smohare

I’ve used it daily almost since it was released without any real issues. But I generally do not run too many extensions or probably push the limits of my browsers.

For me, Orion’s vertical tabs are the best out of the box of all the browsers I’ve tried since I prefer their arbitrary nesting.

There are fundamental realities associated to being a public figure or representative. When you are even privately held sentiments or actions reflect upon the larger organization. This reflection isn’t a purely social construct, but itself an acknowledgement of human cognitive flaws and biases that inevitably leak through to decision making.

For example, you don’t want the director of a science outreach organization to privately uptake all manner of pseudoscience, because they cannot be trusted to carry out the organization’s ostensible mission. When these sentiments come to light, said directory is morally obliged to step down.

A personal blog is definitionally public, ergo by extension reflects upon whatever organizations that person is a member of.

I say all this as someone that does not even feel the posted article is particularly incendiary.

Huh, I’ve never once had a problem with multiple monitors and macs over the last 15 years. But at most I’m running two monitors.

It’s a pretty literal description of what he did. If techbro bosses don’t want to get butthurt over being called out for douchey behaviour, maybe they shouldn’t engage in douchey behaviour?

Almost none of these tech leaders deserve their station except by virtue of luck or often borderline sociopathic tendencies. To flaunt it so egregiously is a bit over the top.

There is a tendency for people to treat LLMs as oracles rather than token predictors. My guess is because they can answer in seeming technical fashion about a wider range of topics than your typical human. You can take these same people, who say have zero understanding of geopolitics, and they’ll apply a layer of (often misused) skepticism when confronted with information that doesn’t conform to existing beliefs.

That’s just what I’ve seen at a personal level though.

Or maybe there’s just not that many good studies, period?

A lot of them barely rise above the level of collected anecdote, nor explore long term or more elusive factors (such as cross-system entropy). They’re also targeting an area that is fairly difficult to measure and control for.

Having inherited some large python code bases before type annotations were common made me never want to personally read through highly-typed inferenced code again.

It reminded me of a mathematician in my field who had rather brilliant ideas, but whose papers were largely unreadable due to idiosyncratic symbology and style. Fortunately in that case one can still leverage an information dense symbology that points to a well-specified formalism.

Fair enough. But is there a need to propagate this abuse of the term?

Might as well call advertising “fun programming breaks” while we are at it.

Anecdote, but I live next to an elementary school and also on a route frequented by Waymos. Human drivers routinely cruise down the 25mph roads at 40+ and blow stop signs, even during school intake and release. Waymo vehicles always seem a lot more cautious.

When thinking about these things you have to factor in the prior probability that a driver is fully attentive, not just assume they are.

If you’ve ever been in a Waymo you quickly realize their field of view is pretty good. You often see the vehicle sensing small pets and children that are occluded to a passenger or driver. For this reason and my experience with humans near aforementioned school, I doubt a human would out perform the Waymo in this particular incident and it’s debatable they even have more context to inform their decisions.

All that said, despite having many hours in a Waymo, it’s not at all clear to me how they factor in sidewalk context. You get the sense that pedestrians movement vectors are accounted for near intersections, but I can’t say I’ve experienced something like a slow down when throngs of people are about.

A substance can have pharmacological effects and still not be recommended for therapeutic use. As a hyperbolic example, suppose a substance relieved all pain for 1% of the population but caused death in everyone else. Even with a highly precise screening process this substance likely would not be administered in medicinal contexts.

Who is thankful for sleep? It’s a biological necessity that robs us of a significant portion of our lives. I’d much rather be able to meditate for half an hour and reap the mental reset.

2016 already puts one far into the AI explosion. The current hype cycle, with LLMs as a service at the forefront, arguably makes python less relevant than in it was in the mid 2010’s. The current crop of “AI Engineers” can use whatever languages they want for the most part. In 2016 most practitioners were leveraging a lot more of the standard scientific computing frameworks afforded by python.

I’ve never been able to switch since the feature set, whenever I’ve looked over the years, doesn’t seem geared toward serious mathematical exposition. I think I want to carry over habits from papers to blog pages though, which perhaps is misguided.

