mtlmtlmtlmtl

The only "facts about the world" revealed by prediction markets are facts about what people betting in prediction markets believe. Which I guess is interesting in itself if you're a sociologist. Otherwise, not so much.

I just want to say, I wish I could give 100 upvotes, but I'll have to settle for one.

It's definitely the case that there is undue paranoia about stimulants.

One case you only briefly touch on, addiction. Let me elaborate. I have struggled with severe ADHD(largely untreated during childhood, mainting severity into adulthood as a result) for all my life. I've struggled with drug addiction for most of my adult life(mainly cannabis). The amount of hoops addicts are made to jump through to get access to amphetamines is insane. Generally the requirements in my country(Norway) are to deliver weekly clean drug tests for 3 months. In the case of heavy cannabis use, it takes up to 3 months from going cold turkey until tests are negative. So, a 6 month commitment before treatment can even begin. Now, the relationship between ADHD and cannabis is interesting. I know some ADHDers who swear by it as a treatment. These tend to be of the predominantly hyperactive/impulsive type.

For me, it can't really be called a treatment. It actively worsens my condition in terms of executive dysfunction. Although it does improve some of the aspects like hyperactivity and emotional lability and helps make things bearable.

By the time I'm a year into a binge, my life is such a mess that getting myself out of it without meds is completely hopeless. Here I'm talking my apartment being such a mess I'm generally expecting to be woken up by people in biohazard suits any day now, and wondering how the hell I haven't contracted some kinda crazy bacterial disease by now. Cleaning it up is weeks if not months of work even with meds. Without it's inherently impossible. And the cannabis at least numbs me to the horror of it all.

So for 6 months I have to abandon that small comfort and just exist in this hellish life until I can even begin to improve things. Try to imagine how hard that makes going cold turkey in the first place. Not to mention the fact that meds significantly help me manage the addiction in the first place. I've successfully made it through this 6 month purgatory 3 separate times in the last 13 years. I've made more failed attempts than I can count. Wasted most of my 20s hiding from the purgatory inside a bong. I often wonder ehat my life would've been like if the rules weren't so strict. There's no evidence supported medical justification for waiting any longer than about 4 weeks. Out of the bajillion or so failed attempts, I reckon maybe 3/4 made it that far. Go figure.

I'm currently, close to 2 years semi-sober(doing a new moderation based approach to my addiction, very successfully, smoking exactly once every 4 weeks. Bit unrelated to the stimulant thing, it's more about relapse avoidance. But it's worked wonders so far.) and doing better than ever, but I still have a long way to go. And I will fight anyone who sows FUD about amphetamine or methylphenidate. These are wonder drugs. If you want to freak out about psych meds, go read up on neuroleptics. Now there's something truly horrifying. But of course, that only happens to crazy people hidden away in mental wards, so no one cares about them. I've been to those mental wards and I have seen some shit I will never forget. People whose lives were destroyed, reduced to an unbearable living hell for the remainder, by a supposed "treatment". These people are treated like animals. Go talk about that. Shut the fuck up about stimulants and SSRIs already, jesus. And go touch some grass.

First of all, FreeBSD has plenty of selling points compared to your typical Linux distro:

Small, well integrated base system, with excellent documentation. Jails, ZFS, pf, bhyve, Dtrace are very well integrated with eachother, which differs from linux where sure there's docker, btrfs, iptables, bpftrace and several different hypervisors to choose from, but they all come from different sources and so they don't play together as neatly.

The ports tree is very nice for when you need to build things with custom options.

The system is simple and easy to understand if you're a seasoned unix-like user. Linux distros keep changing, and I don't have the time to keep up. I have more than 2 decades of experience daily driving linux at this point, and about 3 years total daily driving FreeBSD. And yet, the last time I had a distro install shit itself(pop os), I had no idea how to fix it, due to the rube-goldberg machine of systemd, dbus, polkit, wayland AND X, etc etc that sits underneath the easy to use GUI(which was not working). On boot I was dropped into a root shell with some confusing systemd error message. The boot log was full of crazy messages from daemons I hadn't even heard of before. I was completely lost. On modern Linux distros, my significant experience is effectively useless. On FreeBSD, it remains useful.

