proteal

What if instead the manager was saying: “hey team I need you to all buy as many lotto tickets as possible!”

I feel like that’s a better analogy. Some charlatans are buying fake tickets, but as a manager who wants to win big, I’m ok with some chicanery so long as the average person is trying to honestly meet my directive.

It sounds to me like the safe assumption with software is that no matter how solid your stack is, there are vulnerabilities, potentially catastrophic. A question to folks more experienced than me - if my business depends on software, and I know that my software is almost certainly exploitable, how do I posture my business in such a way as to minimize the impacts of exploits like these?

I’d like to point out that TF2 was part of the Orange Box bundle that included Half Life, Portal, and TF2. Those single player games were never given away for free, so as a purchaser of the bundle, I wasn’t miffed TF2 went free to play. In fact, quite the opposite. Because TF2 is free, there are like 50k people to play with me everyday. I think $0 is the right price for TF2.

I agree CS is icky re: skins and gambling. But to say “refuses to control” is disingenuous. They’ve done many things to curtail gambling, like preventing tourneys from displaying gambling sponsors and adding trade restrictions that hampered bot activity. Valve is between a rock and a hard place here- they recognize gambling is a net negative on the value of their game (hence the curtailing and remonetization efforts). Remember, valve didn’t create skin trading with the expectation of third party gambling, so this is something unprecedented they’ve had to figure out as they go. Despite its drawbacks, the gambling market has some positives that valve can’t ignore. It creates liquidity and demand for the skins. People who pay hundreds of dollars for skins hate to see their value plummet. So if valve nuked gambling today, it would upset a lot of folks. I think valve has done a phenomenal job balancing their business needs with the social obligations with the players.

Barbarians at the Gate is the classic LBO book. It gives a nice mix of story and financial mechanics.

It’s also one of the thinnest floats IPO’ing. They’re only selling less than 5% of the company. That introduces a lot of sensitivity in the valuation, not to mention there exists a bit of game theory around fund managers needing to join in to maintain nominal returns with their peers.

Check out Matt Levine commentary, which goes into more detail (SpaceX Indexing) https://www.bloomberg.com/opinion/newsletters/2026-03-31/are...

Thank you for sharing! What are your thoughts on intentionally degrading service over the course of an hour instead of a hard cutoff? Like implementing an increasingly restrictive cap on download speeds/intentionally dropping a % of packets over the hour. Might be a little less jarring than a hard stop.

Hey - plugged this into chatGPT 5.2 and it seems to think this theory needs more work.

“As written, this looks closer to sophisticated curve-fitting (numerology with constraints) than a legitimate geometric unification, mainly because the claimed “ppm agreement” is often not assessed against experimental uncertainties and because several integer/constant choices function like hidden degrees of freedom.”

Thank you for sharing and happy holidays!

I think we’re in agreement, but I’m afraid I don’t have the philosophical language to precisely pin my mental model into words (what a meta conundrum lol). I’ll try my best here, but I may come back in a few days with an edit if I can more coherently write my ideas.

I take a slightly more narrow definition of “thoughts” that may be more akin to “expressions” - ideas that can be communicated, so excluding non-linguistic mental processes. I think that may be where we disconnect. A lot of my idea about thoughts comes from the Borges story, Funes the memorius (short story about a dude who could not forget - interesting read and really clarifies my feelings on my definition of “all possible thought”). In the story he talks about tree leaves, but instead imagine needing a unique linguistic scheme for every single unique snowflake you ever see. It would be a linguistic nightmare! Therefore language must generalize otherwise it becomes noncommunicable and that generalization to me induces the “lossy approximation” I attribute to language in my prior comment.

So, in my head Funes’s mind represent the abstract space of all possible thoughts. When we use language, we are stacking words/sentences/paragraphs/etc together almost like vector addition trying to reach a particular point in the thought vector space. Some languages have really clean ways of getting to certain thoughts while others take a mouthful and still don’t get you exactly there (物の哀れ example from link).

