cheesecakegood

For those sick of “Pareto frontier” talk, just shorthand it as “it’s the best at some very particular thing”. Obviously that one thing/tradeoff it’s good at may not necessarily be compelling, but it is either a loose sign of quality, or a sign that they’ve chased some tiny edge into the ground.

I’ll be curious to see which it becomes in the next year - nba “very narrow record”, or a sign you can hang with the big boys.

Most Mormons are not Christian nationalists and in fact tend to oppose such, especially in comparison to most red states and evangelicals.

Right, and part of that is nurturing student interest and buy-in, because it can increase. Traditionally smart teaching and the right structure could result in some percentage of reluctant learners being drawn into good habits and better retention. I think the subtle part of the AI in education crisis is how it basically has smothered that "nurturing" in the cradle, right from the get-go, so it's a bit of a cold-start situation in many classes.

Flipped classrooms are like, the quintessential siren song for teachers. EVERY teacher dreams of a day when they can focus on what they're best at (teaching deep topics, getting 'aha' moments, making connections, asking questions, and so on) and do less of what they dislike. But sadly this is just not how things work.

Flipped classrooms have incredibly weak causal evidence. However they are popular in spite of this - perhaps because of this if you're cynical - as the educational research field is pretty questionable in its standards and the profit motive is a strong thing lurking in the background. Wikipedia has a big warning on the article for a reason, but even then it has serious issues.

"Active learning" is a thing (insofar as it has meaning rather than be a useless buzzword catch-all) that does work. But the "flip" specifically does not, or rather, sometimes a mix of extra effort on behalf of the teacher and other loosely related effects occasionally can make a modest impact that makes up for its failings.

Most of the people pushing flipped classrooms are the same people who think that students learn best when they "discover" concepts on their own, maybe with a bit of guidance. This is the other, more serious, lie in education right now, akin to the whole idea that you didn't need to teach phonics to kids when they learn to read.

I mean, News is a collection of newspapers who pretty famously have supported themselves via advertising basically since forever, so complaining about ads in News to me is like complaining that a hamburger combo on a fast food menu includes soda. If you read the news, you get ads is a pretty normal social contract.

“Requires” is a strong word. Apple does have an extremely easy mouse-only solution for this and it dates back over a decade: map the fan-out selector (I forget what they call it these days, maybe Mission Control?) to a “hot corner”.

Additionally romhacks exist assuming you own the original game, which layer some quality of life tweaks on top! For the SNES version at least.

In theory Jev “calibrates” the probabilities, meaning a probability of 20% is optimized to happen near 20% of the time, which as you point out traditional models with schemas do NOT optimize for at all

Personally I think every single medium to long form piece of writing should go through an LLM grammar check at the minimum (they are great at catching stuff like correcting “reign in” to “rein in”, not to mention their/they’re and so on) although I don’t think they generally have the self control to make the corrections themselves without screwing stuff up.

I can see being lazy and skipping it, but refusing to use them even for more minimal advice purposes seems crazy to me.

I wonder if a good analogy would be, they are trying to tune the “gut feeling” of a model more directly

If luck = something you didn’t choose or had no control over, sure.

If luck = it could have gone otherwise, that’s nonsensical; if you had different parents you wouldn’t exist to begin with, as you are literally a specific fusion of your biological parents. Similarly, if we take luck to mean something probabilistic, or something coincidental? Also meaningless in this case.

If luck = how your situation compares to others, I would argue “fortunate” is the better word here.

And of course there’s a parallel spiritual debate if you believe that identity to be separate (were you “assigned” to parents, was it deliberate or random, etc)

I’ve seen about 8 therapists and 3 coaches at various times in the last 15 years. 5-6/8 and 2/3 respectively were, I eventually realized, mostly in it for the money and didn’t actually care too much (if at all) about me making any positive changes permanent. It wasn’t all bad; having someone confidential to talk to is in itself valuable, but the cost/benefit ratio is not at all consistent.

With that kind of benchmark comparison, it’s not all that hard for AI to present some kind of favorable value proposition, even if also inconsistent but with a harder ceiling on the upside.

Yeah, because sleeping directly on the ground leaches heat from your body too fast, because of said lack of insulation. Sleeping too directly on the ground is also particularly dangerous in survival scenarios, doubly so if you are cold or wet. A common mistake when assembling a temporary shelter is to spend all your time on the “roof” but very little on the “floor”.

Yeah, I really think this should be the new universal standard. Mostly for respect reasons, but also going through and saying “what DOES my app actually do?” (which is something writing a README forces you to think about) is pretty much the minimal last line of defense attempt at quality control.

