Did you try Opus-4.7 on a lower reasoning level? Looks like on `max` it's using far more tokens than the other frontier models.
156 karma · joined December 14, 2014
I want to subscribe, but I never end up reading newsletters if they land in my email inbox.
I'll give this one a try, being able to add my own books is particularly exciting.
I guess this is mostly relevant for software that runs on shared infra, sends requests to a url provided by an attacker (e.g. webhooks), and uses a SOCKS5 proxy?
Does anyone know of any other more concrete explanation of how these kinds of systems could work?
(Or, is this comment https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=35585453 complete and accurate?)
It's a big company but I'm really proud to have done my part towards this.
I think it's only dependencies that contain C code that would need further changes. I think you would have to recompile then with cosmopolitan libc.
As far as I know givedirectly have found that cash transfers are effective at improving people's long term wealth. But I've never heard anything about them moving people from the poor to the "less poor" mode of a bimodal wealth distribution. Maybe the difference is that this experiment was run in a place that has a clear bimodal distribution, which allowed them to observe this more easily?
Wish I could read the paper but it's behind a paywall and not on scihub.
But, I often solve this with a function like:
``` def default_to(x: Optional[T], d: T) -> T: return x if x is not None else d ```
I wonder if having this function as the official way to do it would solve the problem without the "specialness" of `??`.
But there's no good equivalent that I know of for `?.`, that's a real pain to do with python as it is now so it seems like a nice addition.
Not that it's completely reliable, but Wikipedia also has information which matches the article (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Homelessness_in_Finland), no discussion on the talk page, and no signs of an edit war in the history.
I've been reading "Selfish reasons to have more kids" (Brian Caplan) recently in semi-preparation for becoming a parent, and, well I'll just quote the book summary
> We've needlessly turned parenting into an unpleasant chore. Parents invest more time and money in their kids than ever, but the shocking lesson of twin and adoption research is that upbringing is much less important than genetics in the long run. These revelations have surprising implications for how we parent and how we spend time with our kids. The big lesson: Mold your kids less and enjoy your life more. Your kids will still turn out fine.
> I have never really found that memorization was ever an obstacle to my ability to learn something.
I think it depends what you are learning, for example when learning languages I find a lot of the difficulty is just in retaining the words.
Another place where I've found it useful is for memorizing definitions in (pure) mathematics. To be able to read the later parts of a book you need a good working knowledge of earlier definitions. You could look back for the definitions every time, but that breaks the flow of reading.
> I've always found that retention proceeds from understanding.
Yeah, I find that too. But this is something that I do after understanding something to help retain it better and for longer.
> Time spent flicking through flashcards for vocabulary or formulae or chemical paths or whatever seems like a poor substitute for time spent reading material that uses the vocabulary ...
The time I spend on memorization is very small, less than 5 minutes a day, and I usually do it on my phone while I'm waiting for something. It replaces checking reddit or playing phone games rather than deep reading of interesting material.
[1]: https://journal.komci.org/ViewJournalInfo.php?JID=109#Impact...
This is more interesting than it sounds because these infinities are in between (but possibly equal to one of) the size of the natural numbers and the size of the real numbers. There are hard limits on what can be known about such infinities in the usual mathematical framework (zfc): it's impossible to prove if an infinity which is strictly between the two exists. The hypothesis that no such infinity exists is called "the continuum hypothesis".
Writing this on mobile, but I hope I've made sense...
A couple of relatively minor comments for you:
* In C++ it might be useful to filter include guards out of the symbol lists.
* I had some problems with using the menus (couldn't click on them, when I did select them couldn't get the menu to drop down). It's probably just because I'm using a weird window manager (xmonad, no window decorations, Ubuntu 16.04).