somenameforme

With most industries companies live and die by their reputation. Find a bulk provider with a positive reputation and the creatine you buy is almost certainly going to be safer than e.g. eating at Taco Bell. And with creatine in particular it's so dirt cheap that a lot of motivation for dodgy stuff goes away unlike e.g. with protein powders where amino acid spiking can save a company a bunch of money. And incidentally creatine is one of the substances dodgy companies use for amino acid spiking, just because it's so cheap!

That said it's obviously the right decision to drop it if you're not seeing any effects. The interesting thing about creatine is that people's bodies are very different in their natural levels of creatine, and if you're already at 'saturation' then more creatine isn't going to do anything. Same reason the typical benefits of creatine don't show much difference beyond 5g/day. That's enough to send the overwhelming majority of people towards 'saturation.'

I think this is quite different because (1) creatine has been proven to be completely harmless for people of all ages absent some rare thing like a kidney disorder and (2) it has a bunch of clearly measurable positive effects.

So this is more like trying to determine whether ginseng is good at keeping away colds or whatever. Maybe it does (actually quickly searching this, it definitely does but let's pretend it's as folksy as it sounds for a minute) but even if it doesn't then it's harmless and has a bunch of other effects, so when one takes it - the whole possible cold prophylaxis can just be seen as an added perk.

Bayesian probability. Were outcomes being driven by 'normal' usage of LLMs then it's extremely improbable that both big discoveries would come from the small number of people working at the companies. That suggests working at the companies is more the decisive factor than the LLMs in and of themselves.

And what do you get from working at the company? Likely a rather massive token/processing budget. The companies opacity towards the path to these discoveries also makes this further probable as 'spend millions of dollars in tokens' is a somewhat less attractive narrative than the implied narrative of 'just use Fable.'

The two big discoveries both came from the negligible handful of mathematicians working at OpenAI/Anthropic in spite of many orders of magnitude more mathematicians using them outside of the companies. I don't see any way to explain this without assuming that the limiting factor is the ability to burn a few rainforests worth of tokens in pursuit of something publishable.

I think it would also explain their opacity towards the process. Being able to solve such well known problems in a nice replicable 1-2-3 way would be far more effective marketing than their complete opacity outside of the result, which suggests that they feel transparency is not in their best interest for some reason.

There's a difference between understanding something and being able to do something. For example you can get a broad understanding of what calculus does in a matter of minutes: a derivative is just the rate of change of a curve, and an integral is the total area under a curve - you're practically there! Of course it'd take months of work to understand how to apply it yourself, let alone all the tricks involved, but a basic understanding of what stuff is, is very easy to obtain.

And I think that generalizes to math. Its normal presentation is completely impenetrable due to a large use of symbols and terms with no outside meaning (or, even worse, a meaning that contradicts the colloquial usage). But I think if we somehow resolved that issue, the average person would be fully capable of following along even if they're going to have to take everything at face value as opposed to being able to meaningfully understand the exact methods and tricks being used to get from A to B.

Yes, the issue with too big to fail is that it can equivalently be rephrased as too big to learn. And this just came out: https://www.bloomberg.com/news/features/2026-07-19/how-wall-...

Sound familiar?

It's more nuanced because many things are never really found false, or can't realistically be falsified. Planck was implicitly referencing the whole controversy over quantum mechanics, and how exactly to interpret it. None other than Einstein refused, all the way to his death, to accept a probabilistic interpretation in spite of all evidence pointing in that direction.

He simply believed on a fundamental level that the universe must be deterministic. Many don't understand that many of his famous quotes like 'spooky action at a distance' or 'god doesn't play dice' were mocking probabilistic interpretations of quantum mechanics, like the Copenhagen Model - the one we still assume to this very day.

Of course there even remains the possibility that at some point in the future he may even be proven correct. And at this point I'm playing into the very same mindset that essentially explains where Planck's Principle comes from, but perhaps such being a part of humanity is not an entirely bad thing. It's certainly been with us even as mankind has gone through unprecedented leaps of understanding and technological advancement.

A fee charging privately operated institution that does not receive public funding. [1] Brits have a way with words.

[1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Public_school_(United_Kingdom)

"They" bailed out big banks whose gambling resulted in millions of people losing their homes, and the electoral effect was basically zero. Just invoke 'the other side' come election season and all is forgotten. Third parties fail to the same trick - by 'wasting' your vote on them, you're indirectly voting for 'the other side.'

