EduardLev

I recently completed my masters in CS. I agree with the sentiment of wanting to avoid LLM use in general, but that ship has sailed. No amount of policies and slides is going to be enough for this systemic issue. I remember all the policies and volumes of reading I would have to do to keep up with what was expected to be done in a very rigorous and usually pedantic way. Change to oral exams or something similar

How are people possibly taking this seriously?

> That, collectively, we can begin to change our relationship with our bodies and start to ask questions like: if we can catch things early, can we change our lifestyles to correct them?

We can already ask this question...

> And seeing our bodies change over time, alongside our actions, how much can we improve our health, our minds, and our lives?

Again, we can already ask this question

> We think it's completely possible that with enough early imaging in the future, the world could avoid 30% of all deaths and 50% of all healthcare costs. The cultural, physical, and mental health benefits of all of this are hard to comprehend, but also hard to overstate.

What? I have no idea what is meant here by "hard to overstate".

> You want as much data as you can get about your health as quickly and as cheaply as possible. In other words, you want a technology optimized for getting as many “megabytes per second per dollar” of information about your body.

Thanks for including the "megabytes per second per dollar" unit breakdown, I didn't understand the first sentence at all without that!

> And we live longer, healthier lives, better lives.

More AI slop

> When you step into the water, you’re standing on top of a platform. The platform is connected to rails and begins to descend into the water - an elevator gently lowering you at around 2 inches, or 5 centimeters, per second.

More AI slop. You'd only be done in 60 seconds if you're exactly 5 feet tall

I was interested in reading this article but then I saw a link to the video which was titled something like "How the top 1% communicate". And that sort of communication made me not want to read the article.

I understand the YouTube titles have to be kind of clickbaity but that to me doesn't indicate confidence that I'm going to be reading or watching something worthwhile. Just my two cents.

Not a biologist but I don't think it has to do with how much the genes get expressed but rather that they do get expressed and in bad times (pesticide) they're really good and look like they dominate (in that you only need one copy to get the expression/benefits) but in good times (pesticide free) they don't introduce that much negative cost and so you need two copies for adverse effects.

This looks like it could be really cool. However there are obvious mistakes pointed out by other comments which makes me distrust the content. I'm sure there are still good ideas in there, I just don't think they would be as creative as I would likr

WeTransfer TOS now includes a right to use your content to "operate, develop, commercialize and improve the service"

This focuses on what managers should do differently, but not what engineers could do differently to make the relationship better. Improve their communication skills, document and evangelize their work, etc.

I'll echo the other comments in saying that I believe this to be not convincingly argued at best and at worst condescending. Terms like "fairly obvious", implying parents "don't want to hear something" feels to me an oversimplification, etc

> Kind of like Steve Jobs not telling his staff more about the iPod than "It's white and needs a dial"

Isn't Apple infamous for siloing information amongst its departments such that almost nobody grasps the full extent of what is being built?

What's it called when someone asks you a question with certain parameters, then makes fun of you for trying to keep your answer within certain parameters because you didn't think outside the box?

Wow, what a great website. I wish I had found that back when I was a chemical engineer.

I can't seem to load the page, would love to read.

Thanks for finding the exact words for how I also feel about the rationalist community.

Source: sufficiently smart chemical engineer

Makes me sad that the best show on/produced by Netflix (Narcos: Mexico) has so little hours watched compared to the rest (30,000).

I would put this at a 5/10, there’s a lot to do and read through.

My thoughts:

1. ChatGPT can do this trivially.

2. It’s a reasonable amount of things to read through and understand. Reminds me of a project from my CS masters program (Georgia Tech) where most of the difficulty is in parsing the instructions and figuring out what’s required (not that it’s a bad thing, just an observation).

3) I would maybe consider dropping the word “fun” from “we would like you to complete a fun coding exercise”. Job interviews are not fun in general and this exercise doesn’t seem that fun to me!

I would never expect or want any recognition or cards or similar from work for events that happen in my personal life. Is this a generational difference or am I just a curmudgeon? (To be clear, I’m a millennial)

This is what I got:

> lets talk in discord for a fun time ;) wink wink my tag is: Apostrasia#0878

Yep. Thought it was just for me.

One comment on the article from what I’ve read so far. The article states that GPT bombed an economics test, but after trying out the first two questions on the test, I think that the test itself is poorly constructed.

The second question in particular drops the potential implicit assumption that only 100 people stand in line each day.

I face this issue in my CS masters program constantly, and would probably have failed this test much the same as GPT did.

