KolenCh

How would this compare to shpool: https://github.com/shell-pool/shpool

I think it should be “Claude Fable is relentlessly protective until it isn’t” and pull more on the thread that it “hits a hidden guardrail” and drop into Opus. Both the fact that it knows and deployed such a workaround on a CSS problem and the fact that it is nowhere near cybersecurity/biology/frontier AI dev and triggered the guardrail terrifies me.

rsync regression since 3.4.3

This link (edit: I link to https://github.com/NixOS/nixpkgs/pull/522245#issuecomment-45... but probably the anchor is stripped automatically?) is the clearest that I can find to point out what's the problem in a neutral tone with links to issues you can track yourself.

There is other less civic discussions around the issue that I decide not to cite.

One comment describe the situation aptly: 3.4.1 contains security bugs, later versions fixes it but contains regressions. So choose wisely.

*Apparently* both are AI related: the security bugs are probably discovered by AI. Rushing to fix lots of these results in the use of AI, which leads to regressions.

That’s not what he said. And that part is from the GTD principle, much older than the “second brain” wave. That GTD principle, backed by psychological research, is basically saying that you should extract what you have in your mind immediately when you have it / remember it, so that you don’t need to keep it in your mind all the time. That free your mind to perform at optimal capacity. In psychological lab test, they basically test people doing “remember X and perform this next task Y. I’m going to ask you about X after you finish Y.” The mere fact that you need to remember X degrades your performance.

:)

I experienced both kind of sessions, one kind is like very complicated thing and it finish thousands of lines on its own for quite a while (long horizon problem), another kind is like a seemingly simple task that the agent done in a minute but then I need a few back and forth to get it right easily taking me 30 minutes of my time.

The former kind of experience can make us misjudge how much time we think a task would take us (with agents) to do. And then when the second kind happens, it would be quite disrupting as now we felt like it is delaying our progress.

So tracking the time taken when the second kind happens can help us calibrating what we can expect. I mean if we’re lucky it might take us no time but then we can’t expect being lucky all the time.

Have you tracked your time and confirmed this?

The reason I an ask is, it would felt like a 5 minutes task, but I track my time and found out often time I thought I’d just quickly check the progress made by the agents and it would easily becomes a 10, 15, or even a 30 minutes task.

“Claude” is more specific than “you”. Why rely on attention to figure out who’s the subject? Also it is in their (people from Anthropic) believe that rule based alignment won’t work and that’s why they wrote the soul document as “something like you’d write to your child to show them how they should behave in the world” (I paraphrase). I guess system prompt should be similar in this aspect.

It eliminated some ambiguity. It should be quite self evident that even without an example it is quite impossible to eliminate all ambiguity (it’s a feature of human language.) The more important property is that it never introduces more ambiguity. Ie at worst it doesn’t help, but not making it worse.

This is uniquely interesting to me because humongous amount of data are produced in HEP so automatic research (data analysis) in that domain is I think a huge enabler. It makes trying out ideas much cheaper (in human time) and you could flag interesting results for humans to investigate further. One deal breaker is because big data is so big in HEP, current operations are already very storage and compute bound. If only we can raise trillions of dollars in HEP and perhaps join force with ESA and build a fleet of data centers in space.

My naïve answer to this is, one should never be interested in things because of how useful it might be, but because of the thing itself. Otherwise, AI won’t be the first to make one losing interest. With interest, AI may even make it more addicting. Another distinction to make is, when you use AI, are you taking a shortcut, or channeling it to automate the boring stuffs so that you can explore things you otherwise don’t have time to explore?

I learnt this the hard way: if anyone is sending multiple emails, with seemingly very important titles and messages, and they get no reply at all, the receiver likely haven’t received your email rather than completely ghosting you. Everyone should know this, and at least try a different channel of communication before further actions, especially from those disclosing vulnerability.

Small bugs? May be. But there’s a lot of lack of functionality and stability. I’d recommend InFuse if anyone is hitting those problems. If it has been running fine for you then there’s no need to switch. The problem is related to source codec. Depending on that you’ll have difference experience. So that’s why the experience varies because there’s vast differences in source formats. A good client not only handles well on some sources, but many if not all.

A.k.a. How do you deal with a time dependent network?

Nice illustration.

To be a bit picky, there’s no unprocessed photo. They start with a minimally processed photo and take it from there.

The reason I clicked is that when I saw the title, I’m tempted to think they might be referring to analog photo (ie film). In that case I think there’s a well defined concept of “unprocessed” as it is a physical object.

