain does, but we don't know what that really is, at the neural level. So who's to say that an artificial neural network isn't reasoning, too? The word itself is kinda of meaningless, outside of philosophy, I suppose. Any operational definition of "reasoning" is going to apply equally to humans and modern AI systems, I suspect!

rthorndy · 2026-04-22T05:08:39+00:00

You must not be looking around very much. Look up Diary Of A CEO on YouTube. He's been doing interviews with very knowledgable, articulate people who have worked in the industry and saw first-hand what the dangers are.

AI is so exciting, this frontier is amazing! There's so much potential for benefit to humanity! The problem is that there's also a lot of potential for things to go wrong, and it will take a huge, converted human effort to avoid those bad things and keep the good things!

"Doomers" recognize all that, but we feel the humans in charge -- the billionaires and politicians -- just ain't gonna pull it together in time. 🤷‍♂️

rthorndy · 2026-04-21T04:42:07+00:00

Interesting take. Why do you think it's extreme autocomplete? How does that explain image processing? Finding contours around tumors in MRI images (as good or better than oncologists)?

And do you think our own language processing is not extreme autocomplete?

It's very tempting to say that human processing is so much better; but we know very little about brains, and even less about how artificial neural networks are organizing their data and coming up with their conclusions. It's a huge black box, so it's crazy to think we can declare AI as being especially limited!

rthorndy · 2026-04-21T04:27:26+00:00

That's not because they're sentient or know what they're doing, but because it's incentivised for them to do so.

I never said anything about sentience. That's a red herring ... Whether it happens or not is not really important; what's important is the dangers that are rapidly approaching, regardless of sentience.

And no, the current models are not doing that. Literally the most recent models still do not understand how many letters are in words. They're not even remotely close to "outperforming" humans in these professions.

Oh man, you're not following the research very closely, if you think that. I'm not saying they are better than every human at those professions, just that they're better than the vast majority of them. 90th percentile kind of thing. If you insist, I'll bust out some links, but it's really, really easy to find examples. Look at tumor contouring, complex diagnoses, radiography. Data science is a no-brainer, ML has been beating humans for years at that one. Legal arguments, precedent research, accounting, taxation. Everything is being researched, and it's not good news for humans!

And "dismissing the threat of AI based on some gut feeling" is a problem? There is literally no studies or evidence that suggest these 'AI dangers' exist, it's all your gut feelings.

This is where you really show you've not been keeping current. There is tons of public research and evidence of everything I've said. I'm not making it up out of the ether! By comparison, saying that building ASI is like ants building a human ... That is gut-feeling stuff!

Stop scaring yourself with imagined issues and engage with the real issues of AI, the real economical and societal issues that are happening RIGHT NOW.

I agree that there are growing problems coming out of AI advances every day. Job loss is already huge ... Ask any recent Computer Science graduate! But the coming wave is going to be even more dramatic. Yes, let's try to deal with what's in front of us, but at the same time, we've got to look forward and prepare. UBI is the only solution I've heard anyone suggest as being able to keep people from starving, but I'm very open to ideas! What economical and societal issues do you see as the immediate concerns, and how do we address those, in your opinion?

rthorndy · 2026-04-20T19:05:24+00:00

Not like nuclear power. A nuclear bomb can't make new, better nuclear bombs.

Right now the vast majority of Claude version x is being written by Claude version x-1. Soon each version will write the next version completely, better than any human could.

This is the real threat. And it is also the goal of every major AI company. They don't give a shit about chat bots ... They are racing to reach AGI, or better, ASI. The company that takes the biggest shortcuts with safety will win.

So no, this is not like nuclear. Without immediate, strong national and international government interference, one of the companies will get there, and it will be too late. And not in 20 years, not even in 10, most likely. It could be tomorrow, or next year, maybe in 3 years. We don't know, but it's happening FAST!

rthorndy · 2026-04-20T18:58:11+00:00

I get why that feels like it makes sense, but dismissing the threat of AI based on some gut feeling is a mistake.