I agree with your statement on new languages being different thinking. As you follow that vector addition process to get to the “thought,” different languages will take you on different paths to get to your destination thought because languages encode those vectors differently, even if the destination thought is the same. In my mental model, the act of thinking is putting those language vectors together and tracing their path to get to your thought.

And if my comment still makes no sense - I might have to incubate this thought a bit more :) but I do recommend the story- it’s a quick, thought provoking read.

I think a succinct way to describe my thoughts on linear algebra/language is that language has high dimensionality (ie many different basis vectors that may not necessarily be orthogonal) and that individual languages use a unique coordinate system to express thought. Each language is a lossy approximation of all conceivable thought and some languages can more efficiently represent the “all thoughts” vector space because they have basis vectors that point in more uncommon directions (like the go to japan example). So while you can more or less point to any thought in any language, some thoughts are easier to express in certain languages, which the post (and me) agree to be untranslatable words.

I tried to find the really interesting article about language and color that describes how some cultures use different naming schemes for colors but couldn’t find it. It talked about how back in the day we don’t know orange as a color, we just thought it was red-yellow and only after the fruit was distributed did the word for the color catch on. Here’s the best article I can find that talks about this phenomena https://burnaway.org/magazine/blue-language-visual-perceptio...

I tried the new battlefield game and it’s bizarre how some of my friends play it. There’s this expansive battle pass (pay $20/quarter for access, on top of $70 base game) where you’re given tasks in game to make progress towards cosmetics. My friends only play to complete these tasks - the actual combat gameplay loop almost feels secondary to their enjoyment of the game. The modern trend of games becoming chore simulators is worrisome to me because -call me old fashioned- I believe the core gameplay loop should be fun and addictive, not the progression scaffolded on, even if that gameplay loops is a little “distasteful” like GTA.

It has to do with how ATC needs to be able to communicate with all planes in the air, even ones built 100 years ago. They have to use radio so everyone can hear everyone else. There’s no other technology that is as ubiquitous as radio, so they have to work with what they’ve got. Upgrading to other stuff would be an absolute nightmare, though they are making progress on less critical fronts.

I understand the sentiment about a skilled user not needing this, but I think having a little buddy that I can use to offload some menial tasks would be helpful for me to iterate through my models more efficiently; even if the AI is not perfect. As a highly skilled excel user, I admit the software has terrible ergonomics. It would be a productivity boon for me if an AI can help me stay focused on model design vs model implementation.

I bet the folks who implemented the system do have checks and balances. The article said they placed 2 million successful orders which realistically can’t happen without some form of error correction. These reports seem like black-swan Taco Bell orders that break the system despite any safeguards against it. Luckily there’s no way the guy behind the counter is pouring 18,000 waters lol. I agree with you too - “Taco Bell Employee Fucks Up Order” is only newsworthy because an AI did it when the real headline should read “AI Successfully Processes 2M Taco Bell Orders”

He mentions s&dbox, his new engine/gmod spiritual successor. They maintain an interesting devblog over at https://sbox.game/news if you are interested in how the sausage is made.

Figured I’d ask the HN crowd- what’s the best way around these geofence blocks? Have you had success with a system that can work smoothly on mobile/desktop without any of the disastrous privacy and performance implications that VPN services are prone to?

The black hole has two conceptual parts - the event horizon and the singularity. The event horizon is a one-way imaginary shell where once you pass it, you will end up at the singularity which is a point at the center of the event horizon. It’s the hole in black hole. Because the radius of the spherical horizon grows linearly with mass, but the size of the hole is fixed at effectively 0, it allows for a bit of sightseeing on your way to impending doom if the mass of the hole is large enough.

It’s kinda like why they make compsci majors take a history class - the actual knowledge may not be particularly useful unto itself, but learning that information/skill tickles a part of the brain you dont normally use. So that later, when you need to use your whole brain to solve some problem, all parts of it are strong.

So are the skills themselves important? Not per se, but they represent “meta skills” that we want kids to develop when they are most apt to learn.

Ultimately, I think it’s a big TBD - a child’s mind innately wants to learn, it’s just unclear what kids are learning when exposed to so much tech early on and that’s what has teachers worried. I bet the kids will turn out fine, but we as a society won’t really know until the kids are old enough to tell us firsthand.

