HN user
If you had access to a bunch identical copies of me that couldn't communicate with each other, you'd be able to find many questions I would give stupid answers to. I suspect I'd come out of it looking worse than an LLM.
This brought to my attention the following claim by OpenAI, regarding a logo which does not have any right angles:
right angles introduce the precision and structure that technology demands
To check I understand you: the smaller tank with heatpump would consume less energy outside the time window in which energy is free than the large tank with resistive heating, but has a higher capital cost which would outweigh the amount saved on energy?
If that's right, it's not obvious to me that building a suitably sized solar panel is environmentally worse than building a heat pump.
Based on https://climatereanalyzer.org/clim/sst_daily/?dm_id=nino3.4, 1988 is the year from the dataset with the lowest temperature throughout June and July.
There are those who make strong arguments for the opposite.
Once you have paid him the Danegeld, you never get rid of the Dane.
The number €115 is in the second chart as the per capita German expenditure on rail infrastructure in 2023. I don't see €477, but it's pretty close to the €480 figure for Switzerland in 2024. My guess is they saw an old version of the page when the first chart had numbers for 2023 and have kept using it without noticing the update.
It's saying that 40% of the tons of cargo loaded onto ships is fossil fuels, but this makes up about 50% of ton-miles, because fossil fuels travel further on average than other cargo. Not the easiest headline to correctly parse.
This is the same calculation behind the observation "you spend much longer in front of red traffic lights than green ones".
It's an interesting observation, but it's playing games with the meaning of "mean latency" and I'm not sure this is a very helpful way to look at requests to a web service - slightly slowing the fastest responses to requests would improve your time-weighted mean latency.
It's a better metric for looking at outages - instantaneous outages don't affect anyone, and time-weighting correctly discards them. On the other hand, average outage length is a very suspect and gameable metric unless accompanied by uptime %.
What you want is 40% black onto white to have a similar difference in intensity as 40% white onto black, otherwise your darkmode font will look significantly different at the same intensity as your lightmode font. This is why it doesn't make sense to do it in a linear colourspace
Thanks for putting this clearly. I had not given this argument enough thought and respect previously. Would you agree if I said this is about maximizing the amount of useful information given to the reader (even if it deviates from approximating a printed page) and a perceptual colour space is the way to measure that information?
I should mention that I can find plenty of resources that suggest you should use a different font for dark-on-light vs light-on-dark (although I'm aware I'm not a good judge of the quality of said resources). This is not necessarily opposed to your point, since your reasoning can be extended to conclude that identically shaped printed text subject to blurring in linear colour space would be perceived differently depending on whether it's light-on-dark or dark-on-light (including when it's naturally blurred due to imperfect eyesight).
Note that the Wikipedia article is wrong, given that photoshop uses a nontrivial gamma exponent
If we set text rendering aside, and consider something like games which prioritize photorealism rather than legibility, would you agree that linear colour space is the sensible one to do antialiasing in? This is for essentially the same reason you should do image resizing in linear color space, for which Wikipedia's citation [6] provides a convincing demonstration.
There's no physical underlying lighting process, so it doesn't make sense to use physical light units.
I disagree with you here. Text rendering specifically is incredibly complicated, but for antialiasing in other contexts, the problem can be seen as trying to approximate what would be seen if the display had higher resolution and the viewer has blurry eyesight. In this model, a linear color space makes sense - if 60% of the pixels within a region on a higher dpi display would be lit, then that is best approximated* by a single pixel emitting the same number of photons as those pixels would (which is 60% as many photons as there should be in the situation where all pixels on the higher dpi display would be lit).
See https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Spatial_anti-aliasing#Anti-ali... .
*there are better filters if you're looking at more than one pixel at once
Using perceptual blending, the antialiasing will be exactly the same efficacy in both cases. Using blending in linear space, these two test cases will look very different and render incorrectly!
Whatever color space you do your blending in, 40% black onto white should look the same as 60% white onto black.
Yes for me (although difficulty varies depending on what you're trying to install). I would have started programming 2 years earlier than I actually did if my first attempt to install tools to run a programming language had worked.
You have to precisely follow a sequence of instructions without the experience to understand their purpose, or any idea of how to fix things if you make a mistake.
Web technology is an exception to this. People already have a web browser, and ignoring mobile devices, browsers come with a js REPL.
