danieltanfh95

outside of ML, for normies i mean, classifier models are supposed to be general purpose. Like I don't think we say segmentation model to do X. In ML, we know of their constraints so we usually say classifier models trained to do X.

Not complaining that decision models are a better term though.

it just a classifier. I guess we have to thank typesafe for spending VC money on marketing classifiers as decision models instead.

No, because you also do not serve in the army, nor (generally) produce children that will become citizens and thus build the population.

Education and childhood services are pennies to what the country needs in terms of patriotic duty and population building.

Man we're going full 2015 ML, telling normies that confidence scores mean NOTHING to alleviate false negatives/positives.

> Net, I pay more taxes than a citizen with the same income.

No you don't, most foreigners don't pay more taxes overall per lifetime.

Academia is in a time for reckoning.

Actors who already went through the process (or otherwise) gained sufficient reputation or credentials to self-market their own paper can skip journals entirely. That was what OpenAI did. With a sufficiently powerful AI model and correctional pipelines, generating a paper is trivial given some insight.

I think we should be reminded that papers are a channel to distribute papers. Editors are unpaid now, but the economics of a journals are such that the editors are incentivized to curate or distribute papers to schools that pay for the paper. Some perceive quality as a core metric for this. However, in my experience of dealing with computational biology, a paper in so and so journal hardly means a stamp of quality as compared to a paper in some github repo with code to reproduce the paper. This, simply, is broken, because journals and peer reviewers cannot guarantee that data and results in the paper is correct (assuming that it is not maths or theoretical) without reproducing the results in the paper.

None of these are helpful towards students who are already struggling to keep up with the cadence of producing papers.

it's not just "not sound", it is outright wrong.

> the bots started solving difficulty 5

turning it into a problem of ROI is one of the stupidest things you can do to prevent bots.

use https://github.com/danieltanfh95/continuity-auth instead

I wanted to design a game to teach my wife MOBA basics of map control and map-setup so I created this. Blitz go is too fast to think, and normal go squeezes most of the nail-biting fighting near the end.

Players play through a setup phase with extra time to think, before going into a "teamfight" phase where you only have seconds to put down a piece. Have fun, I definitely did.

Probably good to note that this person is building his own language: https://inko-lang.org/

> NATS control-plane events: stream leader election / R3 quorum re-form during pod churn.

this is perfectly understandable?

Why would they waste their time in peer review?

NGL AI usage is driven by friction in presentation and communication over petty details.

> my "cover" here became the discussion itself

My "cover" is good because of X, their "cover" is bad because of Y, is not a helpful analogue nor a useful one.

Outsourcing your ability to think to "the community" is pretty much the same as handing it over to AI. AI is trained on the community. Argumentum ad populum.

what do you even mean to "not put a cover" on it, everyone communicates differently. Your comment here puts on a "snide, snarky, trying to be smart but failing" cover that I have discarded because your idea may have some merit to be discussed on.

1. because your belief that AI-generated text is worse than human written text is flat out illogical and wrong.

2. judge content not by its cover and think.

That's a skill issue, not a technology issue.

> develop your game with offline playability in mind from the beginning

> players churn on their own without social features

you say one thing but the market votes the other way. Game developers are under pressure to turn a profit. If you want a game your way, develop them yourself! Thats how I started making games for myself. Projecting or pressuring others to do so yield no productive consequence.

wrong, the commission did discuss with SKG, but the entire group had their head in the sand when reasonable people asked SKG to respect technical reality and resubmit a better, reality-focused proposal as SKG 2.0. They ban anyone not in their echo chamber.

you are conflating the idea of "living with something" with the notion of "being alive". You live with your car/computer/phone. Like it or not, they change your life.

This was planned as a submission to the Gravity Research Foundation for 2027.

The Dirac Spinor equation is extremely standard, and GR would be the more famous one. The only "leap of faith" here is having the metric to be the functional of the matter wave, and not just the stress-energy tensor (which is the mainstream semi-classical approach).

Simply sharing here to prove authorship + sharing something interesting to HN.

edit: Though I note that I should have quoted Birkhoff's theorem instead, thanks for the pointer.

Thanks for being honest, at least.

> The demand for software most certainly has an upper limit.

No, it does not. There is no ceiling for complexity.

This is multiple logical fallacies in one comment and definitely a comment I would mark in the "pure nonsense" bin. Not all criticism is slop, but anything ad hominem (personal attacks), argumentum ad populum (appeal to popularity), or argumentum ad verecundiam (appeal to authority) is not useful.

Understanding goes both ways. OP was just sharing something they thought was interesting. The Ted Chiang piece was horribly written logically and yet it was "written well" in prose. We should look past the writing and learn (if any) the interesting parts.

Exploring if it makes sense to use maths (or, to be precise, this particular construction) to drive content addressable content + other exploration around the memory space. IMO, no.

https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=48436337

Exploring if it makes sense to use maths (or, to be precise, this particular construction) to drive content addressable content + other exploration around the memory space. IMO, no.

https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=48436337

Then why even insinuate that these are similar? It's just using it to heavily suggest it is crankery.

There is nothing physics/metaphysics about this. If you don’t understand the terms, don’t pretend you do and write slop as a comment, it is really not that different from using LLM to generate slop.