I don’t think it’s necessarily a bad take, but I would disagree. It’s kind of like any sports debate where you argue about who is the best or greatest of all time. You’re splitting hairs, but it’s still a fun debate.

Also even at the level of your local places, after eating the amount of pizza you do in New York you can tell small differences in quality such that you will seek out specific places in a certain radius.

Was looking for this! I’m a Chemical Engineering grad who’s in a Computer Science masters program currently. Comparing the two, the collaboration in my engineering classes far surpasses anything that’s occurred in my CS classes. Almost everything we did in Engineering would have been considered “cheating” in CS. In retrospect, I definitely learned more than I would have from the collaboration and environment in undergrad.

The subreddit is titled Mitchell and Webb, but it looks like the discussions are about “Back”, which is a more recent show starring the two.

But I also went right to Peep Show, which I thought would be interesting to see discussions of!

Good article.

I thought this line from the article was interesting:

> Online sign-ups are especially challenging for older people, perhaps the worst group to beta-test a new system.

I think I understand the author's intent when saying "worst group", but in this case I can't imagine a better group. They're literally the first people who will need to be using this system! If you beta-test your product with the people who will be able to use it despite all of its flaws, is that really testing?

Anyway yeah, just upset at this comment given that I have family members struggling with all this vaccine appointment software.

I skimmed through the article, and seems similar to literate programming: https://github.com/gicentre/litvis

Would be grateful if anyone could explain the significant differences between the two.

Some of the pros as listed in the article taken point by point:

> It also encourages the developer to keep pull requests small, ensuring a feature is developed in many small pull requests (or at the very least comprising of many atomic commits).

I am of the opinion that pre-commit reviews also encourage small pull requests, if only to make it easier on reviewers -> easy review hopefully leads to fast approvals.

> It also allows the reviewer to batch reviews, so they are reviewing a number of changes in one fell swoop, as opposed to being constantly interrupted for code reviews.

This I can see being a potential benefit depending on the workflow. You could technically do the same pre-commit by working on a longer branch and putting that up for review as well.

> In my own experience, this reduces nitpicking on the reviewer’s part, and in the event the reviewer does nitpick, it allows the developer to address the minor concerns at their leisure.

Nitpicks are what they are, and shouldn't block a PR in the first place, so not sure how much benefit this would be.

> If a design document has been clearly fleshed out and agreed upon before the code is implemented, the implementation will not comprise of any major surprises to the reviewer.

That depends - the design may have been agreed upon by someone, but not necessarily by the reviewer. There may still be major surprises, which will be harder to fix post merge than pre merge.

> This means that the reviewer can have a fair degree of confidence that the change is functionally correct and has undergone extensive testing before they review it.

This seems brittle when there are lots of changes going on at once. It may be hard to narrow down if something works or not.

> Building trust and learning how to work well as a team takes time.

I think this line makes it clear to me where my difference in opinion is. I don't even necessarily trust my own code!

I’m working on this as well. I found a couple of people who posted their solutions online, but some of the questions are tricker than others. Wish there was an answer key!

Thanks for pointing this out. I meant the games annotated by Kramnik. Would have been interested to see his results.

I find it interesting that both games of this variant between Kramnik and AlphaZero ended in a draw. That suggests to me that we would quickly see the same problem in the variant as we do now. The question would be, how long would it take for humans to catch up? My guess is a couple of years, until the variant has to be changed again (That is, mostly draws in high level competitions).

What are other similar games that have a higher level of variation? Go comes to mind. How about we increase the size of the chess board to 9x9, while keeping the same 8x8 setup? That sounds like a number of variations more than no castling, while still keeping the same feel.

One question I had from the beginning is, how much of this problem was cultural? That is, would this same policy have met with similar resistance in other countries, or does America have a singular belief in the fact that one ought to be explicitly rewarded for ones effort? The issue as quoted in the article seems to be that users were outraged that their tips did not go directly to the drivers. However, they did not accept the explanation that this system paid more drivers more money (at least according to the company’s statements). It seems almost selfish that we would value our individual contributions that highly that we would risk punishing drivers. What do others think?

Taken from the FAQ:

How will this degree appear on my diploma and/or transcript? The name "Online Master of Science" is an informal designation to help both Georgia Tech and prospective students distinguish the delivery method of the OMS program from our on-campus degree. The degree name in both cases is Master of Science in Computer Science.

The point stands that it would be relatively easy to know which version someone completed (you worked in New York but got a masters at Georgia Tech?). I personally believe the value to be roughly equal to a "real" degree.