The article makes a coherent argument:
a) Anthropic believe that AI is an extinction level risk and that they are the only leading AI lab which takes safety seriously. In combination this puts them in the position of believing that they are the only ones who can save the world, which is reasonable to call a god complex.
b) Anthropic are engaging in actions which aquire and consolidate power in the form of control over powerful AI.
c) "The history of brilliant people convinced they know what humanity needs is a sordid one, precisely because they have convinced themselves that their intentions are good, justifying actions that very much are not."
I'm describing claims from the article and would not word them so strongly myself. But this explicitly does not assume evil intent.
Note that the US military is almost the only customer that Fable and Mythos could safely be sold to while complying with this directive.
I'm a bit more interested in what it teaches about the hyperbolic plane than I am in it's effectiveness as a note taking app (although the way it supports an exponentially growing tree does seem appropriate for depicting knowledge - I'd be interested to see something like a force directed graph of Wikipedia plotted on the hyperbolic plane).
The points and arrows do move and change shape appropriately while panning, but the images and text do not. It might be possible to use feDisplacementMap (an SVG filter effect) cleverly to get the deformations right. This would probably make performance worse, and I'm not sure how readable the text would be, but it would mean that things wouldn't start overlapping each other while panning.
As seen after the Black Death, a scarcity of labor drives real wages up and lower the cost of basic goods and rent.
Does this still hold when the majority of labor is no longer closely tied to a finite supply of land? At the time of the Black Death, the majority of men's labor was farming, and having more land directly made labor much more productive[1]. The modern economy feels much more complicated (e.g. if your job involves transporting things/people from A to B, it probably decreases in efficiency as the density of people decreases).
[1] https://acoup.blog/2025/09/12/collections-life-work-death-an...
I'm open to the possibilty of AI conciousness, and there is some desparation related to the concept of a higher being:
There are many people who will categorically rule out the posibility of AI consciousness due to near-unshakable belief in a higher being. This argument resembles "Christians should not be worried about our climate since God is ultimately in control." Such views make it harder to collectively prevent dangers from a sentient AI, or harm to a sentient AI.
I do not claim that everyone who believes in a higher power believes concious AI to be impossible, or vice versa; just that it would be very hard to change the minds of those who adhere to this reasoning.
Very cool. I was expecting it to make circles bigger rather than making needles smaller. Take a near-circle consisting of N lines. As N tends to infinity, the near-circle would have a diameter close to N*L/π, so would touch N*L/πW + O(1) lines twice each.
Many people move to London when they want to make money, and move out when they want to do anything else. Pretending that London is independent of the rest of the country's children and retirees is misleading.
Lena isn't about uploading. https://qntm.org/uploading
I don't think it's possible to tile the sphere using more than 20 exactly identical pieces.
I was wrong about this (e.g. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Rhombic_triacontahedron). It still seems possible to me that there's a limit to the smallest tile that can tile a unit sphere on its own. (Smallest by diameter as a set of points in R^3).
Not quite - you need 12 pentagons in a mostly hexagonal tiling of the sphere (and if you're keeping them similar sizes, Gosper-islands force hexagon-like adjacency). I don't think it's possible to tile the sphere using more than 20 exactly identical pieces.
You could get a Gosper-island like tiling starting from H3 by saying that each "Hex" is defined recursively to be the union of its 6/7 parts (stopping at some small enough hexagons/pentagons if you really want). Away from the pentagons, these tiles would be very close to Gosper islands.
No idea if they are doing this, but you can use Gosper islands (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gosper_curve) which are close to hexagons, but can be exactly decomposed into 7 smaller copies.
Your other points are more relevant to the content of the article, but point 2. relates the practical consequences of undecidable type-checking, so I'll reply to that.
I don't have a problem with compile time code execution potentially not terminating, since it's clear to the programmer why that may happen. However, conventional type checking/inference is more like solving a system of constraints, and the programmer should understand what the constraints mean, but not need to know how the constraint solver (type checker) operates. If it's undecidable, that means there is a program that a programmer knows should type check, but the implementation won't be happy with; ruining the programmer's blissful ignorance of the internals.
Decidability of a type system is like well-typedness of a program. It doesn't guarantee it's sensible, but not having the property is an indicator of problems.
No. Being well typed is not a semantic property of of a program - in a language where it makes sense to talk about running badly typed code, a piece of code that starts with an infinite loop may be well or badly typed after that point with no observable difference in program behaviour.
