MarkusQ

No, you will not see an "upward facing" moon. At sunset, the west side of a half the moon will be illuminated. I think you are getting your self tangled with terms like "upward" and "downward" and "facing"

Was this known as the "Lunar Terminator Paradox" or called that anywhere before this article? So far as I can tell this seems to be entirely made up and the only references I can find are to TFA or related.

As others have noted, there doesn't even seem to be an actual paradox other than a possible confusion about how a half-lit sphere looks from various perspectives.

We could go out in the world, have experiences, cogitate upon them, learn to write well, and then do so? It ain't easy, but that's the way it used to be done.

No, this is redefining "profit" to mean "labor-created value". The self-identified Marxists I've met have been perfectly fine with redefining things to trick other people into thinking they agree with them.

"Profit requires you to keep showing up. It goes to zero if you stop producing or innovating, and yields diminishing returns as others learn to duplicate or improve on your approach – so you have to keep learning and improving, too. Profit “belongs to the living” because it requires flow: you profit by generating value in a game with moving targets."

They didn't say the words, but they sure painted the picture (plus the usual Marxist game of moving the meaning of words around to keep the grift going).

"An LLM is just as deterministic as any other computer program" is not refuted by pointing out hardware limitations that would affect any other computer program implemented at similar scale (weather forecasts, or even just computing the average of a large stream of sensor readings).

That past certainly did exist, within living memory (mine, for one).

No, the Germans had good statistical data linking smoking (as well as asbestos and other carcinogens) to cancer by the 1930s; this was known and ignored (or actively derided) by the allies. It's one of the classic and well known examples of ad hominem.

Well, your heart contains both mesoderm derived cells (enervation) and ectoderm derived cells (musculature).

The truth about tobacco was known for years but ignored because 1) industry lobbying and 2) the Nazis were the ones who figured it out, and pushed anti-smoking hard, so smoking became something "our side" did, 3) tobacco was still a huge US export.

It was easy to communicate, but we were motivated to not listen.

Congratulations, you are now quoted on the page!

Exactly!

> More out-of-distribution ways to think of things.

Openly admitting that it only caught fire once the Plagiarism-as-a-Service took hold is a good first step. It's the part that everyone knows and few will openly acknowledge.

> If worries about AI safety and the end of the world entered your life recently, it’s probably because of a resignation letter.

No, it's because of an extensive and well coordinated FUD campaign. The resignation letter was just one salvo, and, like the rest, orchestrated.

I'm not a huge fan of calling LLMs "AI" and acting like they're our savior, but I'm even less of a fan of the brain-dead fearmongering.

That (the ZIRP period) was the anomaly; this is (historically) normal.

Inflation isn't like ice cream that comes in assorted flavors. It's a simple ratio (hard to measure in practice, but still conceptually simple).

If one side of a ratio is fluctuating (for whatever reason) the ratio's value can be stabilized by making corresponding adjustments to the other side. Amount of goods drops 10%? Reduce the money supply by 10%, bam!, no inflation.

There may be all sorts of policy or political reasons for not doing this, but that's not the same thing as saying that it's necessarily ineffective because the inflation in question is the wrong "flavor".

Bot farms may make up the bulk of "normal user behavior" at this point. It would explain at lot, actually.

Depends on your time frame for "relative to"; rates have been high compared to ZIRP-era, but still moderate to low when compared to historical norms.

> the Fed has no mechanism to really deal with supply-shock driven inflation.

Inflation is just a change in the ratio of money to stuff. You can reduce inflation by increasing the stuff or reducing the money, and cause it by doing the opposite. There's no requirement that the solution is applied to "the same factor", either works.

Sure, if you're wanting to assign blame or worried about externalities these things start to matter. But monetary policy is a perfectly fine tool for dealing with inflation, regardless of the cause.

Note: inflation causes prices to rise, but that doesn't mean that all changes in price are caused by inflation.

Russia hasn't been exporting diesel to anyone for a while now, and they're unlikely to resume exports anytime soon.

https://www.reuters.com/business/energy/russia-extends-diese...

> ...or whether you believe that AI continues to be a stochastic parrot, smoke and mirror plagiarism machine...

I feel heard!

What constantly amazes me is how many people don't get this after interacting with them for a while.

Any set of points (w. velocities) along the trajectories could be the "starting positions".

Yeah, but I still have a soft spot for the old classics like privacy, autonomy and dignity.

I don't want to give up my modern conveniences, but I have and will if forced to choose.

I really like Julia, but I wind up not using it as much as I might otherwise because the startup time kills it for many use cases (though of course it's easily amortized in others).

When I was a lad we walked out to the car and did that with the key. In the snow. It wasn't that bad and, despite what you may have heard, was not in fact uphill both ways.

More likely it's because a million dollars one way or the other won't make a difference in the hole they are digging / mountain they are building.

And then subtly misuse them.

LLMs write like some people cook, adding bespoke artisanal Belgian sea salt, truffle oil and weirdly specific cheese without any thought given to how the result will taste.

You may not like the truth, but it's still the truth.

https://marketwise.com/investing/openai-losses-surge-to-21-b...

Anthropic is "profitable"... if you exclude compensation and compute cost commitments:

https://aitoolsrecap.com/Blog/anthropic-first-profit-2026-re...

Right, but if you ask it to make a systematic change (the room decor for light to dark and back) or something with subtle implications that would require other changes to fit in?

Changing the title in the movie example is this sort of change; the "change a single word" isn't analogous.

It would have been interesting to try something closer to the movie poster example; say have the AI rewrite the passage with the room toggling between the initial light-mode decor and a dark-mode decor, then back, repeatedly. Or even change the woman's name to "Mrs. Smythe" and back.