If you are a monopoly producer (which seems fair in this context) you would set the price of the rocks where your marginal revenue equals your marginal demand. Loosely, you’d do a market survey to see what price the market would be willing to pay for a mars rock[0], then figure out your cost structure for bringing back one more kilo of rocks. You’d factor in cost to launch a rocket, fuel for the rocket, astronaut salaries, and don’t forget terrestrial costs like marketing and distribution! If you did a good enough job at predicting supply and demand, you wouldn’t actually care what the price of the product is because you would have claimed all the consumer surplus for yourself :)

To specifically answer the optimal quantity question, the above answer implies that you would keep bringing rocks home until the cost to bring them back is higher than the price you set. To be clear, you could still go out and get more rocks and sell them for less and still make a profit, but you wouldn’t maximize your profit with that strategy. Competitive markets nudge behavior towards providing more product for less profit/cost which is why we love competition.

[0] Planet money did a great podcast on how to actually do this. Here’s a link to a transcript (though listening is probably best): https://podscripts.co/podcasts/planet-money/how-much-for-tha...

How does one ensure that every seed can be completed without glitches? The website says this is the case, so I wonder how they do it because it seems nontrivial to generate valid seeds efficiently.

This is a brilliant company idea! So happy it exists.

I’m about to graduate from a top business school with my MBA and it’s been wild seeing AI evolve over the last 2 years.

GPT3 was pretty ass - yet some students would look you dead in the eyes with that slop and claim it as their own. Fast forward to last year when I complimented a student on his writing and he had to stop me - “bro this is all just AI.”

I’ve used AI to help build out frameworks for essays and suggest possible topics and it’s been quite helpful. I prefer to do the writing myself because the AIs tend to take very bland positions. The AIs are also great at helping me flesh out my writing. I ask “does this make sense” and it tells me patiently where my writing falls off the wagon.

AI is a game changer in a big way. Total paradigm shift. It can now take you 90% of the way with 10% of the effort. Whether this is good or bad is beyond my pay grade. What I can say is that if you are not leveraging AI, you will fall behind those that are.

“Now comes the clever part.”

God bless our soldiers who see that regex is turing complete and choose to implement fun programs. Yall are truly a different breed :)

Well, the US dollar is an instrument to serve the interests of the US people. Many Americans were harmed by the collapse, so the government is going to try to claw back what it can for its people. After all, doesn’t matter where you are in the world, if you’ve got USD in your hands, you’re subject to US law.

Lawmakers/prosecutors do know that they are unlikely to recover a majority of lost funds. They’re going to put this man behind bars as a deterrent to others who want to (allegedly) defraud Americans.

Likely no - by simply watching the content you are signaling to the algorithm that it should promote the video to others. I’m sure he prefers you would engage with his revenue schemes, but even flippantly commenting here grows awareness for his brands which grows his top line.

Yeah, I switched to an iPhone solely for the blue text bubbles. Among young women in my bubble, 98% have iPhones. I’d get sneers at bars from girls when my first text on their phone was green. People would complain openly about my phone ruining their group chats. While I preferred android tech, switching to iPhone was a no-brainer because it removed a lot of friction in social settings.

This is actually one of the big differences between generations. It’s not just the norm for young people to share locations, but rather almost expected, with real social consequences for not. Yes it’s probably a little weird to have someone’s precise location 100% of the time, but since you’re sharing it with me there’s a good deal of trust implied (though this is not always the case as it has become more normalized). However, if we stop sharing locations, that usually implies a divorce of the relationship. People will shut you out of their life if you stop sharing your location with them, no matter the reason. From that lens, the choice is simple. You’ve gotta share your location, even if it’s a bit icky from a privacy perspective or you risk losing an entire cohort of friends. I will admit, there is a strange level of intimacy for having done it. In a world increasingly dominated by the pixels on this 4x8 screen, it is a nice reminder that the text bubbles on my phone actually come from real people that I can show you on a map.

