bee_rider

I’m ignorant of the geology there, but Wikipedia says copper was available. If you are saying they had unusually easy access to tin, then they sort of had the ability to make bronze without the long-range trade. Is that right?

That would seem to support the theory in a way. If they could make bronze “in their back yard,” the same way that everyone else could make iron in the Iron Age, they would be sort of living in their own proto-iron-age, right? (In the sense that access to metallurgy was democratized). So if anything, it would provide some pretty strong support of the link between democratized metallurgy and more disperse power.

In a sane world the US government’s chatbot would have the advantage that, as a representative of the government that they proactively decided to provide, it would at least be able to speak authoritatively on the government’s position on the law. Apparently this isn’t the case based on other comments, though, so it seems sort of pointless?

The name WSL has always struck me as a bit back area (LSW would seem to make more sense, since it is a Linux subsystem for Windows). I guess they mean it as a Windows Subsystem for Linuxing.

Anyway, should this be called LSL or WSLL? Or maybe LSWSL.

Python is often used as (very useful!) glue for calling CUDA, C, C++, Fortran, etc… codes.

So, if you are thinking about the sort of “business logic” that’s often Python, but the performance comes from the parts that are usually not.

I’m not sure what good output in this case would look like. I’d expect “good prose” in a book’s fight scene to be action oriented and show something about the character or reflect something about the narrative, so, it should often not involve talking.

I guess realistic fights are just a lot of shouting and semi-coherent thoughts (because people don’t have time to come up with a full clever quip in that sort of situation).

I don’t care what somebody believes about the pile of code they’ve got sitting on their own computer. The appropriate level of engagement is sort of: well, they don’t owe us any evidence we don’t owe them any credulity, and if we’re all happy to ignore each other that’s fine.

I can see why some folks here want to quibble, though. In other comments in this thread, they’ve compared to code quality favorably to the output of an average developer. That’s slightly insulting to the field in general (although, I guess most programmers have a low opinion of average code quality).

On the bright side, it’s just TV. I watch it like everyone else, but with the awareness that literally any hobby that replaced it would be a better use of my time.

Presumably somebody who thinks the Mamdani’s policies will be popular and spread to other jurisdictions. After all, why campaign against an idea that you think will fail? It’d exist as a prominent warning flag for the next group that considers it.

It is required to post a salary range in some states. Sometimes they are quite wide, but realistically in the posting I see the posters seem to be taking the rule in good faith.

Signing up for another page is a bit annoying (especially for places that are all using the same platform, like Workday—I understand these are probably self-hosted or kept disconnected on purpose, but still it could be nice if there was a separate global space for applicants, then we could just be imported in).

To some extent it would be nice if it was harder to apply. Like I used to be happy to see a cover letter required, as that’d filter out some of the competition. Now people can just AI generate their cover letters I guess, so I mostly avoid postings that require them unless I’m really excited. (I think LLMs mostly review the applicants these days as well, and I’m pretty sure LLMs prefer LLM-speak, so it’s a losing proposition).

It would be cool if they could be daisy-chained, so you can have a hardware implementation of |

As someone who hasn’t used Jev, this seems reasonable in the sense that “probability that I’ve given the best answer” seems like a useful thing to provide.

Anyway, if it is “probability that I gave the best answer” why 83%? I mean, the question is a sort of a textbook-style probability question in the sense that everything is well defined. Shouldn’t it be basically 100%?

The only thing I could figure is that maybe they weren’t familiar with Gnome (which is like, fair enough, I don’t know what the window manager in Windows is called) so they thought the next sentence was irrelevant or something?

That’s what I thought the original blog post was going to be about, pacing back and forth along the frontier. It’s a much more straightforward parse.

> Reasoning about l1/l2/l3 cache hit ratios and their implications basically throwing darts at the wall, in the wrong room. If you give it a benchmark feedback loop then it might get there eventually but still massive alpha for low level systems engineers who instinctively know how this stuff works and can now automate 99% of the grind.

I suspect a lot of the training set for this sort of thing is people online speculating about cache performance incorrectly.

It makes sense to me as well, but mostly because I’m familiar with the UI in-and-of-itself. This is a website for computer programmers mostly, we’re exactly the wrong people to ask if a UI is intuitive.

OTOH among the non-technical people I know they’ve haven’t often complained about this sort of thing, so maybe the real answer is just that this is something where not much explanation is needed in the first place!

