smeej

Not having a front light is a dealbreaker for me.

My favorite device is still my Boox Poke 2 Color. I just wish it were slightly bigger. I don't care about writing on it (I have a BT keyboard that should work fine and don't write much by hand anyway if I can avoid it). Just want to read/highlight/annotate in KOReader, but need syncthing for my workflow.

Which reader do you have? I've been looking everywhere I can think of for a good 8-inch device, but I need it to run Android. Heck, I even tried looking into tablets with traditional screens and am having trouble turning up anything serviceable.

I have a 6" screen and it's too small. I got a 10.3" one and it was too large. But I'm starting to suspect those of us who primarily want to read are the only ones who want 8 inches, and we're a rare bread.

This reminds me of the plot some Libertarians had back in 2020 to win the U.S. presidential election by taking New Mexico or some other state. I can't remember how it was supposed to work mathematically, because NM doesn't have enough votes by itself to prevent either other candidate from getting a majority, but I remember having seen articles about it. (I tried searching to provide a link and can only find references to Texas, and I'm absolutely certain the articles I read were not about Texas.)

I think the reason I might like to have the dot be darker is also because even at closer zooms, it suggests "There's a high density of activity here," which could make it more obvious that a town or neighborhood is active in my app in a way that wouldn't be as obvious if there were just one regular dot on an area that might not have a lot of good places to meet, but does have lots of groups meeting at the one really great meeting place.

If I'm browsing the map trying to decide if it's worth joining the platform at all, I'm a lot more likely to stay and click around if I can tell my area has lots of options, not just one.

I can't sent it right now, but I can follow up with you too. My opinions here might very well be specific to my own project.

Does it end up a darker or at least fully opaque dot to show it's not the same as the individual dots elsewhere? Like from your example in the article, I might make that dot maroon (or some other color entirely) instead of red so people understand "there are multiple things here."

This has been my first adventure dealing with maps with user-generated points and I'm discovering how much goes on behind the scenes that I never noticed!

I think for my purposes, people would rather see a list of the groups meeting at that place than click individual identical markers arranged around the point to see what's there.

I can see why this would be helpful in other use cases though!

I still don't understand how the dots help when multiple dots need to be at the exact same coordinates at the lowest zoom level. How do you open a list of them?

I'm working on a project (using Protimaps and MapLibre, even, so this is very timely for me) where users create groups at physical locations. If 12 groups choose the local public library's schedulable meeting room as their meeting space, how would anyone click to see the list of groups that use that one room? Wouldn't I just end up with what looks like one very dark dot?

I would use the shit out of this. I'm a heavy user of Logseq (OG, the md file-based version). Would LOVE to save my favorite web resources this way.

Have you ever listened to a congressional hearing? Or spoken to an "average reader"?

Most absolutely glaze over at the idea of calculating the "log base" of anything. If they ever got that far in math class, they certainly have not used the concept since then and cannot remember what it means or how it works. They might remember exponents, but the compounding of them is absolutely lost on the overwhelming majority of people.

Honestly, having spent a huge chunk of my career in customer support, 80%+ of the tickets could be solved with a script and not need an AI. Just about every company has a catalog of macros for answering support tickets and once you have a good set, 80% of people just need you to send them a link to the support article where you actually already answered their question in great detail, if they'd bothered to look for it.

The solution in the article is, "Pay for a max plan and then buy the extra tokens you need by API." How is that noteworthy? Isn't that exactly what Anthropic and OpenAI recommend?

I feel like I must be missing something.

Just testing out practice mode, I found what I really wanted was to be able to stay at a certain level until I felt I was getting good at sequences of that length, not immediately get pushed to the next level every time even when it took me 8 tries to get the 4-note sequence right. Give me a chance to feel like I'm improving! Don't just keep giving me harder things when I keep struggling with the existing ones.

I've been a longtime user of Logseq, and thankfully both it and its plugins are open source. I've just been having a lot of fun tweaking plugins I use a lot to have the additional features I've always wished they had. It's so easy to clone the repo and just say, "Claude, make this do X as well."

This seems like such a classic example of mixing up correlation and causation.

Who's more likely to choose a job that can be done from home? People who already have reasons they'd rather not go out and spend their entire day around other people. How do you control for all those reasons?

