409 karma · joined March 11, 2018
The target audience of the essay seems to be pressuring OpenAI. I don't know if OpenAI will listen.
1. Someone whose life choices can either defeat every poverty or bring the downfall of humankind - Main characters
2. Someone whose actions are in a loop - NPC
3. Someone whose actions are in a loop but we choose to - NPC-by-choice
Is this terminology better? Correct me if I'm wrong!
That's exactly what current mathematicians are using AI for [1].
However, the same mathematicians also believe that pursuing a beautiful proof (even if none exists) is worth it.
Would definitely take a look!
As a working adult, we hardly get this kind of ego boost unless we somehow know our colleagues salary. Even so, there are many other factors outside of knowledge storage that determine one's salary (e.g. feedback from teammates, number of closed sales etc)
[1] Actually, it's not 100% speed but 1 step back and 2 steps forward. Because the initial time and motivation cost is non-trivial.
I feel ya. I memorised definitions for my algorithms course as well and also experienced diminishing rewards of using SRS flashcards (especially when the conceptual questions get more novel).
Like what you say, we have to practice using the factual knowledge enough by writing proofs.
The next generation of flashcards would probably use AI to generate concise questions on writing proofs.
[1] A Little Randomness May Not Be Enough - https://www.scotthyoung.com/blog/2014/11/07/srs-for-concepts...
Thank you for sharing your experiences!
I'm interested in understanding how others use Anki for conceptual subjects like pure math or physics. I believe many fundamental rules in Spaced Repetition (e.g. like keeping cards concise) are thrown out the window for conceptual subjects.
This video explains in detail: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=YX40hbAHx3s
In short, P means Polynomial time (i.e. markets can solve computation problems efficiently) and NP means Non-Deterministic Polynomial time (i.e. markets can verify solutions of computation problems efficiently but solutions are found by luck).
If P != NP, it means luck CANNOT be engineered and markets are competitive.
Do you believe there's a fundamental tradeoff between structural constraints (i.e. the 'democratic' model, where dispersed shareholders and markets have a voice) vs. insulated leadership (i.e. the 'benevolent dictator' model, where competent leaders are shielded from short-term shareholder pressure)?
Also, thank you for your quick replies.
Somewhat related: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Benevolent_dictatorship
However, I wonder if this workshop is still relevant in the age of LLMs...?
Moreover, there exist fathers who are non-committal (e.g. cheat) and thus, disproving this.
[1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sarah_Blaffer_Hrdy#Mothers_and...
The headline is borderline clickbaity. Specifically the word "Ruthless" made me think of something unethical like Delve's business.
> “These bears have become synonymous with gentrification in San Francisco,” he told fnnch, “and the displacement of the artists that come from here.”
I have mixed feelings (i.e. I understand your boredom) of his honeybear art from a pure aesthetic pov. However, (as any modern viral influencer knows), any successful artist will invite haters. This article reinforces the notion that fnnch is very successful...
Imo, your suggestions are more for intermediate/advanced active listeners that need to interact with folks in their job (e.g. bartenders, reporters, middle managers...).
Still, I feel being repetitive (e.g. 'It sounds like XYZ...is that right?') is better than nothing. Sometimes, training wheels aren't bad when learning how to ride a bike.
The poem suggested many many many possible when. Here's one: "unless it comes out of / your soul like a rocket,".
Unfortunately (or fortunately), in life, there is no methodology to prove that a given search problem is futile (e.g. NP-complete)... so we have to take our chances and choose. I believe that's the beauty of life: choice.
The examples are good but every reader must not have the takeaway that every effortful code is bad (e.g. haskell is extremely hard to read at first but every developer swears it has very high intrinsic cognitive load)
I read the page https://www.succeedsocially.com/morefun. Here's my initial impressions. Pros: it identified several important painpoints and give several decent examples. Cons: Being a truly fun person is all about reaction reaction reaction. Fun people react authentically (while censoring their ahole side because you don't want to be fun but unlikable), ridiculously (while reading the room), and intelligently (playing to the top of the crowd's intelligence).
