bluepoint

I have thought that I want to share as a semi pro programmer. Nowadays it is so easy to ask an agent to code for you that every moment you spend coding seems like a waste. I am not even talking about the reasoning or planning, but the actual typing out. Even if I understand perfectly well what I want and how to type it, it is still faster and less error prone to ask the llm to do it. It is fine, but no fun. Also I can never be sure that the llm did the thing I had in mind. For exploratory programming and analysis I rather try 100 different queries my self, but then I have to type endlessly (which I may optimize in time, but not if I have a new quest or project where I need to look around first).

I want a very very coarse language that I can wrap around maybe an existing language, maybe after asking an llm to create an adapter that will allow me to type faster than the llm

Say SELECT c.name, c.email, SUM(o.total) AS spent FROM customers c JOIN orders o ON o.customer_id = c.id JOIN addresses a ON a.customer_id = c.id WHERE a.country = 'AR' AND o.created_at >= '2026-01-01' AND o.status <> 'cancelled' GROUP BY c.id, c.name, c.email HAVING SUM(o.total) > 1000 ORDER BY spent DESC LIMIT 10;

and compress it to

c+o+a|a.cn=AR,o.d>26,o.st!X|c:nm,em,$tt>1k|v10

(I made up a random example with claude).

I know about J and Q but they cannot be used with sql databases or existing python libraries.

Anyway. I am not sure if anyone has such concerns.

Is this paper in arxiv?

Actually I get improvements when I ask two llms to simplify each other’s work repeatedly.

This sounds like a resolution for the Fermi paradox.

How dis he do all these animations? Any idea?

You mean they don’t understand the “but no simpler” part?

Reading the comments, is it safe to say that LLMs are a digest of the internet which is some update over google search, but with the caveat that you need to double check the results? I mean they basically have some compressed version of almost all the written knowledge and will respond correctly about things that have already been written, and hallucinate (extrapolate) about things not explicitly written. Of course if someone carefully curates the input data to filter out misinformation, it might even be an upgrade over google. Is there a consensus on this?

The author claims to be able to tell AI content. I am wondering, is there any test to help me train to distinguish AI content? Like: this paragraph is written by a human this by an AI and see how well we all do?

Does anyone of if there are any consequences of the existence of monotiles in algebra or number theory?

I love TexMacs for taking math notes. It has great keyboard shortcuts too. I am wondering if it is still actively developed though…

Why does it have to be foldable?

I am wondering what will come to save us from this AI storm. It looks like online search and social networks will be more or less dead. Maybe we will start going out again.

I think the point is that string theory is a huge model with so many parameters that it can fit everything. This is overfitting. Because of that it does not have predicting power.

It is not. A nucleus is bound together by the strong force. A neutron star is bound by gravity.

The point about stability is that as the curve of stability is not a straight line. That is as the number of nucleons increases, you need proportionally more and more neutron to be stable. So you cannot just smash small nuclei together to form bigger ones. Somehow you need to add some extra neutrons.

I think his point is that it is not clear why every microstate is equally probable.

You are certainly right for the higher level higher paying jobs that look for elite candidates. How would you modify your answer to also include less experienced candidates who are looking for something to specialize and build complex products for?

Does anyone know of what exactly does the openbsd support consist?

Not a surprise, CL's most marketable advantage is that it is infinitely moldable.

It has the most powerful macro system which enables one to define arbitrary syntax, essentially creating mini languages. So, CL is flexible enough to be able to create many languages without changing its fundamentals, such as those in the article. CL is like clay,not even lego bricks. And while this sounds wonderful and liberating, you end up having to learn many different mini languages for each library you use. I like this idea(l), but I do not have sophisticated enough needs to use it (I wish, feel free to hire me on a common lisp project, anyone), but I can imagine that for most programmers that much flexibility may become a source agony, especially if they need to work with other people's code, essentially having to learn (frequently badly?) designed mini languages.

> Although I’m writing these words in Visual Studio Code, I always have my Emacs open

He is writting the blog's text in Code praising Emacs. Makes me a bit sceptical or am I missing something?

The take home and "easy to digest" conclusion is that the proton is a linear superposition of states. The most likely of these states (the ones with highest amplitude) have 3 quarks. The second most likely have 5 quarks. When you make an observation you may see 3 or 5 quarks.

I was looking at their documentation:

> For example, Axiom's integrator gives you the answer when an answer exists. If one does not, it provides a proof that there is no answer. Integration is just one of a multitude of symbolic operations that Axiom provides.

What does "an answer exists" in this case? Is axiom able to prove that an integral does not have an answer mathematically, which seems impressive, or just that it can not be found using its own substitucion rules?

I don't really play games, but I spent a fair amount of time on sandspiel (I saw it on hackernews a few times).

https://sandspiel.club/

I had a laptop which had a faulty memory module, it was working quite well after I put it in the fridge for some reason. Also linux at the time would have kernel panics while freebsd would have some application crashes, but would keep running.

I don’t mean to argue, and I would agree with you that the debt crisis it self was not because of Varufakis, or the entire semi-communist government that had to deal with it (which it self was voted in power to punish the “status quo”), but few doubt, (even the then prime minister, Tsipras) that the initial negotiation tactics were disastrous and almost resulted in a Grexit that was prevented at the last minute. Varufakis was not only promoting “creative vagueness”, but also was publicly bragging about playing the “chicken game” (who will chicken out first during a head on collision) with the EU partners. He was implicitly threatening a Grexit assuming that the EU would be too scared to do it. It was later found out that the German finance minister was also in favor of a Grexit, but fortunately the German chancellor was not. Also it was later found out that he together with some random US profesor (whatever) was trying to design a second “coin” (of course a crude resemblance of one: he would pay government employees with worthless coupons). This suggests that he was a self absorbed asshole out of touch with reality and the voters’ desire (no one in Greece wanted to exit the euro) whose negotiations admittedly costed Greece about 100 billion euros (or something of that order). He did not quit, he was expelled from the government, a government of incompetent naive idiots that rode the wave of populism in a moment of crisis and not criterion and ability to chose a capable finance minister. So given that, I believe it is fair to say that his world views are probably also out of touch with reality, he would also purposely deceive, and therefore he does not have any credibility. An essay from ChatGPT is more likely to be on the point.

Varufakis does not say things based on some big thinking. His objective is to provoke and get attention. During the greek debt negotiations he was bragging about “creative vagueness”, which means that he was purposely speaking vaguely with the intention to confuse the EU partners (who would be the ones paying for the debt) and throw implicit threats. His term as finance minister was a disaster and he was eventually kicked out. His party was recently voted out of the greek parliament, so nobody takes him seriously in his home country. His soeaches (in any language) are usually vague general bulshit that no one can argue for or against.

You will probably downvote me for ad-hominem, and for not responding to his “arguments”, but from my perspective, I don’t think there is a deeper meaning in his writings than what ChatGPT would produce and he does not deserve even the modest popularity he seems to have.

According to google, 25% is external debt and the rest internal. So the US mostly owes to their citizens, but they owe quite a lot to foreigners, albeit at a common proportion.

That is impressive. I am wondering if it can be included in some desktop gui. Thanks for pointing it out.

This sounds interesting. I will check it out.

Cool insights in Desktop! I really hope that someone comes up with a desktop metaphor for the hundreds of open browser tabs (which I think are the new bookmarks) that hang open in an endless horizontal list. Imagine tabs which are like documents, can be moved around, minimized, and spatially organized in folders and subfolders. Actually, why does this not exist somehow?