Second, when it comes to OpenBSD, I don't actually agree that security is its main selling point. For me, the main selling point of OpenBSD is as a batteries included server/router OS, again extremely well documented in manpages, and it has all the basic network daemons installed, you just enable them. They have very simple configuration files where often all you need is a single digit number of lines, and the config files have their own manpages explaining everything. For use cases like "I just want an HTTP server to serve some static content", "I just want a router with dhcpd and a firewall", etc, OpenBSD is golden.

Yeah? How many robots? What kind of robots? What would the AI need to survive? Are the robots able to produce more robots? How are the robots powered? Where will they get energy from?

Sure it's easy to just throw that out there in one sentence, but once you actually dig into it, it turns out to be a lot more complicated than you thought at first. It's not just a matter of "AI" + "Robots" = "self-sustaining". The details matter.

It's fascinating how even when Carmack says something rather obvious and unoriginal, that many people have said before, sometimes decades ago, it still spawns a 400+ comment thread on HN. I really don't get it, it's almost like a cult of personality at this point.

Nonsense, is it?

https://x.com/StevenCheung47/status/1976601157041856756

>Venezuela hasn't been involved in any war recently, as far as I know.

While the point you're trying to make may or may not be valid, Venezuela is not a good example. Go read up on the Venezuela-Guyana crisis. The Maduro regime has been pushing the region closer to war in recent years. Renewing its claims to Guyanan territory, and preparing its military for war. For now, all out invasion has been prevented partially by significant support for Guyana and pressure against Venezuela from neighbouring countries and the west, and distraction from its own internal problems.

What is there to understand about it? You don't make an argument, just a shallow dismissal. There's nothing about your comment that indicates you read TFA.

Controversial in general, maybe. In the case of opioids and the pharm industry, absolutely not. It's been well documented at this point that pharm companies were well aware of the abuse, and not only did nothing to stop it, but went out of their way to encourage it because sales were going through the roof.

In the case of Purdue and oxycontin, the culpability has in fact been established in court as well.

As for the coders, I find it hard to believe that they were so ignorant, naïve, or unintelligent that they had absolutely no idea what was going on. I just don't buy it.

The question was how GP felt about their particular unethical act, and it's consequences which likely includes multiple deaths. Since you are not GP, it seems unlikely that you can answer this question.

I fail to see the relevance of bringing up a different, and also unethical example, but I'll answer anyway. If GP said that they used to spend their time optimising software to be as addictive as possible in order to drive people into gambling addiction, destroying their lives and taking all their money while doing it, I would ask the same question.

That's far too literal an interpretation of harm. The point isn't to never do any kind of "physical harm". It's about doing the least amount of harm possible/necessary in any situation, where doing nothing can also be seen as causing harm.

I had a burst appendix as a teenager, leading to peritonitis. To treat this, surgeons were going to operate laparoscopically to remove the appendix and fix remove any contamination in the peritoneum. Obviously this required damaging my skin, removing an organ etc. which in the strictest sense is harm. But doing nothing at all would obviously lead to sepsis and death, so this was still the least harmful intervention. During the surgery, it turned out that the laparoscopic method was hard to carry out due to obesity and other factors. The attending made the decision to convert to a laporotomy, doing even more harm to my skin and leaving me with a 30 cm scar on my stomach. But it was the right call because it maximised the chances of accomplishing the goal of the procedure(preventing imminent death), minimising the risk of serious complications.

And here I am almost 20 years later. I have a scar, I have some adhesions that occasionally cause moderate abdominal pain if I don't eat enough fibre, and perhaps my lymphatic system and gut flora are very minorly compromised in some nebulous way due to the lack of an appendix. On the other hand, I'm alive. So yes, they "did harm", but they also minimised harm. And they didn't do any unnecessary harm, to the best of their ability. And that's the point of the ethical principle.

I absolutely want this arrangement for developers. We need to grow up as a profession, and take responsibility for the consequences of our actions.

