MajimasEyepatch

Obviously it's more than just debouncing. https://tanstack.com/pacer/latest/docs/overview

That’s true globally, but in the US, iPhones are 60% of the smartphone market. In the US, iPhone users are also younger, more affluent, more educated, and I suspect more likely to fly than Android users. iOS users also dominate in app spending. And from a practical standpoint, 93% of iPhone users are on the latest version of iOS within six months, compared to 20% of Android users, which is huge when it comes to development costs.

Source: https://adapty.io/blog/iphone-vs-android-users/

According to the post, this result was first derived for gluons in a previous paper. That paper was provided to the model as context, and then the model was asked to derive an analogous result for gravitons, which presumably has not been done before. The authors claim it would have taken "considerable time" for human experts to derive the graviton result.

I don't see any reason to believe that this exact problem was solved before in the training data, but it's definitely an incremental result based on a very similar problem that the model had seen before.

To be fair, productivity and writing tools are a better fit for LLMs than a lot of other use cases.

Exactly right. It's totally plausible that someone could build a mental health chatbot that results in better outcomes than people who receive no support, but that's a hypothesis that can and should be tested and subject to strict ethical oversight.

I feel this way about some of the more extreme effective altruists. There is no room for uncertainty or recognition of the way that errors compound.

- "We should focus our charitable endeavors on the problems that are most impactful, like eradicating preventable diseases in poor countries." Cool, I'm on board.

- "I should do the job that makes the absolute most amount of money possible, like starting a crypto exchange, so that I can use my vast wealth in the most effective way." Maybe? If you like crypto, go for it, I guess, but I don't think that's the only way to live, and I'm not frankly willing to trust the infallibility and incorruptibility of these so-called geniuses.

- "There are many billions more people who will be born in the future than those people who are alive today. Therefore, we should focus on long-term problems over short-term ones because the long-term ones will affect far more people." Long-term problems are obviously important, but the further we get into the future, the less certain we can be about our projections. We're not even good at seeing five years into the future. We should have very little faith in some billionaire tech bro insisting that their projections about the 22nd century are correct (especially when those projections just so happen to show that the best thing you can do in the present is buy the products that said tech bro is selling).

As the others have mentioned, the goo.gl step isn't necessary for linkjacking, but it is a reputational risk for Google.

It may help prevent linkjacking. If an old URL no longer works, but the goo.gl link is still available, it's possible that someone could take over the URL and use it for malicious. Consider a scenario like this:

1. Years ago, Acme Corp sets up an FAQ page and creates a goo.gl link to the FAQ.

2. Acme goes out of business. They take the website down, but the goo.gl link is still accessible on some old third-party content, like social media posts.

3. Eventually, the domain registration lapses, and a bad actor takes over the domain.

4. Someone stumbles across a goo.gl link in a reddit thread from a decade ago and clicks it. Instead of going to Acme, they now go to a malicious site full of malware.

With the new policy, if enough time has passed without anyone clicking on the link, then Google will deactivate it, and the user in step 4 would now get a 404 from Google instead.

They're not explicitly asked for, but everywhere I've worked that's tested them has found that they improve conversion rates.

There's a few reasons. The biggest one, IMO, is that it lets non-technical users change things quickly without having to go through the engineering team. Obviously there are limits to that, but in many cases, a product or marketing team wants to modify a form or test a few variations without having to put it into a backlog, wait for engineers to size it, wait for an upcoming sprint, then wait another two weeks for it to get completed and deployed. (Even in more nimble organizations, cutting out the handoff to engineering saves time, eliminates communication issues, and frees up the engineering team to do more valuable work.)

On the technical side, these form builders can actually save a decent amount of development effort. Sure, it's easy to build a basic HTML form, but once you start factoring in things like validation, animations, transitions, conditional routing, error handling, localization, accessibility, and tricky UI like date pickers and fancy dropdowns, making a really polished form is actually a lot of work. You either have to cobble together a bunch of third-party libraries and try to make them play nicely together, or you end up building your own reusable, extensible, modular form library.

It's one of those projects that sounds simple, but scope creep is almost inevitable. Instead of spending your time building things that actually make money, you're spending time on your form library because suddenly you have to show different questions on the next screen based on previous responses. Or you have to handle right-to-left languages like Arabic, and it's not working in Safari on iOS. Or your predecessor failed to do any due diligence before deciding to use a datepicker widget that was maintained by some random guy at a web agency in the Midwest that went out of business five years ago, and now you have to fork it because there's a bug that's impacting your company's biggest client.

Or, instead of all that, you could just pay Typeform a fraction of the salary for one engineer and never have to think about those things ever again.

But presumably you could have built it before, just slower, which is the point. For now, that speed-up just looks like a win because it’s novel, but eventually the speed-up will be baked into people’s expectations.

Normally, if you compile the same code twice on the same machine, you'll get the same result, even if it's not truly reproducible across machines or large gaps in time. And differences between machines or across time are usually small enough that they don't impact the observed behavior of the code, especially if you pin your dependencies.

However, with LaTeX, the output of the first run is often an input to the second run, so you get notably different results if you only compile it once vs. compiling twice. When I last wrote LaTeX about ten years ago, I usually encountered this with page numbers and tables of context, since the page numbers couldn't be determined until the layout was complete. So the first pass would get the bulk of the layout and content in place, and then the second pass would do it all again, but this time with real page numbers. You would never expect to see something like this in a modern compiler, at least not in a way that's visible to the user.