For digital photo, you require at least a rescaling to turn it to grayscale as the author did. But even that, the values your monitor shows already is not linear. And I’m not sure pedagogically it should be started with that, as the authors mention later about the Bayer pattern. Shouldn’t “unprocessed” come with the color information? Because if you start from gray scale, the color information seems to be added from the processing itself (ie you’re not gradually adding only processing to your “unprocessed” photo).

To be fair, representing “unprocessed” Bayer pattern is much harder as the color filter does not nicely maps to RGB. If I were to do it I might just map the sensor RGB to just RGB (with default color space sRGB) and make a footnote there.

I think there’s a spectrum and you said it as if there’s only two sides.

For me personally, I built my “data centre” as cheap as possible, but there’s a few requirements that the computers you’re using would not cut it: storage server must be using ZFS with ECC. I started this around a decade ago and I only spent ~$300 at the time (reusing old PSU and case I think).

There are many requirements of a data centre that can be relaxed in a home lab settings, up time, performance, etc. but I would never trade data integrity for tiny bit of savings. Sadly this is a criteria that many, including some of those building very sophisticated home cluster, didn’t set as a priority.

It only works on Mac and windows as a VM.

Nix is for reproducibility. Nix and docker are orthogonal. You can create reproducible docker image via nix. You can run nix inside docker on systems that doesn’t allow you to create the nix store.

Some people take Moore’s law in a strong sense: doubling rate is a constant. That is long dead.

But if we relax it to be a slowly varying constant, then it is not dead. That constant has been changed (by consensus) for a few times already.

Your mistake is to (1) take that constant literally (ie using the strong law) and (2) uses the boundary points to find the “average” effect. The latter is a really flawed argument as it cannot prove it hasn’t been dead (a recent effect) because you haven’t considered it’s change over time.

Original title is “What Are Lie Groups?”.

This article is the shallowest I have read from quanta magazine. I expected more, give there articles in mathematics.

https://freakonomics.com/podcast/can-you-change-your-persona... People have different modes of personality so to speak. People behaves differently with a different crowds all the time.

This is equivalent to inverse variance weighting. For independent random variable, this is the optimal method to combine multiple measurements. He just used a different way to write the formula and connect that to other kinds of functions.

He also frames it as a different goal too: normally when we (as a physicist) talks about the random variables to combine, we think of it as different measurements of the same thing. But he didn’t even assume that: he’s saying if you want to have a weighted sum of random variables, not necessarily expected to be a measurement of the same thing (eg share same mean), this is still the optimal solution if all care is minimal variance. His example is stock, where if all you care is your “index” being less volatile, inverse variance weighting is also optimal.

As I’m not a finance person, this is new to me (the math is exactly the same, just different conceptually in what you think the X_i s are).

I wish he mention inverse variance weighting just to draw the connection though. Many comments here would be unnecessary if he did.

I’ve been using AirPods in macOS in Microsoft Teams call all the time.

Interesting. I worry about its ergonomics though as RSI might develops over time after long term usage of that design.

I've been designing my own one-handed keyboard for 3 years. My main problem is that both of my wrist suffers from RSI and either wrist can ocassionally acts up with different levels of pain. (I also have shoulder problem.) They can become practically disabled temporarily for a few weeks, or just quite painful for me to avoid using it. So my desiderata are a bit different from permanently one-handed people.

Interestingly my right wrist is acting up in the last couple weeks so I've been going through a iterative redesign phase recently. I probably will write up a blog post in the future when I have the final design, I'm going through it briefly below:

Desiderata: (first three are directly from the temporarily and random disabled hand criteria)

- primary used for two hands - each hand should be able to single-handedly control the computer - skill transfer from two hand to one hand: since one hand use is oacassional, retraining time should be minimal - based on the research in http://www.tandfonline.com/doi/abs/10.1207/s15327051hci1101_... which eventually becomes a producten https://matias.ca/halfkeyboard/ , the concept of a mirror key becomes a requirement: with the hold of a mirror key, the key at the mirror image position is active. An implementation detail is that the mirror key is a dual function key: on tap it is space, on hold it is mirror. I've implemented other possibility but find that the design in this research is better than others I come up with. - symmetric keyboard would facilitate this, where many split keyboards already is. - I must be able to buy them off the shelf. I do not have the skills to design it from scratch, nor do I afford to put more strain to my hand to assemble it from parts. - ergonomic must be one the of the primary goal of the keyboard, to minimize RSI. Speed is not important at all for example. - from my empircal experience, split keyboard, espeicially true split keyboard would encourage a better wrist and shoulder ergonomics. Hence I require split keyboards.