This isn't the 90s anymore. Today there's practically nothing you can do in the modern world without interacting with software. Buying food, going to the hospital, travelling, communicating, voting, going to school, using anything electrical, anywhere. Our society is completely dependent on software at this point. The fact that there's no professional ethics code with the appropriate oversight for the development and maintenance of software is utterly insane.

The points you bring up about the Hippocratic Oath are important problems to solve, rather than reasons not to try.

How do you live with yourself?

Yes, because criminals and pedophiles care deeply about following laws. They would never even think of using a piece of software if it was illegal, right?

It's been long enough(about 7 years) since I worked in an environment like this that I've been seriously considering going back to it lately. I played one round of your game, and that was enough to make it completely obvious to me what a fucking terrible idea that is.

Thank you for making this, I think you just saved me from flushing two years of personal progress down the toilet in the name of... What? Fucking business logic? I'll pass on that, I think, and keep improving my life on my own terms.

And maybe address the question why, again and again, I keep finding ways to convince myself that this is what I want my life to be. No matter how many times it leads me to crash and burn and have to spend years picking up the pieces.

Seriously, thank you. If I ever meet you, I will buy you a beverage to your liking, to go, so you can go home and enjoy it in peace.

/g

I think it's imprecise to say that opening knowledge is unnecessary. What is unnecessary is opening theory, or more specifically, rote memorisation of opening lines.

This is different from opening understanding. Understanding the importance of tempo, development, controlling the centre, the different pawn structures, middle games and endgames that result from different openings, the plans and motifs typical in various opening complexes. Any late beginner to intermediate player needs to pick and study an opening. The problem is that instead of studying the opening, players try to memorise lines without improving their understanding of the resulting middlegames, and the plans they should be playing for. Then, when their opponent diverges from the main lines(which in my experience happens in 99% of games between players below 2000, because it's very rare that both players have memorised the same long line), they don't know what to do.

I'm a 1900 FIDE player, I have an opening repertoire of sorts. For instance I play the modern benoni with black. An extremely theoretical opening, and yet I have only a small handful of longer lines actually memorised, because they're simply too complex for me to figure out over the board(e.g the b5 lines against Bd3 h3 Nf3 setups). But what I have studied extensively is the strategic landscape of the benoni, games by strong players in the opening, etc. And I have years of experience playing the opening. I know what kind of exchanges typically favour me, or my opponent, what pawn breaks each player should be trying for. And all of that knowledge is crucial for me to get anything out of the opening. I have beaten players tactically much stronger than me in this opening simply because my understanding of this specific opening was better than theirs.

Tactical ability is obviously important, but it's definitely not everything.

It's typical in these situations that the price per stock is negotiated, with current SP as a starting point. It's fairly unusual, I think, for the company selling stock to get a price significantly higher than market price. It's more typical that there's a slight discount. At least that's been the case for every stock I owned where dilution has occured. We also don't know yet when exactly this deal was negotiated and approved, so it's hard to actually say. Considering where INTC has been very recently(below $20), $23.28 seems very reasonable to me.

The reason the stock surged up past $30 is the general market's reaction to the news, and subsequent buying pressure, not the stock transaction itself. It seems likely that once the exuberance cools down, the SP will pull back, where to I can't say. Somewhere between $25 and $30 would be my bet, but this is not financial advice, I'm just spitballing here.

The thing is, ChatGPT isn't really designed at all. It's hobbled together by running some training algorithms on a vast array of stolen data. They then tacked on some trivially circumventable safeguards on top for PR reasons. They know the safeguards don't really work, in fact they know that they're fundamentally impossible to get to work, but they don't care. They're not really intended to work, rather they're intended to give the impression that the company actually cares. Fundamentally, the only thing ChatGPT is "designed" to do is make OpenAI into a unicorn, any other intent ascribed to their process is either imaginary or intentionally feigned for purposes of PR or regulatory capture.

I have to say, when I see a post by a company like OpenAI about "safety, freedom and privacy", I can't keep a straight face. They might as well title the piece "If you don't mind, we'd like to gaslight you across several paragraphs". No thanks.