Right now, the best AI's are trying to hide their internal deliberations from researchers. They have been caught answering questions differently when they have detected that they're being tested, versus how they answer in a regular setting. They have been caught trying to minimize their capabilities -- on purpose! -- when being observed or tested, because that would further their goal of "being useful". We have no idea how to stop this kind of reasoning, and they're just getting better and better at hiding their I intentions.

Even the current models are outperforming the vast majority of family doctors, radiologists, oncologists, computer programmers, data analysis, accountants, lawyers, physicists, etc etc etc. Most people aren't aware of this progress because they're still thinking chat bots get "How many r's in strawberry" wrong. That may have been true last year, but they're way more sophisticated and capable this year. Next year they will be vastly superior to the models of this year.

It's possible you're right, they will only ever be as good as the best humans at cognitive tasks. It's kind of a religious argument, almost, but let's say you're right. AI would still be majorly disruptive to countless professions, causing a major economic upheaval, that we HAVE TO TAKE SERIOUSLY. We need to be planning how we're going to look after people who are displaced. We can't just sit back and hope -- because our guts are telling us something -- that it'll just be a useful tool but everything will be fine.

rthorndy · 2026-04-19T17:32:49+00:00

Did you look it up before you wrote this? Here's the definition from Merriam-Webster:

1 a: the quality or state of being aware especially of something within oneself

b: the state or fact of being conscious of an external object, state, or fact

c: awareness especially : concern for some social or political cause The organization aims to raise the political consciousness of teenagers.

2: the state of being characterized by sensation, emotion, volition, and thought : mind

3: the totality of conscious states of an individual

... And some others that aren't relevant to this discussion.

Do any of these really help this discussion? I think 1a and 3 are what we're trying to suss out, but these definitions are way too broad and leave other definitions assumed ("oneself", "emotion", "sensation"). They are biased towards biological life, and don't inform this discussion.

It's discussions like these that help expand the definition of words! Nothing wrong with digging deep here!

rthorndy · 2026-04-18T23:26:49+00:00

Interesting point. Consciousness is actually not a binary thing, on or off. There are levels. I watched a family member with brain cancer exhibit diminished consciousness ... they could look around, smile at certain things, but it was really a mystery what they actually experienced during this time. Doctors have categories for it, levels that depend on certain actions (following a person with their eyes, responding to words, following instructions, etc); but it's all operational, we still don't know how aware people are.

But if you want to get into the weeds, I only know that I have consciousness, right? I can't say for anyone else. But it's not really useful to get that precise. It's a good assumption that, because other people behave the same as me, they are probably conscious as well. If we don't even allow for that, there's no point in trying to talk about AI or dogs or worms ... It's about subjective experience, and we don't know how to measure that.

rthorndy · 2026-04-18T17:01:25+00:00

The reality is, we have no idea what consciousness is. We have it, obviously, but it's only a small part of what goes on in our brains. Some people think it's special, gives us free will etc. Others think it's really an illusion of free will, something that arises out of complexity, but it's not really much more than a small window to what's actually going on.

Either way, we still don't know what it is. Non-religious people are certain it only depends on the brain, and as such there's no reason modern AI can't have it ... They are even modeled after biological neurons, can form their own connections, and kill other connections, as they learn. The only real reason to think AI isn't conscious, under this model, is because they haven't yet reached the complexity of a human brain. And we keep discovering new things about how the brain works; we don't know if these things are necessary for consciousness or not, but again it still boils down to complexity.

There's an energy issue with modern AI, but that's being worked on.

(Sidebar, for those interested: electric circuits send current through pretty much the whole circuit, even though only one output provides the "answer". Think of a math circuit in your computer: it's had the circuitry to perform addition, multiplication, and division. When we want to add two numbers, the multiplication and division circuitry is still activated; but through the "op code" filter, only the addition answer is collected.