(Obviously you can find friends who don’t care for it and you can live a normal life and be just fine. I’m privacy conscious but I still share my location with a handful of friends for the above reasons.)

Internally we get grades. fail, low pass, pass, good, excellent. I tend to get high marks (good+), but there are forced percentages of what grades are awarded. Maybe 15% get excellent? Nobody fails unless you are super truant. Kids hunting for investment banking jobs are advised to study for interviews and not go to class (by peer advisors not the school). They all still pass lol

Grades correspond to a GPA internally that may account for scholarship or whatnot. Mean raw score for some classes is like a 90+. Most grade differentiation comes from class participation. We can pull true GPA from the school if we dig, but we are explicitly told not to share GPA with employers. I’ll share my undergrad grades, but they hardly matter. As far as I can tell, no one shares their grades and employers are expected not to ask for them. This is a top 10 MBA program in the USA, I understand that other programs are very similar.

I did undergrad before chatGPT and now I’m back in school for an MBA at a school where the school pays for all students to have access to GPT4o. Maybe because we’re all older the tools are less of a problem, but I would say they have been a net positive. GPT3 was ass and students could easily tell when a classmate used it for their group contributions. Profs seems to be about 6-12 months behind the curve in terms of the tech. All profs are aware and thinking deeply about how AI is changing how they teach.

Group papers are usually made into an outline at first and then we divvy up the responsibilities. If you use AI, most kids only care if your work sucks. AI consistently scores like an 80-85% (profs sometimes submit and blindly grade the responses), but almost always misses the core teaching points of classwork.

In my program, grades don’t matter (so employers can’t stack rank us). People who make extensive use of AI are really only cheating themselves. If you’re a big AI user, other kids generally know and try to avoid forming groups with you if they know in advance. You learn better when learning alongside others and if all someone does is dump AI slop in the google doc, you’re wasting my time in addition to yours.

I use AI to flesh out points, especially on assignments I don’t care about. It can help for idea generation and “connecting the dots” between ideas, but I always edit the output because the AI makes stylistic choices I don’t like. It’s definitely an accelerator for me when writing papers. I stand behind all the papers I’ve submitted, though some have sucked (regardless of AI usage or not).

In undergrad, when my priorities were less about learning and more towards dating/partying, I definitely would have abused this tool. At the end of the day, using the tool mainly cheats your own learning. I hope they transition to talking about using LLMs like one uses gambling - a little is fine here and there but if it’s all you do that’s a problem.

I’m not sure what to do about elementary age kids, because the AI easily writes “better” essays. At least in college I could do better than an AI if I applied myself. But in sixth grade? Good luck me. Cats out of the bag now and we should be really empathetic to the younger generations. Imagine getting slammed with TikTok->Pandemic->ChatGPT in the span of like 6-7 formative years. They are growing up differently and I certainly have no clue what we need to do to help them be successful.

I think you’re right about the relative scale of the fine, but theres a part of me that believes the companies will try to comply with the law, similar to how pornhub is blocked in many US states. They could easily ignore the regulation but choose not to because thats ultimately what Australians want. Companies of this scale by and large try to follow the law, especially when the affected cohort is relatively small.

So let’s say we’ve got 28 possible characters (alphabet + period + space), you have a 1/28 chance of getting the first character right. So it follows that a string of length n is (1/28)^n because you have to hit each character correctly in a row. If we can do x guesses a second, and we know on average how many tries it takes on average to get our string right (28^n), we can divide and get an estimate of time. Though we could do it faster, or slower depending on our luck.

With multiple searchers it’s trickier, but we use the probability complement (probability of all possible events must add to 100%) to figure out the chances that our searchers all miss, and subtract that chance by 1. This gives the chance of at least one agent getting it right. Two searchers looks like 1-(27/28)^2 for the first char, and you can follow the same logic for any length string.

Your answer will heavily depend on your assumptions - how fast the computers guess, what they can guess, etc. But searching in parallel would speed things up dramatically. If you had like 100 computers searching simultaneously, 3 or 4 would likely get the first char right every time, giving you a big speed up on the problem.