It's one of the many reasons that partisanship is foolish - it essentially leaves governments unaccountable. Another is the reason I put "they" in quotes. There will be lots of partisan finger pointing when the bubble pops, but it was both the DNC and GOP that bailed out the banks, and it'll be both of them bailing out big money again.

Planck's Principle: 'Science advances one funeral at a time.' [1]

In his exact words: "A new scientific truth does not triumph by convincing its opponents and making them see the light, but rather because its opponents eventually die and a new generation grows up that is familiar with it... An important scientific innovation rarely makes its way by gradually winning over and converting its opponents: it rarely happens that Saul becomes Paul. What does happen is that its opponents gradually die out, and that the growing generation is familiarized with the ideas from the beginning: another instance of the fact that the future lies with the youth."

And he said that having lived, as a outsized figure, through the late 19th to mid 20th century of physics, which was the absolute golden age for such.

[1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Planck's_principle

The term she mistook for meaning a death/execution had been recorded was "death recorded". So it's a mistake that could be made similarly to how one might confidently assume that a "public school" is a school which is a school that is either government funded or open to anybody in the local area.

More generally I think people are inappropriately confident in general. When you go through history just about every century prior people believed many things that the next century would come to see as plainly false. People in modern times seemed to have stopped believing this was true, yet it's likely that people during every given century also stopped believing such was true, because what you believe "now" is always assumed to be correct. Nobody wants to believe they hold false beliefs, even though there's a practically 100% certainty that all of us do, and in quite healthy quantities.

The Chinese domestic market is extremely competitive on most things, including LLMs. Once one top company went open weights there, that's going to put pressure on others to follow suit. It'd be akin to if a company like Anthropic or OpenAI went open-weight, it'd probably result in a domino-effect of more US models going open-weights since otherwise that competitor is going to win a huge chunk of mind/market share for free.

It's also relatively free right now. Few people are going to run local models, and in the future it's likely that every model being released today will be obsolete. The only real downside is ease of distillation for competitors, but that's probably impossible to stop anyhow.

You're making an assumption that's debatable, but let's just assume it's correct. The reality is that China won't be the only to achieve such. In the same way that the US put arguably the best minds in the world towards developing the atom bomb, and within a few years the Soviets had theirs as well. Shortly thereafter they were popping up all over Europe. It's kind of the story of LLMs in general - once people saw it was genuinely possible, we went from one LLM company to them showing up everywhere.

It's highly improbable that any country retains a meaningfully persistent technological lead, and the soft power to be gained from providing models cheaply for society will probably greatly outweigh any sort of temporary strategic advantage that 'hoarding' could provide. And the reality is that nuclear weapons remain the kings of war, by an overwhelmingly wide margin. If the US and China or Russia got into a "real" war, that's pretty much the end of the world.

All (unless I've missed one?) the math breakthroughs are also coming from the relatively small number of mathematicians working at these companies, as opposed to the many orders of magnitude more mathematicians using LLMs for mathematics outside of the companies. I assume the missing link everywhere is being able to casually burn a few rainforests worth of tokens in pursuit of something publishable.

I did. I read some of Twain in high school but didn't really "get it", in hindsight. Then as I grew older and began reading many of Twain's endless quotes it made me want to go read more of his works, and I'm glad I did.

I think high school readings are quite pointless in general, because most kids either aren't mentally developed enough, or aren't going to have the focus, to actually "get" what's being said - at least not beyond the point of cramming enough stuff down to be able to puke it back up on a test/report.

That was certainly the case for me and I think this is extremely common given there are plenty of people that think Huck Finn is a racist book, when the entire underlying message is a never-ending mockery of racism.

It's also amazingly ignorant. The entire point of Jim in Huck Finn is the extreme irony between superficiality and reality. Everybody in Huck Finn is horrible, including Huck himself, yet they mostly all paint themselves as the most honorable and just of people - and in most cases probably believe it.

The one exception is Jim who everybody just casually dismisses, yet he's the one truly good hearted and upstanding character in the entire book. It's a lesson about the difference between what people pretend to be like, and what they are really like. Which makes the critiques of the book, often focusing on pejoratives towards Jim, just so unbelievably ironic. It's the deterioration of thinking in society.

If you mean bowling shoe vs non-bowling shoe (as opposed to exact brand/type of bowling shoe), then they matter a lot even for a complete beginner. In a normal throw you're going to have a bit of momentum moving up to the lane and then release. You need to slide on your feet when you do this. In this [1] video go frame by frame at 12 seconds (or any time he bowls), you'll see his left foot in particular slide several inches during his throw. It's more subtle, but there's also a significant slide with his right foot as it goes across.