(That said, it's been ten years, and I never compiled anything as long or complex as a PhD thesis, so I could be wrong about why you have to compile twice.)

The biggest ones are the ones that are going to cost $70-80, which is what we’re talking about.

There are some people who make gaming their whole identity, and when something happens that they don’t like, they act like gaming is a fundamental right instead of a luxury.

Did you feel that way in 2005 when the Xbox 360 was released and $60 was the new standard? Because $60 in 2005 has the same buying power as $97.41 today. This game, in real terms, is cheaper than Xbox 360 games were.

I don't necessarily think Ive is going to succeed, but if you're going to make a lot of bets, taking one bet on someone who succeeded before seems pretty reasonable. He wouldn't be the first person to rise to great heights, fall, and rise again, even in the Apple world.

That’s not cynical at all. They’re not saying it’s wasted effort. “Sunk cost” just means that you can’t get that time and money and effort back, so go where the evidence leads you today, even if it strays from your original vision.

The article you linked says that 60-75% of Anthropic's revenue comes from API calls (which would include things like Cursor).

That's not the simplest possible explanation. The simplest explanation is that he did this because he believes in it. Trump has been saying the exact same thing about tariffs since the 1980s—there's video of him talking to Larry King about it in 1987, using exactly the same phrasing and logic that he uses today.

Donald Trump fundamentally believes that everything in life is a zero-sum game, and moreover that everyone is as crooked as him: either you're screwing someone else or you're getting screwed. That's why he's so obsessed with trade deficits specifically, because to him, that negative sign screams "you're getting ripped off."

There are other benefits. By imposing the tariffs like this and wielding them through executive power, he can extort countries and corporations to give him what he wants in exchanging for releasing the hostages, so to speak. And I'm sure people in his orbit _also_ used this as a get-rich-quick scheme, because these people are all grifters. But that is all secondary to the fact that he has believed this for forty years and finally got a chance to do it.

It’s not like I said it was 100%. 55/45 or even 67/33 is pretty noisy and will fail a lot. Still beats 50/50.

In the case of Airbnb, wouldn't that show up in the listing's reviews, requests for refunds, etc. and ultimately drive down the listing's LTV? Nobody leaves reviews on an ad, and I imagine that very few users report inappropriate ads, so you can only measure that indirectly. But if somebody books an Airbnb and has a bad experience, they are much more likely to give you direct feedback about it.

My point is that the validity and soundness of the inverse proposition has no bearing on the validity and soundness of the original proposition, so you’ve proposed a meaningless experiment.

I also think that your hypothesis that voting and values are not connected is false, but that’s a separate issue.

In addition to what everyone else has said, if Europe goes through with the new "Big Tech tax" and/or tariffs on digital services, AWS would presumably take a big hit.

Yep, that's the talking point. Howard Lutnick has been out there saying this.

For better or worse, though, voters don't judge politicians based on the impact their policies have in 10-20 years. They're going to judge these tariffs in 18 months when they vote in the midterms and again in 2028, long before a widespread shift in manufacturing can occur.

"If p then q" does not imply "If q then p."

Besides, there's a ton of easy ways to beat 50/50 odds without explicitly asking who they voted for. You can ask whether they graduated from college, and that will get you to something like 55/45 or 60/40. If they're white and they did not graduate from college, or if they're not white and they did graduate from college, your odds of guessing right are something like 2:1.

Studies have also found (somewhat weak) correlations between some of the Big Five personality traits and political identification: people who score highly on conscientiousness are more likely to be right-leaning, while people who score highly on openness to experience are more likely to be left-leaning.

There are already other teams using these bats, and it seems like they will spread pretty quickly: https://www.nytimes.com/athletic/6243085/2025/03/31/mlb-torp...

I don't know why anyone would be upset about this, but baseball fans tend to be curmudgeons.

America doesn’t do it for political and cultural reasons. It has absolutely nothing to do with scale, economics, or America’s “inability” to do it. Americans (unfortunately imo) have consistently chosen not to do it by not electing politicians who have pledged to do it.

Why not?

I agree that an observational study cannot prove that the reduction in these cases is due to the rise of cashless payments. The researchers themselves say it is “multifactorial.” However, that has absolutely nothing to do with “sample size.” There is no sampling here.

The relative size of the population of people using cash vs. the population of kids sticking things up their nose also has nothing to do with whether is study is valid.

The study is essentially making an observation and then presenting a hypothesis: in 2012, the use of cash began to decline in the UK, and over the next 10 years, there was a significant decline in the number of cases reported to the NHS where kids had to have a foreign object removed. Given that 75% of cases historically involved coins, the authors make a totally reasonable inference that the decline in the use of cash in the UK over this exact period likely played a big role. They also name several other factors that may have contributed.

Your strong reaction to this study seems disproportionate and misguided. It’s not the most powerful or compelling study, but there’s nothing blatant wrong with it.

Is sample size even relevant here? If they’re working with NHS data, presumably they have pretty reliable population data (i.e. not randomly sampled) to work with.

And regardless, even if it was a sample, I don’t see how a sample of thousands would be too small to detect a very large effect like that, unless the variance was extremely high. (But again, I’m not sure that complaining about “sample size” even makes sense in this case.)