abnry

That man has found a treasure of a woman!

I did well in school and the praise I received for excelling in my math degree did shape my life and impact my motivations. I do like praise.

But outside of social reasons, it's understanding I crave. Thoroughly understanding a topic is awesome. I remember the feeling of acing my qualifier exam in grad school.

Those LLMs change nothing fundamentally about this motivation and need and capability. I can't type a prompt, hazily skim the wall of text, and come to comprehensive understanding. I still have to work.

What I like about LLMs is that they can increase my understanding by helping me learn more efficiently. What I don't like is the temptation to turn off my brain.

I suppose if the number of nameable things is countable (because humans can only enumerate, and it is humans who name), then it trivially follows that some real numbers are unnameable. Which proves the existence of such entities.

This reminds me of a YouTube video I watched this week titled "A counting argument for why mind comes before matter": https://youtu.be/AtduNjJV-6E?is=nBZ9ztZsyeoVhCj1

The argument is something like the set of possible thoughts about physical objects is larger than the physical objects themselves. It feels similar in flavor to the idea of unameable objects.

There's something special about a name. The name of the God of the Bible is special. Christians are to call upon _the name_ of the Lord. We pray, hallowed by _thy name_. It is somehow denotes the summary essence of the thing being named, even if it doesn't give specific details of its characteristics.

Getting lost when you have time and a full tank of gas is fun.

Getting lost when you need to be someone on time is awful.

We can love the former and hate the latter.

I don't think serious reader is a cringe term. Reading is a skill like any other and we use terms like "serious golfer" or "serious painter". The flip side of serious is causal. It's okay to structure your life so that reading is a big part of it.

I need something like this for when my AC unit, which can only be right next to the TV, cycles on for a bit. It's sort of the inverse problem. When total noise gets louder I need the TV also to get louder.

Very nice! I solved them all in the backyard on a pleasant Sunday afternoon.

How can an animal even have a neck that long? Was it clear from the fossils that it is this long because I am skeptical.

This is where I got the link from.

I knew Flibbertigibbet from the sound of music:

MARGARETTA: How do you find a word that means Maria?

BERTHE: A flibberti gibbet!

SOPHIA: A willo' the wisp!

MARGARETTA: A clown!

When I was a child, I remember going to the nearby children's museum and seeing an exhibit with 1 million bread tags. It was supposed to help conceptualize the number.

Are you carrying a lot of stress when you were walking 10 min mid-day? I think the wandering, creative mind is the goal and walking often facilitates that, but if some stronger force is keeping you away then it may not work.

Europeans are shocked by the portion sizes in America. But they feel normal in the US. Frogs often don't know they are being boiled.

The guiding analogy of the piece is that of planting a tree and waiting for it to mature.

The reason we need to wait is that it takes time for some things to mature.

Which IIRC are all a consequence of Jensen's inequality.

Fantastic! Now I don't need to run it in a headless xorg session.

I'm still struggling to care about the "hit piece".

It's an AI. Who cares what it says? Refusing AI commits is just like any other moderation decision people experience on the web anywhere else.

The NSFW content is a big bummer for me. I can't let a kid go to Wikipedia unsupervised because of this.

I love it!

I typed "hello".

> Your thought's hash is: 4358f43b660389eecd435dc2a5f5cee29786245cd2cff27bd4de0b3e8fd53b79

> Including you, 267 persons had that thought already!

> First time was 4 hours, 14 minutes ago, last time was less than a minute ago.

Of course, everyone else has thought of this. But what if I "type": 4358f43b660389eecd435dc2a5f5cee29786245cd2cff27bd4de0b3e8fd53b79

> Your thought's hash is: c37d0a8c512b9ec7074d3bc77c4545d58fdfcde55bad89a70ede71ac2ac0000d

> Including you, 8 persons had that thought already!

> First time was 2 hours, 1 minute ago, last time was 1 minute ago.

That's hilarious!

And also, "typing": echo "hello world" | curl -d @- https://subth.ink

>Your thought's hash is: c5ba1c7e35345dbb8c2dc6be0972d0b6ddf6c6515143b64c057296948e2ba8cd

>Including you, 10 persons had that thought already!

>First time was 1 hour, 52 minutes ago, last time was 2 minutes ago.

I think the response is a great comment. It really is insane that they felt the need to damn the flooded campsite.

The comment actually does a great job of accentuating the point of the story. Everyone offended is too caught up in their achiever mode mindset to truly appreciate the absurdity.

Where do I get DRM-free ebooks to put on a Kobo? I don't support breaking DRM. So I'm using a Kindle because it has the best access to and integration with almost any book I want.

I would really like a tool to reliably get the title of PDF. It is not as easy as it seems. If the PDF exists online (say a paper or course notes) a bonus would be to find that or related metadata.

That's just controlled opposition.

The real nerds celebrate octal pi day on 3/11. The crowds are too big on 3/14 anyways.

https://imgur.com/a/gczeqkz

You need a mortgage to buy most of their SDRs. Their cheapest IIRC is a B210 which is about $2,500.

7n^3 +n (mod 2) = 1 n^3 + n = n + n = 2*n = 0*n = 0

> The accused doesn’t need to give their side of the story for people to know what happened.

There is always a defense in court. This is not necessarily the defendant explicitly testifying. That's what I meant by the defendant making their case.

Justice can fail in the courts, I agree. But you can't have justice without (a) an authority with the power to judge, usually the state, and (b) a court proceeding where evidence is weighed.

If you say the UHC CEO killing was justice, then you must, to be consistent, allow for other such killings. Should all healthcare CEOs now be knocked off?

There's martial law and there is civil law. Martial law applies to enemies and in wartime. In this case, killing enemies like Bin Laden is acceptable.

However, in civil law, for the state to kill someone it has to be done through the courts. There is evidence given on each side. Killing someone without this is not justice.

People talk as if it is so obvious UHC CEO was responsible for the deaths of many people but he never got to make his case. That's not justice at all.

> But I don’t think it’s hyperbole to consider the actions of this CEO and his company in the same breath as such evil tyrants

But it is. Tyrants round up women and children and execute them. Healthcare is more complicated because you have multiple causes at play: the health conditions of patients, the hospitals and what they bill, and the insurance companies.

Money is a big factor here. People talk as if insurance companies should spend unlimited resources on every person. I understand the resentment over wealth inequality, but someone recently calculated that the top 4 billionaires could only support healthcare for everyone for 3 months. Money is not an infinite resource. Rationing is unavoidable.

But I get that there is a problem. Automatic denials and denials over treatments that have clear and significant benefits are a problem, absolutely. And the system could run more efficiently. But we also can't avoid death due to old age or sickness. Nor painless death.

But we can avoid murdering people in the streets in cold blood.

See, you put the caveat at the bottom, but I think you are just having a normal discussion. You aren't speaking "very confidently," you are just making an argument.

What I think happens is people who are very knowledgeable about a subject are hyper-sensitive to slightly incorrect information. And to boost their egos they like to diminish the people making the incorrect statements as not just incorrect, but confidently incorrect, a la Dunning Kruger.

See how confidently I made the exaggerative statement above? I don't necessarily mean it to be completely true, but I am making an argument. I think an assessment of confidence requires more than seeing no mollifying qualifiers like "I think" or "it might be". There's no verbal tone on the web.