If you did this in tennis shoes, or any shoe with proper soles, the friction would cause your feet to stick and it'd be simply impossible. Socks would be much better than normal shoes, but then you have the opposite problem of too little friction and it's difficult to maintain control. Bowling shoes aren't like running or something where a pro runner is going to have some absurdly expensive pro shoe that improves his time by a fraction of a percent. They're much closer to something like ice skates for ice skating.

And yeah that's a pro with perfect perform, but even a beginner who's not just walking up to the lane, stopping, and throwing, is going to have to deal with sliding. It's just part of the game.

[1] https://youtu.be/_qh4yOwCgOg?t=12

The rhetoric about Ukraine falling in 3 days came from the West, not Russia. [1] And it's highly improbable that "we" actually even believed that. Wars don't ever end in 3 days, and Ukraine had been pumped full of arms for years, had multiple cities that been heavily fortified for war, and an army approaching a million men, large numbers of of "ultra nationalists" itching for a fight, and all of this before all men of "fighting age" (up to 60) were locked in the country and started being forced into the military. Why we were putting out nonsensical rhetoric that could serve no viable purpose other than to try to entice an invasion (and as such would normally be classified) is a question with only one apparent answer.

The only other NATO members that bordered Russia before the Ukraine War were were the Baltics. They have poor geography for an invasion and would also be immediately cut off from mainland Europe in the case of a war by the Suwalki Corridor - a tiny stretch of about 40 miles that is the Baltics only connection to Europe outside of Russia/Belarus. By contrast Ukraine has ideal geography for an invasion. Kursk is also the path the Nazis ended up taking when trying to press into Russia during WW2, and also where they suffered a very costly defeat.

I do fully agree that Russia expected their negotiations with Ukraine to be successful, and had the West not intervened they likely would have been right.

[1] https://www.newsweek.com/even-russian-propaganda-was-hesitan...

This is incorrect. This is what an at-rest observer would perceive happening. What happens on the ship itself is very different.

Depends on who you mean as "we". The speed of light isn't a speed limit. If you can create a ship that is capable of 1g acceleration, it doesn't just stop accelerating as it reaches the speed of light relative to some stationary object, like Earth. Instead you start getting relativistic effects and things start getting very weird with time and distance doing some funky stuff. You keep zooming along just fine from your perspective, but an at-rest observer on Earth would see your ship asymptotically approach the speed of light, but never exceed it. The universe is very weird. In any case you could viably travel billions of light years in a single human lifetime, but for an observer at rest billions of their years would genuinely pass. In other words, traveling into the future is very much a real thing, so far as our current understanding of the universe goes.

The search term on this is 'relativistic starship.' Here's [1] a calculator to see what the math works out to for a ship capable of accelerating at 1g indefinitely. So for instance you could travel to Andromeda, some 2 million light years away, in about 28 years. But 2 million years would really pass for those at relative rest, such as those on Earth. So if you came back, the humanity you found (if any) would be unimaginably different.

And this isn't some just some weird fringe theoretical/mathematical thing. For instance GPS satellites have to compensate for time dilation because relativistic effects would otherwise have a substantial effect. Another example is at things like the large hadron collider. As a convenient effect of relativistic effects, emergent unstable particles exist far longer than they 'normally' would before decaying due to the fact they're moving at relativistic rates.

[1] http://www.convertalot.com/relativistic_star_ship_calculator...

This reminds of me canali : https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Martian_canals#Interpretation_...

Makes one wonder about the absurdly large number of physiological and psychological changes we've seen in people since the 70s-80s when AC started becoming completely ubiquitous. Before that time, at least in warmer climates, you'd pretty much always have a window open. In some ways we've already been running a decades long high CO2 exposure experiment.

Yeah was going to hit on a similar point. When you hold your breath, that feeling that you need to breathe again isn't because you don't have enough oxygen, but because you have too much CO2. This is why things like hypoxia (lack of oxygen) can be so deadly in environments where it can be a thing (pilots, scuba, etc). Early onset symptoms include things like euphoria which isn't the most helpful warning from your body for 'death: imminent.'

Not joining NATO would be an extremely small price to pay relative to what war could, and ultimately did, entail.

There's a nice timeline here [1] of relations between Ukraine and NATO. It's an archived version from the day before the invasion began, so there's no hindsight posts. Things were accelerating rapidly on the Ukraine-NATO front. In January 2022 there was apparently even a bill that was to be introduced in the US declaring Ukraine a "NATO+ country" immediately. And NATO's responses towards Russia's expressed concerns began to be completely dismissive with not even a vague allusion to reconciliation.