You can and probably should do more quality control than that, but it’s a reasonable assumption that if the initial landing document hasn’t been quality checked, the rest hasn’t either.

AI is not deeply unpopular, that’s just nonsense. The complaint ratio is just relatively high from a loud minority. Don't believe me? Just check Pew.

https://www.pewresearch.org/internet/2026/06/17/americans-an...

It’s true that about half of all adults overall never use chatbots, but it’s not out of a negative perception, it’s largely just lack of interest with a side of privacy concerns and inaccuracy concerns. While people do tend to think AI will eventually be a net negative in society, this isn’t like an overwhelming feeling and opinions on the impact to themselves personally is less strong, not more.

I do get the sentiment for sure.

Personally though? I’ve made peace with the fact that I might have a 20/month subscription indefinitely. It’s slowly working its way towards being like a cell phone or Internet bill, although there’s reason to hope that the amount might decrease over time eventually.

It also works as extremely effective engagement farming, for lack of a better phrase

I’ve personally found that Google’s AI mode is surprisingly capable and almost absurdly fast, although the hallucination rate is somewhat proportionally higher too to match its seeming over-responsiveness. Which means Perplexity in effect doesn’t have anything to differentiate it.

I’ve long been curious what you (and a lot of people that express this) feel the cutoff is to know how to code? Because obviously there’s a sliding scale between truly knowing very little, being able to adapt similar work, extensive modifications, coding everything from scratch, etc. on top of understanding certain programming concepts and organization.

When I looked at “Claude Science” which is a beta, separate desktop app, I came away with the impression that it was mostly for biology and a bit of chemistry - presumably there’s some value it can get from consulting obscure literature and uniting disparate threads of already-known stuff, but since I don’t work in either field I can’t speak much more to it.

So many of these apps in fact that the relevant subreddit has a literal spreadsheet to keep track of them all and if memory serves last time I checked, there were over two dozen entries.

Does no one even check the space before building an app these days? This is almost literally the MOST saturated Mac app in existence…

In fact I will go farther. It is actively bad to release something like this, because it clogs up the space and makes picking an app more difficult for everyone just by virtue of its mere existence adding to cognitive load.

Now chemistry on the other hand…

OK there’s still no intent to deceive but almost all of the “rules” you learn have giant exceptions

Fully justified text looks much better when it’s more narrow columns, especially multiple; full page width text is usually not the main use case

That’s… not really accurate. Some factions in the US flirted with taking over more or even all of Mexico for the grand total of like, a few months, and even then it never would have passed Congress. Additionally “the US elite” is a flawed and inaccurate understanding of mid-1800s politics as even the most basic of historical understanding will tell you. It’s mostly regional politics and economic constituencies, not class struggle. You’re just projecting modern thought and dynamics onto the past.

I mean no one is arguing that it is the best or even an OK format for serious data storage. Other solutions exist for a reason. But it’s evergreen and won’t go away precisely because of its simplicity. You will be able to use a CSV more or less identically in 2050, no questions asked.

It’s inherently universal because it’s text-based, and I think you underrate the occasional need to inspect it yourself. And when you do, it’s nicer to view than JSON to throw out an example (arguably JSON and variants need their own bespoke file viewer!)

It’s like saying markdown should be abandoned because text editors do all the formatting for you anyways and different markdown parsers exist and don’t always play nice. Or like saying txt should be abandoned in favor of rtf, even. Okay, sure, not invalid points. But in practice? Simplicity is often a virtue.

Interesting point, but the article absolutely reeks of Claude output slop-speak. It’s too distracting at this point, I can’t take an article seriously. If these are your own experiences, why do you feel like you can’t use your own voice to communicate them? You even bill yourself as an “international speaker” and so one would naively think this is something you can do…

Very neat! Love it! However, I’m a stubborn one who still is rocking the pre-liquid glass so sadly it’s not for the current me :(

I feel like we need to take a page from the past. Apprenticeships with lock-in. Sponsorships. And so on.

Imagine if even one billionaire dedicated themselves to be a modern “patron of the arts” on a more down-to-earth level. Imagine if people started to run “adopt-a-student” type frameworks for individuals. If fresh grads found it easy to get “grants” for things. And so on.

The first job is often a bit “take a chance on me” in its paradigm, but companies these days don’t want bets, they want sure things. Unfortunately this is to some extent unrealistic, but also it’s true that cutting out entry level roles entirely does cut down on uncertainty. It cuts down on upside too, but that’s more invisible.

It’s almost impossible to prove that you aren’t one of these people though. People like me get hurt by this, collateral damage.

I think it was Karpathy that suggested he preferred “simulated reasoning” but sadly it didn’t catch on.