And there is something useful about being able to trace the ballistics back to find out which gun was responsible for the shot, as a key to who was wielding it and is ultimately responsible for its use.

Your caring about the entity cited doesn't actually change the nature of the citation. Your saying "Co-authored by Copilot" does the same thing--gives Copilot possible exposure and definite credit--even if it doesn't need it and you don't care about it.

It's an interesting context, too, because Catholics have an idea of "person" that is actually broader than "human," not narrower, and it doesn't require a physical body. Angels, for example, are considered persons, though by nature they do not have bodies.

In other words, the idea of a non-human, disembodied intelligent person is at least a category that exists for Catholics. And humans "co-creating" other persons with God is downright commonplace (in the Catholic view, that's how all humans come to be).

Whether humans could ever co-create a non-human, disembodied intelligent person with God (i.e., whether God would ever choose to do His absolutely necessary part in it) remains to be seen, but there's at least the theoretical framework to hold the question.

It's not really impotent when he's referring to a very specific person who's the head of a religion with 1.3 billion adherents, is it? What is this but a moment when a person on the inside and a person on the outside of the incentives Olah mentions are coming together to talk about the same thing?

It doesn't surprise me but it does disappoint me that even though LLMs have made self-hosted open source tools easier to use than ever, something like this rolls out that's all about partnerships with mega corps.

It has never been easier to give Claude a list of tools you want in your stack and have it get them up and running on your own server, including audits against exploits.

I want that Claude for small businesses, even though I understand why partnering with these other companies is the better revenue play.

Almost 20 years ago, a professor I had in grad school agreed to let me submit my very detailed outline rather than filling in all the text to turn it into paragraphs. It's still the way I write presentations where I'll be speaking.

Maybe the "fill in the paragraphs" step was always unnecessary and we've finally stopped making people do it.

For some reason, I read "LGTM" as "Let's Go to Market," and spooked myself with the realization that that's absolutely the way this is all headed.

Came here to offer this feedback. If I can't see the name of the model, nothing else in the chart really matters to me. I even tried going to the Google Sheet.

It's way too important a piece of information not to have it visible.

It is, but not until you actually get into the article.

I also assumed the article would be about personal websites until I read it.

But then compare it to the corpus of any of the suspects since the whitepaper publication.

It's one thing to sound like Satoshi before the whitepaper, but does anyone still sound like Satoshi?

It's a hard stylometric challenge, just because of its format. The forum posts are probably better for comparison, but what I don't see people doing that I wish they would is comparing what the different Satoshi suspects have written since the forum posts and whitepaper.

Everybody's going to get more similar in terms of topic. Bitcoin actually exists now. There's more to say about it than there was at launch. But does anyone still sound like Satoshi? Or sound more like Satoshi than they did before?

The slight wrench in the works is that it's hard to do this with my personal favorite Satoshi candidate. He stopped writing altogether in 2014, and lost capacity from shortly after the whitepaper came out until he was writing with his eyes by the time he had his head frozen.

He's also the only candidate who seems more likely to me over time, though. The longer things go, the less likely a living person stays tight-lipped.

It didn't even occur to me that this might not be sarcasm until I read the other comments. Still fighting to hold onto that assumption.

It got extra fun. I tried to talk to the Fin AI and it closed the chat twice without even responding. It just told me I'd have to try again.

Fin isn't half as useful as Claude, and if that's not telling, I don't know what would be.

Well this feels scammy, or at least annoying AF. I tried toggling it on to see if that would make the credit appear, even though I'd never had it on before and never needed to use it, and since my balance was under $5, it auto-charged me $15. All I wanted to do was try to make the free $20 banner appear, and I didn't get that either.

I can't be the only one who imagined ants whizzing around the Large Hadron Collider wondering what the heck was happening to them.

I wouldn't say I feel guilt about all of these necessarily, but I do have a list of things I don't like that I would expect "someone like me" to like:

- The Lord of the Rings (try being a geeky Catholic who finds LotR tedious)

- Fantasy stories generally (though I love sci-fi)

- Chess

- Scrabble

- Rubik's cubes

- Video games

- Listening to music (I sing in a choir, but I don't like listening to music--any of it--even the kinds of music I like to sing)