So I think the main goal was certainly to prevent Ukraine from joining NATO, but I think a major secondary goal was for Russia to make it clear that their claims of red lines and such are not toothless. If a country makes repeated claims of things being a red-line but never acts on such claims, then their future claims will be casually dismissed.

[1] https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Ukraine%E2%80%93N...

Would you say that Austria-Hungary choosing to outright invade Serbia because the assassin was a Bosnian Serb who might have had some backing from the government, was reasonable? Or was that a land grab? And when when Russia joins Serbia was it solely an action of obligation or because they thought they might be able to get a piece of Austria-Hungary? And similarly when Germany jumps in seeing they can now shift the balance back towards Austria-Hungary, and so on.

And then this just kept iterating until suddenly everybody's fighting everybody, tens of millions are dying, and absolutely nothing was achieved. Then you get the Treaty of Versailles which desperately tried to justify it all by being excruciatingly punitive on Germany, but of course that ultimately did nothing but essentially guarantee WW2 where tens of millions more would die again, and again for basically nothing, with a good chunk of Europe left in rubble.

In the modern war Russia claimed that their motivation for the war was to prevent Ukraine from joining NATO. Their early movements were largely performative or Hail Marys (like the decapitation strike) and within 48 hours they were engaged in negotiations with Ukraine that involved 0 land concessions, but primarily focused on Ukraine not joining NATO. Ukraine chose to fight, at the urging of the West, and so here we are.

The benefit of war is almost never worth the cost. It just tends to scale up from repeated mutual miscalculations. For instance WW1 started from a Bosnian Serb assassinating the Austro-Hungarian heir and the next thing you know Brits are killing Germans over it. Everybody would have certainly turned back the clock there if they could, even moreso given that "The War to End All Wars" directly set the stage for WW2. But that doesn't mean that the Allied Powers didn't win WW1.

This is a bit of a tangent, but government revenue has skyrocketed in recent decades. Here is an inflation adjusted table. [1] As a percent of GDP it's been fairly stable since the end of WW2 [2], and dramatically higher than prior. But that understates reality because it excludes deficit spending which has increased exponentially since then. So the government is collecting and spending substantially more than back in the golden age, even after accounting for population/economic/etc growth.

[1] https://usafacts.org/answers/how-much-does-the-us-federal-go...

[2] https://fred.stlouisfed.org/series/FYFRGDA188S

I don't see how this would work because you're saying that the older sidewalks are scrapped and rebuilt when they hit a state of 'x' deterioration, so you only see > 'x' state ones. But how then could it be that newer sidewalks are allowed to fall below 'x' instead of also just being scrapped and rebuilt?

Your argument here doesn't make any sense. Do you disagree they were trying to foment an insurrection, or that it would have been bloody if successful? I assume not, because both are rather self evident. So it's not even clear what you're arguing - that USAID always fails? Again, you get weird things when you argue in bad faith.

But whatever, if you want clear examples then there's plenty to be had in the Office of Public Safety. [1] It's as Orwellian as it sounds and was directly under USAID. Modern examples are classified, though have been regularly referenced without detail by government officials speaking on record. Cuba's is the exception in classification, and clearly demonstrates their character as an organization.

[1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Office_of_Public_Safety

When governments direct money to shadowy things it doesn't show up in the records as "money laundered to the CIA to try to foment insurrection" but as another normal sounding disbursal to one entity that hands it off to others (after taking a nice cut) and so on repeatedly. To actually know where the money is going you'd need to follow the path of the money from delivery to actual things being done as opposed to 'disbursed $xxx to shell corp, inc.'

That could be done relatively easily by requiring recipients strictly and recursively record every single dollar disbursed, and then publishing those. But it's not done, because the opacity is desired. The whole NGO scene is a complete racket before you add in the perverse motivations of USAID. The person who directed the mass destruction of classified documents at USAID was Erica Y Carr. [1] She joined USAID under Obama, and was appointed to head it under Biden.

Your last link did not demonstrate the creation of domestic manufacturing, let alone in Africa. If you could find meaningful examples of USAID doing such, you would have shared them. Thus it's safe to conclude that cannot find such, and so are now here trying to claim that nonsense is pertinent when you know it is not. That's not arguing in good faith, akin to you now trying to argue that China is the world hegemon because they have some military bases.

[1] https://web.archive.org/web/20241204082843/https://2017-2020...