You’ll notice that most people arguing against DEI rarely perform meaningful analytics. Because when you do look at the data it tells the tale that the same centuries old systemic biases are still in play.

This is obvious to any adult in the room. But the benefactors of said biases do not want to acknowledge it since it lays bare their utter mediocrity.

If you’re hauling two kids in San Francisco you really come to appreciate how weak 750W actually is.

While the scornful analogy there is dubious at best, I’d certainly reserve far more skepticism for the groups claiming AGI is within reach via the current crop of mathematically simplistic models

To me a mathematics paper is more natural than the quoted text, if you afford treating symbols as their language equivalent.

A string of not necessarily related words with nonsensical grammar is about as far from natural as you can get.

Stopped being a concern primarily due to heavy vaccination campaigns though. It is still raging, just not nearly as many people are dying. The immunity from infection these days is pretty paltry.

I worked with MongoDB a decade ago and also now.

One of the worst systems I’ve ever had to deal with. Not necessarily because of the db itself, but because of the implications of its use. It serves an incredibly narrow purpose. Everywhere I’ve worked at has had a team practically dedicated to moving data from a document store to a relational db so it could be actually usefully used for analytics and across disparate systems.

You think you are “nailing it” but also lack the background to even determine whether that is the case. I can assure you, there’s likely some fundamental flaws in what you’re vibing.

Just think about the type of code these things are trained on and the fact you’re clearly some random non-specialist.

You’re making the classic mistake in conflating computing how pathways to conditions can rise from computing conditionals given the current state. There’s absolutely no information theoretical difference between you saying “A girl opened the door” and “I was told the family has a girl.”

Look at the more technical descriptions using conditional probabilities of the Monty Hall problem as it is essentially equivalent. You’re trying to factor in the probability of whether Monty knows if a goat is behind a door when the observable information is that there is an open door with a goat. One you make that observation many things collapse.

Have you ever made your own burgers?

Lettuce is one of the least appealing things I can imagine adding to a half decent burger. I’ve also never once cooked a burger I’d describe as “slimy”.

Obviously it’s all subjective at the end of the day.

I’ve always maintained my own configs for (neo)vim. The only area where I prefer vimscript is with certain incantations for which there are no lua-based alternatives. And those are increasingly rare.

Authoring plugins is a lot more attractive in lua, imho.

I’ve used git since its inception. Never once in an “IDE”. Should users that refuse to learn the tool really be the target?

I’m not trying to argue that interface doesn’t matter. I use jq enough to be in that unfortunate category where I despise its interface. But it is difficult for me to imagine being similarly incapable in git.

The existence of a repeat or “magic” key is one of the more interesting developments alternative keyboard layouts designs. The use case is slightly different of course.

But as an extremely heavy user of vim repeat and macros for the last two decades, it strikes me as a wee bit audacious to so completely dismiss its utility.

If you know so little about a major, long term authoritarian dictatorship, consider this evidence you need to educate yourself.

What’s the dev experience actually like for serious Lua? I’ve only used it for some basic neovim configuration. The dynamicism and lack of type hinting in Python that was the norm when I started having to review professional code, after transitioning from pure mathematics, was a major cognitive blocker for me. With a math paper I could typically skim the first few pages to map the author’s particular symbology (if non-standard) and know exactly what was being expressed. I could never do that with untyped code.

As a mathematician and also someone who has programmed for quite awhile I think any programmatic formalism will fail at inculcating the underlying understating. My bias of course is that I learned mathematical concepts via academic papers.

I just feel that the overhead code presents is massive, since it often does not adhere to any semblance of style. I say say this as someone who has had to parse through other’s mathematical papers that were deemed incomprehensible. Code is 10x worse since there are virtually no standards with regards to comprehensibility.

It’s not about elitism. It’s that there are so many confounding factors that even a well-informed approach makes such a study comtain very little of value

Comments like yours expose a particularly distasteful amount of hubris.

Ignoring latency for a second, one of the tricks for boosting quality is to utilize consensus. One probability does not need to call the lesser model 30x as much to achieve these gains sorta of gains. Moreover you have to take the purported gains with a grain of salt. The models are probably trained on the evaluation sets they are benchmarked against.