levzettelin

As commented before, by say that they "could very easily solve the problem" I meant that they could just collectively stop using the problematic AIs in prod until they feel that the issue is resolved (moratorium). Not that it's easy to resolve the technical difficulties.

They could just collectively stop working on the problem until they feel that the issue is resolved (moratorium). That's what I meant by "they could very easily solve the problem".

Probably just companies trying to impede progress of other companies. Not to say that the statement is wrong necessarily. But given that this is coming from a group of people that could very easily solve the problem, I'll take it with a grain of salt.

How often do you have to add singular entries to some data file your working with? For all other cases, Miller and xsv look more powerful.

He wouldn't be speaking like this if he was born on Mars.

neovim with the gp.nvim plugin.

Allows you to open chats directly in a neovim window. Also, allows you to select some text and then run it with certain prompts (like "implement" or "explain this code"). Depending on the prompt you can make the result appear directly inside the buffer you're currently working on. The request to the ChatGPT API also is enriched with the file-type.

I hated AI before I discovered this approach. Now I'm an AI fanboy.

Can you post any evidence for this? I somehow have it in my mind that it's the other way around (i.e., mean doesn't grow anymore, but 99th percentile still does).

Maybe a bit more than that. I'd say a week to start and about one or two months to achieve the previous speed.

When you look at it the right way, the solution to the Monty Hall problem is actually straight forward and doesn't require a simulation.

If you choose the "no switching" strategy, you're probability of winning is 1/3. On the other hand, if you use the "switching" strategy, you win if you pick a goat at first and you loose if you pick the car at first. Thus, with the "switching" strategy, your probability of winning is 2/3.

So once you recognize that with the "switching" strategy you win if and only if you start on a goat, the only thing you're really doing with a simulation is to contribute to the carbon footprint of the world.

Without that realization, a simulation can be helpful, of course, since finding the right way to look at a problem is often so hard.

If people took risks building out ideas they "felt" were the right thing, the world would be a better place for you; but not for those people.

I see. Many thanks for this! Sounds a bit like a mixture of coroutines and dynamic scoping. Very interesting!

I never understood "algebraic effects". But I understand the Hurl docs. Are "algebraic effects" basically the "toss" keyword from Hurl? If so, how are "algebraic effects" stronger than the "toss" keyword?

What are the differences versus Arrow/Parquet?

Didn't watch; will they implement RAII?

Doesn't look like he's 40.

She would never be in the position that she is in if it wasn't for DEI. DEI systematically helps bad persons into power.

No way the frequency of the cycle is around seven years. More like 100 years. Also not sure if the pendulum has begun swinging back. I guess it depends on which pendulum you focus on. Taking an obvious one (net immigration into the European wellfare systems), it would seem that the pendulum is still accelerating.

What are some of those modern competitors?

> It's becoming increasingly clear that pumping water into a lake is not, in fact, the main driver of flooding.

> Just look at the recent past. We've been pumping water into the lake since 08 without any appreciable flooding.

> Then the dam broke and BOOM! floodings rocket double digits.

The war-induced shortages may be the proximate cause of inflation, but maybe it wasn't a good idea to keep pumping that water in the first place, in particular, with the knowledge that dams always break sooner or later anyway.

Discourse is never free; in no society. The question is just what kinds of discourse are allowed. Depending on what you care about, different societies will work better or worse for you (or be more free or less free, to adopt the lingo of this declaration). In other words, "freedom" is a subjective quality that depends what an individual cares about.

Interesting point! That's my understanding as well.

16 hours in a day

64 minutes in an hour

64 seconds in a minute

This would make seconds 1.31835 times longer then what they are now.

If this is called "decimal time", what about "binary time"? You could convert between days and seconds using bit-shift, haha.

I can't really think of a way in which I'd consider the monadic version better-or-equal than the "traditional approach". Except that maaaaybe

``` ageNext = age.transform([] (const int age) { return age + 1; }); ```

if equally readable to

``` if (age) { ageNext = *age + 1; } ```

Maaaaaybe!

The mathematics of this seem sound. The ideological overhead ("cooperation is good"), however, seems wrong. The same outcome that the author achieves with pooling in a group can be achieved by an individual just splitting their wealth into N pools, and then playing the coin-toss individually with each of those N pools.

Also, I suspect an even better outcome for an individual would be achieved by essentially using the Kelly criterion, which means that you wager a certain fraction of year wealth on every coin-toss. The optimal fraction that should be wagered on each toss can be calculated with pretty basic math.

For the lefties: this doesn't mean that cooperation is bad, of course. It just means that the argument in the article can not be used in support of your ideology.

Doesn't really shout "scientists", this article LOL.

I understand the argument. The problem with this is just that it requires people who sacrifice their critical thinking abilities to an ideology in order to end up with a mass of people who stand so close to each other that they are best described by the equations of fluid dynamics.

The people in the center of the crowd who die had plenty of opportunities to get out, but they didn't; they committed to their respective ideology.

Sure, if you find yourself in a mass of people that is so dense that you loose any sense of agency, it might help to remember that you're just a molecule in the mass and go with the flow. But if you find yourself in such a situation, it's usually a clear sign that you haven't always been reasonable on the way there.

I find it easy enough to imagine a type of people that would not engage in such barbaric actions under any circumstances. Say a group of 10000 physicist assembling to discuss quantum physics. But, sure, if you can't change the type of people assembling, improving logistics is your only option.

The common denominator amongst these causes would seem to be that people turn off their critical thinking abilities and value a commitment to some ideology more than being smart about things. I thought that was obvious, so I used the phrase from the video "hooliganism, youth culture, and religious fanaticism" as a synonym for this.