There are decidable type systems for Turing complete languages (many try to have this property), and there are languages in which all well typed programs terminate for which type checking is undecidable (System F without all type annotations).
For many publications you could be critisizing, I'd agree with you, but Quanta usually reaches a higher standard that I feel they deserve credit for. Here's the Quanta article on the same thing [1]. It goes into much more detail, it shows a picture of the perfect sofa, and links to the actual research paper. They're aimed at a level above "finished high school", and I appreciate that; it gives me a chance to learn from the solution to a problem, and encourages me to think about it independently.
I agree with you that Quanta doesn't always "allow specialists to understand exactly what's being claimed", which is a problem; but linking to the research papers greatly mitigates that sin.
[1] https://www.quantamagazine.org/the-largest-sofa-you-can-move...
And here's how they clearly explain the proof strategy.
First, he showed that for any sofa in his space, the output of Q would be at least as big as the sofa’s area. It essentially measured the area of a shape that contained the sofa. That meant that if Baek could find the maximum value of Q, it would give him a good upper bound on the area of the optimal sofa.
This alone wasn’t enough to resolve the moving sofa problem. But Baek also defined Q so that for Gerver’s sofa, the function didn’t just give an upper bound. Its output was exactly equal to the sofa’s area. Baek therefore just had to prove that Q hit its maximum value when its input was Gerver’s sofa. That would mean that Gerver’s sofa had the biggest area of all the potential sofas, making it the solution to the moving sofa problem.
This is great.
Since you've asked about bugs, I tried pushing the limits and found the following:
A1: 100 B1: =100-A1
A2: =A1*(100-A1)
A3: =A1*B1
However, setting A3 to exactly 100 doesn't work, even though setting it to 101 or 99 (or even 100.000001) does work.
Another limit:
A1: 100 B1: 100
A2: =A1+B1
A3: =A1*B1
A4: =abs(A2-100) + abs(A3-100)
In case you can't tell from that last example, I think being able to fix the intended values of multiple outputs simultaneously would be interesting. If you were to give more details about the solver's internals, I'd be keen to hear them.
I believe that the important part of a brain is the computation it's carrying out. I would call this computation thinking and say it's responsible for consciousness. I think we agree that this computation would be identical if it were simulated on a computer or paper. If you pushed me on what exactly it means for a computation to physically happen and create consciousness, I would have to move to statements I'd call dubious conjectures rather than beliefs - your points in other threads about relying on interpretation have made me think more carefully about this.
Thanks for stating your views clearly. I have some questions to try and understand them better:
Would you say you're sure that you aren't in a simulation while acknowledging that a simulated version of you would say the same?
What do you think happens to someone whose neurons get replaced by small computers one by one (if you're happy to assume for the sake of argument that such a thing is possible without changing the person's behavior)?
My objection to that is that there isn't a particularly natural reason not to say
(-1)ˣ = cos(πx) - i sin(πx)
Why would anyone pick the flexible/potentially-insecure option?
Because having a connection that's encrypted between a user and Cloudflare, then unencrypted between Cloudflare and your server is often better than unencrypted all the way. Sketchy ISPs could insert/replace ads, and anyone hosting a free wifi hotspot could learn things your users wouldn't want them to know (e.g. their address if they order a delivery).
Setting up TLS properly on your server is harder than using Cloudflare (disclaimer: I have not used Cloudflare, though I have sorted out a certificate for an https server).
The problem is that users can't tell if their connection is encrypted all the way to your server. Visiting an https url might lead someone to assume that no-one can eavesdrop on their connection by tapping a cross-ocean cable (TLS can deliver this property). Cloudflare breaks that assumption.
Cloudflare's marketing on this is deceptive: https://www.cloudflare.com/application-services/products/ssl... says "TLS ensures data passing between users and servers is encrypted". This is true, but the servers it's talking about are Cloudflare's, not the website owner's.
Going through to "compare plans", the description of "Universal SSL Certificate" says "If you do not currently use SSL, Cloudflare can provide you with SSL capabilities — no configuration required." This could mislead users and server operators into thinking that they are more secure than they actually are. You cannot get the full benefits of TLS without a private key on your web server.
Despite this, I would guess that Cloudflare's "encryption remover" improves security compared to a world where Cloudflare did not offer this. I might feel differently about this if I knew more about people who interact with traffic between Cloudflare's servers and the servers of Cloudflare's customers.