Based on these criteria, I bought ZSA Moonlander (QMK based) personally and Kinesis Advantage 360 Pro (ZMK based) for work.

The mirror key based design is currently at

    - Moonlander https://configure.zsa.io/moonlander/layouts/QwA3z/latest/0
    - Adv360 Pro: https://github.com/ickc/Adv360-Pro-ZMK/tree/dev

The ZSA training site is useful to iterate this design process: after each iteration I'd train per single hand and see if it works. For example in my earlier design I mainly focused on testing single left hand use and later found it doesn't quite work for single right hand.

Finally, macOS sticky modifier is used to hold modifier with a single hand. I.e. Ctrl+Opt+A becomes Ctrl+Opt, release, A. This is because OSM in QMK cannot handles one-shot of multiple modifiers well. Without doing fancy thing, you need to do Ctrl, release, Opt, release, A.

Same design working across Moonlander and Adv360 is important. Layout differences is not that much thankfully, but firmware difference can be a pain.

Lastly, I recently bought a Silakka54 for the ocassions where the setup hassle of either is too high. Basically either lap use or going to a meeting. I think my current layout design is adaptable to it but I'll see.

Big claim but not much substance. They should try to really understand linear algebra first, and also linguistics a bit. Semantic domain (from linguistics) is a better way to describe it, where using sets (from math) might better convey what they want to say.

This is referring to the fact that overall phase is not real (no observable difference) but relative phase has. The word “except” is not downplaying its importance, but to emphasize the fact that overall phase isn’t physical.

Are you sure you are really talking about Physics? Are you talking about actual research in physics, or physicists applying their way of thinking in other things?

But Apple enforces code-signing, and that prevents them to ship those binaries under GPLv3 in the OS. The users can always compile them on their own (or via their favorite package manager) but Apple just can't ship it (without changing how they operate fundamentally.)

That’s related to anti-tivolization in GPLv3 and basically Apple is forced to stop shipping things that’s updated to GPLv3. That’s not just about scared, assuming being scared means they are irrational and they could have adopted it if they want. Legally they cannot ship it unless they are changing their business model.

My wife is doing a freelance project where basically humans are evaluating how good an LLM-generated prompt is, and if there’s any problem to be fixed. Some times the humans are amazed and can’t believe they are written by LLMs (other times they are flabbergasted by how bad it is, of course.)

So definitely it has been improved in this area, intentionally.

It really hurts to see this happening. CMB-S4, stands for stage 4, is a huge collaborative effort that units many CMB scientists and experiments, in a sense that stage 1 to 3 experiments are “converging” towards this.

To put that in context, CMB-S4 being a DOE project has many side effects to other CMB experiments in a lot of ways. For example, a few years ago the LiteBIRD mission led by JAXA from Japan has been gaining momentum, and many international CMB scientists got involved. European scientists got funded by ESA, and US scientists were expecting NASA to fund them too. In the end they denied the proposal (despite generally positive impressions when discussing with various people there), partly because they think the satellite based CMB experiment LiteBIRD has significant overlap with the goals of the ground based CMB experiment CMB-S4, deeming it unnecessary to support LiteBIRD.

And then CMB scientists used to get generous access to NERSC, a top 10 HPC system in the world. But as CMB-S4 becomes a DOE project, NERSC being DOE funded also, it becomes a bit of conflict there, in the sense that they feel they need to prioritize access for CMB-S4 to guarantee its success. There are many other factors in play but in the end it becomes much more difficult to even get access to the system, not to mention having any sizable allocation.

All these might not be so bad as CMB-S4 is supposed to be our endgame. It would benefits the CMB community as a whole so much. But now? It’s game over.

It also hurts particle physics progress as well. Long story short, the CMB B-mode holds a promising sensitivity to inflationary models, that its discovery may finally makes inflation falsifiable. At the very least, it involves an energy scale so high that no experiments on Earth can reach, and therefore is a good complement, to high energy physics experiments such as LHC.

There is a reason it is deemed so important in both the decadal survey and the Particle Physics Project Prioritization Panel.

Project like this has under heavy scrutiny from both the scientific community and the funding parties around feasibility, risks, costs, etc. It wasn’t a a light decision to have had happened in the beginning. Why would the end come so abruptly without explanation?

May I suggest stop eating cats and the joy will come back.