HN user
California
This could serve as a beacon for those who still care:
Richard Feynman: "I have the advantage of having found out how hard it is to get to really know something, how careful you have to be about checking the experiments, how easy it is to make mistakes and fool yourself..."
KGB: entry -- ruble, exit -- two
Is that an effective way to learn? No.
Sorry, but I must disagree. There is much more to learning process than just the material itself. We are social animals, so the emotional aspect matters to the majority of us. Highly technical fields are not an exception. The attitude of the lecturer and his reaction to the questions from the audience, sidetrack discussions -- it all counts. At least to me and the people I have known.
At the same time, lectures of those with no charisma is a real torture, no doubt about that.
On the flip side, the value of new, clever and repeatable experimental results goes up when compared to regurgitated publications.
Lectures have been an incredibly ineffective way to learn forever.
Mainly due to shortage of very good lecturers, no? I can not see a better way to cultivate the professional pride than to attend lectures of truly remarkable professors. The style, the manner, the attitude go much beyond the dry proofs. I'm an applied math major.
Is there evidence that no one else would fund Anthropic, Solana, Robinhood and Cursor?
Interesting -- none of the major VMWare customers had a second/alternative vendor/product? I hope they learnt the lesson.
Please suggest better alternatives
The S/CNN for both trunk and nonloaded subscriber loop circuits shall not be less than 31 dB.
4kHz/2*log2(1+10^(31dB/10)) ~ 60.3kBps
[0] https://www.ecfr.gov/current/title-7/subtitle-B/chapter-XVII...
Correction: OpenAI investors do take that risk. Some of the investors (e.g. Microsoft, Nvidia) dampen that risk by making such investment conditioned on boosting the investor's own revenue, a stock buyback of sorts.
It is the term "mathematically impossible" that caught my attention. Since it is about the future promise of OpenAI, one could debate the likelihood or "statistically improbable", but "mathematically impossible" implies some calculation, proof and certainty. Hence my curiosity.
Not really. It was not about stocks. It was the collapse of insurance companies at the core of 2008 crisis.
The same can happen now on the side of private credit that gradually offloads its junk to insurance companies (again):
As a result, private credit is on the rise as an investment option to compensate for this slowdown in traditional LBO (Figure 2, panel 2), and PE companies are actively growing the private credit side of their business by influencing the companies they control to help finance these operations. Life insurers are among these companies. For instance, KKR’s acquisition of 60 percent of Global Atlantic (a US life insurer) in 2020 cost KKR approximately $3billion.
https://www.imf.org/en/Publications/global-financial-stabili...
It's mathematically impossible what OpenAI is promising
Citation is needed
Page 2: We define agentic tools or agents as AI tools integrated into an IDE or a terminal that can manipulate the code directly (i.e., excluding web-based chat interfaces)
I often tell people that agentic programming tools are the best thing since cscope. The last 6 months I have not used cscope even once after decades of using it nearly daily.
and our reports are bots.
With no gossip, rivalry or backstabbing. Super polite and patient, which is very inspiring.
We also brutally churning them by "laying off" the previously latest model once the new latest is available.
Excellent survey, but one has to be careful when participating in such surveys:
"I’m on disability, but agents let me code again and be more productive than ever (in a 25+ year career). - S22"
Once Social Security Administration learns this, there goes the disability benefit...
Same old, same old:
Economist, Nov 18th 1999: Readjusting the lens (The latest statistics require a new look at America’s productivity puzzle)
Economist, Sep 23rd 1999: A new economy for the New World? (Inflation may not be as dead as it seems)
Did you have to hire people? If so, why did you do that? Was it because you had "too much on your plate"? If so, did not hiring a good employee "make your life easier"? Was there another reason for doing that? (honest question)
Indeed, it was assumed that the manager is intelligent (per Carlo Cipolla). One would not take or stay in the job otherwise.
Not quite. I do not think it was implied. This is why the interview was mentioned and the criterion for quitting.
What is your approach?
What is the advantage over summarizing previous sessions for the new one?
Or, over continuing the same session and compacting?
I do not understand the dilemma.
The sole reason I am hired for my position as an engineer is that I am expected to make the life of my hiring manager easier. Not to save the world, not to do "the right thing" (whatever this means), but help my manager. During the interview, I had a chance to a get a rough idea what I am going to be responsible for.
If the organization or the mission changes to the extent that it is no longer consistent with my values, I start pinging my former colleagues working elsewhere.
So where is the intrigue?
Indeed:
“The power of accurate observation is commonly called cynicism by those who have not got it.”
George Bernard Shaw
It is your choice, but for me, it is strictly professional. Some overlap with friends, but those who I never worked with, are not on my Linkedin contact list. Somewhat counterintuitively, no recruiters. Many/all recruiters have very "noisy" contact lists which complicates navigation via degrees of proximity, like 2nd, 3rd, etc. When the list of contacts is carefully curated, it adds value.
I spent the day receiving over 500 (!) birthday greetings from LinkedIn contacts, whose names and faces I didn’t even recognize, who had clicked on a notification prompt
From the above, it appears that the harm is self-inflicted. Why would one have 500+ contacts who she does not recognize? Linkedin is a tool and every tool can be misused. My contact list is under 200 and those are the people I enjoyed working with and would not hesitate to ping if needed
Right. So SB2420 and the federal court judgment are the steps in the process to narrowly tailor another exception. Likely driven by the practical reasons mentioned earlier.
I do not see how this is an argument. If porn can be narrowly targeted, why apps can not be targeted narrowly as well?
It seems to be more about harmonizing Texas law (SB2420) under the constraints of federal law (1A), so we will likely to see this question all the way to the USSC.
This is only an obvious lack of equivalence
Parents can restrict what speech their kids say or hear but the government generally cannot in the US.
Good in theory, but practically impossible. Peer pressure is too high for parents to be a significant barrier. If you were successful, please share how you did that.
Good point, but judge's reduction it to a book equivalence is misleading and weakens the judgement.
Porn may provide a suitable model: not all movies need age verification, so those can be viewed at any age. Some movies, however, do require age verification. Similar age ratings could be applied to apps. For example, Facebook only after 18 regardless of parent's approval.