fxwin

I have tried using them, both for technical documentation (Think Readme.md) and for more expository material (Think wiki articles), and bounced off of them pretty quickly. They're too verbose and focus on the wrong things for the former, where output is intended to get people up to speed quickly, and suffer from the things i mentioned above for the latter, causing me to have to rewrite a lot, causing more frustration than just writing it myself in the first place.

That's without even mentioning the personal advantages you get from distilling notes, structuring and writing things yourself, which you get even if nobody ever reads what you write.

> The elephant in the room is that we’re all using AI to write but none of us wants to feel like we’re reading AI generated content.

My initial reaction to the first half of this sentence was "Uhh, no?", but then i realized it's on substack, so probably more typical for that particular type of writer (writing to post, not writing to be read). I don't even let it write documentation or other technical things anymore because it kept getting small details wrong or injecting meaning in subtle ways that isn't there.

The main problem for me aren't even the eye-roll inducing phrases from the article (though they don't help), it's that LMs tend to subtly but meaningfully alter content, causing the effect of the text to be (at best slightly) misaligned with the effect I intended. It's sort of an uncanny valley for text.

Along with the problems above, manual writing also serves as a sort of "proof-of-work" establishing credibility and meaning of an article - if you didn't bother taking the time to write it, why should i spend my time reading it?

> it seems linking to a copy that claims the dataset is public domain, would be problematic copyright-wise.

Would it? Sounds to me like the blame lies on the person uploading the dataset under that license, unless there is some reasonable person standard applied here like 'everyone knows Harry Potter, and thus they should know it is obviously not CC0'

The licensing: If I steal something and tell you its free and yours for the taking, that feels different than a Fence (knowingly) buying stolen goods. It's obviously semantics and there should have been some better judgemend from MS, but downloading a dataset (stated as public domain) from kaggle feels spiritually different from piracy (e.g.: if someone uploads a less known, copyrighted data set to kaggle/huggingface under an incorrect license, are tutorials that use this data set a 'guide to pirating' this data set? To me, that feels like a wrong use of the term)

I feel like the title is a bit misleading, unless the person who put all HP books on Kaggle as a (supposedly) CC0-licensed data set did so as a Microsoft employee.

Nevertheless pretty egregious oversight (incompetence?) and something that shouldn't have been published.

Despite the name, I wouldn't say it is "about" Julia sets, at least not any more than it is about any other kind of fractal

1) The first 2 links in the readme are 404s

2) I feel like the very first question this project needs to answer is: "Why should i use this over the official AWS CDK?" (assuming you want other people to use this). Besides maybe some nicer syntax I don't really see a reason to use this and lose all the (sometimes lacking) documentation, examples + community support that exists for CDK.

2.1) The listed benefits include "Use your favorite [...] type checker", but the example uses strings for specifying field types (vs. AWS CDK which would use enums, and is also "pure python") which immediately throws that out of the window

> Citing a paper to defend your position is just an appeal to authority (a fallacy that they teach you about in the same class).

an appeal to authority is fallacious when the authority is unqualified for the subject at hand. Citing a paper from a philosopher to support a point isn't fallacious, but "<philosophical statement> because my biology professor said so" is.

This doesn't really seem 'generic' at all to me?

true, the actual word used is less important to me than the distinction between long distance trains and regional trains, since those get conflated quite a bit in this discussion.

idk what to tell you except that your personal experience does not generalize, see https://www.deutschebahn.com/de/konzern/konzernprofil/zahlen...

the regional trains run by regional orgs rather than db get similar results, e.g. bwegt in baden württemberg or beg in bavaria

https://beg.bahnland-bayern.de/de/aufgaben/kontrollieren/pue...

https://vm.baden-wuerttemberg.de/de/mobilitaet-verkehr/bahn-...

thats great, but they are on time 85% of the time vs long distance trains' 62%

https://www.deutschebahn.com/de/konzern/konzernprofil/zahlen...

see my other comment too

fyi regional trains (which the deutschlandticket is valid for) are very punctual, it is the long distance/ICE trains that are always late/broken, and you cannot ride those with thw deutschlandticket anyways.

I've seen your list before and find it much easier to appreciate than the OP tbh. It is very concise, the descriptions actually describe what one might learn or struggle with and each project comes with resources to get started with (One day i might even get around to doing one of these ;)

The OP very much comes off to me as a "here are 100 books you need to read before you die" recommendation porn type of post where the author has done none of the things listed.

I think you're reading a bit too much into this

Mostly daily browsing of twitter and reddit, r/livestreamfail + various discord communities. Note that i have heard lots about The Game Awards, but this is a different event.

I would consider myself pretty embedded in the gaming space, and I hadn't heard of the "Indie Game Awards" before yesterday. Last year's award show has <100k views on youtube, and the first article mentioning this (insider-gaming.com's) is written by one of the judges involved. I'll leave it up to the reader to judge how much of this is genuine and how much is jumping the twitter bandwagon to boost the award show's popularity.

as for #6: I also like to keep my intro light-hearted, but wouldn't straight up start with a joke. Let the audience settle in a bit, actually start listening to you and make them laugh "on slide 2" so to speak.

the only benchmark i trust

i assume 4chan would fall in the age restricted social media category

i doubt 4chan will be unaffected by this

> So not clear what’s the additional value over photoshop.

I think photography might just not be for you (nothing wrong with that)

This is the first time I'm hearing about marimo and i have to say their landing page is excellent! Immediately makes me want to try it

>Meanwhile, the market is voting with its feet. Across the Fortune 1000, job postings that mention and require Jupyter knowledge are down sharply; the most recent month was deep in the red YTD.

This is a joke, right?

In a field with as much public visibility as this one it is naive to only think of the academic target audience, especially when choosing a title like this. As a researcher you are responsible for communicating your findings both to other experts and to outsiders, and that includes choosing appropriate titles. (Though i think we fundamentally disagree about the role of researchers here) It's like writing a title that says "drinking only 200ml of water a day leads to weight loss" which is technically true, but misleading.

Afaict surjectivity was already a given before this paper, their contribution is the injectivity part (and thus invertibility)

I agree it is technically correct, but I still think it is the research paper equivalent of clickbait (and considering enough people misunderstood this for them to issue a semi-retraction that seems reasonable)

I don't like the title of this paper, since most people in this space probably think of language models not as producing a distribution (wrt which they are indeed invertible, which is what the paper claims) but as producing tokens (wrt which they are not invertible [0]). Also the author contribution statement made me laugh.

[0] https://x.com/GladiaLab/status/1983812121713418606

actual puppet

While it's less than ideal it's also a very useful (and pretty accurate) heuristic to weed out papers in an area where it is impossible to read all (or even most) of them