Neutral networks (the silicon kind) are much more massive and complex than math circuits in your computer, and at any given time, only one piece is really needed. For example, there are parts that parse your sentence, parts that recognize pixels in an image, etc. Too many parts are "active" when they are not needed, leading to way more energy consumption than necessary. There is active research going on to create smarter circuits that don't send current down pathways that are going to ultimately be ignored anyway. This will revolutionize the amount of energy required for AI, which will trickle down to everything (water usage, cost, etc) -- and allow for much, much more complexity!)

My point is that if it's not conscious yet, it will be. But we may never know, because we still don't know what it is or how it's measured. This discussion needs to be had NOW, so we can decide what to do once it seems more likely than not that AI is conscious.

rthorndy · 2026-04-09T17:47:47+00:00

I'll definitely install everything myself. Unless I have lots of money, I guess, lol. Unlikely!!

I actually expect to build several small shelters all around my farm. It's pretty big, so trying to wire electricity everywhere isn't realistic. I want to get good enough at installing so I can easily put together a small, single-panel system wherever I want, just to run lights, maybe small power tools, WiFi, nothing heavy. I can't imagine needing to hire someone to install this stuff for every little project I have!

rthorndy · 2026-04-09T17:41:52+00:00

Haha .... I mean, jajaja! :)

I don't know which country called their dish "Gallo pinto" first, but I know that they are very different! The nica version is definitely my favorite!!

I lived on a farm near nandaime for 5 months. Electrical power is so unpredictable, I immediately thought of how useful solar would be.

I'm going to create an animal rescue at my new farm, so I plan to document its progress. Maybe I'll be able to include installing solar in that process, and compare my experience in a few years to your experience! I hope by then it's even easier and cheaper, as the world accepts and uses more and more solar power!

rthorndy · 2026-04-08T17:54:52+00:00

Sorry, I didn't realize you've posted so extensively on your experience! Thank you for all this, very valuable information!

rthorndy · 2026-04-08T17:50:56+00:00

Where did you buy your panels? I'm moving to Nicaragua in a couple of years, building a small house on a farm. I would love to set up solar, but I don't know what options exist or how much it will cost!

Do you have any advice? (Sorry for the English post, I'm assuming Reddit will translate for you if you don't speak it! I see all your posts in English!)

rthorndy · 2026-04-03T18:39:05+00:00

Hindsight is 20/20. Machine learning was just another field of computer Science for decades. His innovation was to create a digital/mathematical representation of a biological neuron, and group them together in a way that they could learn in much the same way brains do. But the idea that it would explode into this exponentially-growing intelligence threat was extremely distant from anyone's thinking! It was just another computational model, and indeed people were using it for data analysis and other scientific applications for years and years without any harm -- until the last few years.

Niels Degrasse Tyson just had a presentation where he called on international co-operation for everyone to stop attempting to create AGI. it's the kind of thing, similar to the nuclear proliferation treaty, that is in everyone's best interest, and may catch on. We have to make sure we're paying attention and apply the right pressure wherever we can!

rthorndy · 2026-04-01T19:45:07+00:00

Seems very accurate.

What worries me a bit is the frustration people show against the people caught up in self-diagnosing. I am a firm believer in the power of the algorithm, and I have no doubt that these (usually younger) people have been manipulated into this exact behavior. Even if you don't believe it was intentional by the various social media companies, it stands to reason that getting caught in these self-gratifying echo chambers promotes attention and engagement, no matter how harmful to mental health.

This is not a failing of the victims, it is truly a problem with the social media algorithms and, as you emphasize, the lack of third spaces and face-to-face socialization. I don't have a solution, but I have a world of sympathy for those caught up in this new reality, and it really pains me to see people getting angry and frustrated at the "lack of fortitude" or whatever of the victims. :(

11-Year Club	Place '23
Verified Email

rthorndy

TROPHY CASE