I wonder why they decided to go with traffic lights. It doesn’t really map at all to the things you want to express on a desktop OS. Yellow=hide car but leave it running, and red=… destroy car?

The funny thing is, it could almost work on something like iOS, where (if I understand correctly) focusing away from an app suspends it typically. So that could be the red button. I’m not sure what yellow should be. Maybe put the app into a sort of non-interactive mode where it stays on the screen but doesn’t do any processing, just queues up notifications.

>> I have tried a recent Mac, and the system isn't intuitive at all. The first time I used GNOME, it was a breeze. Not the same with the MacBook system.

> You mean it's not the same as Windows. I personally find Windows infuriating after having been a mac user for decades even though I started out on windows way back in the win3.1->win2k era. It's just different.

My first guess would be Linux. Although maybe they used Gnome as a one-off, liked it, and then switched to Windows for some reason.

I mean they added a slider to make Liquid Glass slightly less bad, but the “good” end is just the old “reduce transparency” option. They’ve got a lot of progress to make, if they are ever going to give us back the pre-liquid-glass UI density.

I guess it is possible, but Apple has had very vocal fans for decades. I suspect, rather than astroturfing, it is just people who are in their ecosystem.

A ton of conversations about the game must be in the training set. I wonder, is there any way just from watching how they play, of telling if they tend to pick strategies that people complain or meme about online?

Honestly, I was sloppily thinking of the general reviewer/editor system as one thing (and didn’t notice that I’d lumped them together until you brought it up here). Good point. Although the editor has a lot more papers to handle, so I think they are probably busy as well.

I was thinking for the reviewer. Also note that I was only answering as to why it wasn’t done in the past.

For the time comparison, I’m not sure, it doesn’t seem quite apples-to-apples:

1) It is scheduled time vs unscheduled.

2) There must be some base rate consideration… the papers being discussed here were planned to be desk-rejected.

Maybe it could be a good process for saving papers that were going to be desk-rejected, but I dunno, that seems like it’d just lower the quality standards.

I’ve only published a few papers, but this interview sounds extremely unusual to me (I mean, it is clearly a special thing that the editor is doing, which is fine). I wouldn’t do something unethical, but if I had and the editor asked me for an interview like this, I’d know I’d probably been caught.

Why is it unusual: it sounds extremely time-consuming.

As to how worrying AI-generated papers are… it sounds more like a headache for the editors really.

In general, journals don’t have to be perfect; mostly researchers read research papers. You already have to read critically (publish-or-perish has been a thing for a while, so there are plenty of not-so-great papers out there). Peer review is just the “entry” barrier, science is a social process and papers become more or less influential based on a fuzzy process of citation, conference talks, and peer-to-peer suggestions.

> But a materialist who accepts consciousness in weirdly formed aliens ought also to accept consciousness in spatially distributed group entities

I guess this must be elaborated on in the article (without a subscription I can only see the abstract). But it seems like quite a leap. In particular we could believe in the possibility of consciousness in spacially distributed group entities, but that that possibility isn’t realized in the case of a country.

Which would make sense. For example if one believes that human consciousness somehow arises from signals shooting around from one neuron to another… sure, why not believe that some kind of ant-sized creature (or whatever, ants are just evocative) could be sending those signals between one another, and consciousness arises from that collective? But, human signal propagation might be too slow or error-prone to “close the feedback loop” so to speak.

I don’t know how useful they are in scientific computing either, really. They are less precise than normalized numbers… if flushing them makes a difference I think it is a bad algorithm smell.

IIRC intel’s compilers enable FTZ/DAZ, at least at higher optimization levels.

Your comment and this one:

https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=49748998

Make for a funny pairing.

Yes, it seems generally *punk. It’s funny that steam, diesel, and solar punk have this association with immediacy.

Does the originator, cyberpunk? Lots of cyberpunk stories present us with a society that is dominated by a digital abstraction. But the protagonist is special, so, they might not be.

I wonder if we’ll end up in a weird situation a decade from now, where every conjecture will collapse into one of two states: counterexample found by AI, or assumed to be true.

The algebraic manipulation that you use to break the dependency seems to be specific to the matrix being Poisson on a finite-difference grid (is that right?). In that case wouldn’t it make more sense to compare against specialized Poisson solvers?