RedHat's style guide is far more detailed and closer to a reference/explanation (i.e. going by Diátaxis definition).
Google's technical writing is shorter and closer to tutorial/how-to guide.
I recommend the Google's technical writing if you're a coder or a beginner. RedHat is for folks who already know they need this on first look.
In computer science courses, that's as simple as a println().
In machine learning courses, that's training on mnist dataset to do character recognition.
In electrical engineering, that's buying a raspberry pi to blink led.
In chip design ... Chatgpt says to design a 1-bit full adder using verilog?
...
I understand why the article thinks the market is looking for graduate education. To design a simple chip requires an *initial investment* (as with all hardware startups really). This is different from software where one can simply launch a web app with a container hosted on your preferred cloud provider...
... That said, with the rise of LLMs lowering the barrier of entry of software even lower (e.g. vibe coding), may we see more rise of hardware startups/innovations?
I recently got hooked into contemporary (i.e. modern) poetry. I fully understand why modern poetry seems hard to understand.
I believe most people innately love simple and deep modern poems. If you like poetry related to nature (sorry major typo!), check out Ada Limon (1) If you like poetry related to medicine and life, check out ACP poetry prize (2)
As a cloud security analyst that is thinking of going back to coding or DevSecOps, if I'm honest with myself, there is nothing new here that I have not seen before... (This is not a criticism or anything. If anything the problem is myself: if I can allocate time to learn this or use Anki to retain this).
Firstly, I'm glad JS (and OP) see very positive effects of meditation but I'm highly skeptical meditation is more powerful than coffee (assuming sleep has diminishing returns). I doubt this is generalisable to most of us.
> Even within my new sessions, I can already feel a difference: after ten minutes, I reach a flow state that just feels great.
> Whereas before I’d be prone to fall into vicious spirals of self-consciousness and unease, a streak of meditation would allow me to calmly, warmly, and directly engage with people. If an awkward moment arose, I wouldn’t feed my internal fire with negative self-talk, but rather look outwards with an internal smile, wait for the moment to pass, and find a clever prosocial solution. But again, that explanation understates the magic.
Secondly, again, I'm happy OP found the answer to the greatest wall for new meditation practitioners: "how do I know if meditation is working???". I haven't found it. Brain states stuffs are more art than science, I believe.
The discussion's article writes more like The Atlantic or NYMag interview style than AP News or Reuters. Both styles are suitable in my opinion.
Your teachers are both right: Either advices (1) or (2) works as long as the practice is hard.
That said, while (2) may sound easier because the approach pursues "comfort in the mind" over perfection... this is still hard because because by definition: you still need to get from uncomfortable to comfortable!
A similar example in bodybuilding: muscle confusion [1]. To build better squats, one requires both compound(2) and isolation (1) exercises
[1]: https://www.nytimes.com/2020/01/08/well/move/muscle-confusio...
(Huge Caveat: this only applies to physical deliberate practice!)
> The prevailing model of austerity, low taxes, and limited government in many Republican-led states and cities has often failed to improve the quality of life. Meanwhile, Democratic-led cities struggle to effectively address issues like homelessness, housing affordability, and public safety despite greater willingness to invest, just not in actual services and infrastructure.
> This deep understanding of a script is achieved by actors asking goal-directed questions, such as “Am I angry with her when I say this?”
1. Do embed emotions. For example: Go's CamelCase for exporting variables implies capital letters want to be loud.
2. Do invoke experience. Don't merely read and write code, teach it and activate multiple sensory inputs and multiple contexts!
> Deep, elaborative processing enhances understanding by relating something you are trying to learn to things you already known
3. Do chunk it. Instead of creating new standalone memories, chunk it with other programming languages' syntax.
In summary, while engaging with the material is important, it is not sufficient for passive tasks (how many times have you read a book and forgotten the main points?).
> Multinationals like Goldman Sachs, Victoria’s Secret and the Economist magazine have flocked to the city and set up hundreds of operational hubs — known as global capability centers — to handle accounting, design products, develop cybersecurity systems and artificial intelligence, and more.