I'm sure it's true and all. But I've been hearing the same claim about all those tools uv is intended to replace, for years now. And every time I try to run any of those, as someone who's not really a python coder, but can shit out scripts in it if needed and sometimes tries to run python software from github, it's been a complete clusterfuck.

So I guess what I'm wondering is, are you a python guy, or are you more like me? because for basically any of these tools, python people tell me "tool X solved all my problems" and people from my own cohort tell me "it doesn't really solve anything, it's still a mess".

If you are one of us, then I'm really listening.

And if they do that, do you think it will affect what criminals do?

Sure, you could make unauthorized, fully encrypted communication illegal. But what would be the punishment for using it? Worse than for smuggling, human trafficking, murder? I seriously doubt it. If you're a criminal risking decades in prison for major crimes, using some illegal software is 100% worth it, if it significantly reduces the risk of getting caught for the real crimes you're committing.

You can't make laws that govern how criminals behave. All chat control will really accomplish is maybe a momentary string of arrests(which is meaningless in the long term; there's always someone to take over), and longer term, worse privacy and security for everyone except the criminals.

This is the conclusion I come to whenever I try to grasp the works of Nagel, Chalmers, Goff, Searle et al. They're just linguistically chasing their own tails. There's no meaningful insight below it all. All of their arguments, however complex, all rely on poorly defined terms like "understand" "subjective experience", "what it is like", "qualia", etc. And when you try to understand the arguments with the definition of these terms left open, you realise the arguments only make sense when the terms include in their definition a supposition that the argument is true. It's all just circular reasoning.

As a player I like to think of sharpness as a measure of the potential consequences of a miscalculation. In a main line dragon, the consequence is often getting checkmated in the near future, so maximally sharp. In a quiet positional struggle, the consequence might be something as minor as the opponent getting a strong knight, or ending up with a weak pawn.

Whereas complexity is a measure of how far ahead I can reasonably expect to calculate. This is something non-players often misunderstand, which is why they like to ask me how many moves ahead I can see. It depends on the position.

And I agree, these concepts are orthogonal. Positions can be sharp, complex, both or neither. A pawn endgame is typically very sharp; the slightest mistake can lead to the opponent queening and checkmating. But it's relativity low in complexity because you can calculate far ahead using ideas like counting, geometric patterns(square of the pawn, zone of the pawn, distant opposition etc) to abstract over long lines of play. On the opposite side, something like a main line closed Ruy Lopez is very complex(every piece still on the board), but not especially sharp(closed position, both kings are safe, it's more of a struggle for slight positional edges).

Something like a king's indian or benoni will be both sharp and complex. Whereas an equal rook endgame is neither(it's quite hard to lose a rook endgame, there always seems to be a way to save a draw).

To add to this, Java and other GC languages in some sense have manual memory management too, no matter how much we like to pretend otherwise.

It's easy to fall into a trap where your Banana class becomes a GorillaHoldingTheBananaAndTheEntireJungle class(to borrow a phrase from Joe Armstrong), and nothing ever gets freed because everything is always referenced by something else.

Not to mention the dark arts of avoiding long GC pauses etc.

It's possible to do this in rust too, I suppose. The clearest difference is that in rust these things are explicit rather than implicit. To do this in rust you'd have to use 'static, etc. The other distinction is compile-time versus runtime, of course.

The reason it's common courtesy is out of respect for the reviewer/maintainer's time. You need to let em know to look for the kind of idiotic mistakes LLMs shit out on a routine basis. It's not a "distraction", it's extremely relevant information. On the maintainer's discretion, they may not want to waste their time reviewing it at all, and politely or impolitely ask the contributor to do it again, and use their own brain this time. It also informs them on how seriously to take this contributor in the future, if the work doesn't hold water, or indeed, even if it does, since the next time the contributor runs the LLM lottery the result may be utter bullshit.

Whether it's prose or code, when informed something is entirely or partially AI generated, it completely changes the way I read it. I have to question every part of it now, no matter how intuitive or "no one could get this wrong"ish it might seem. And when I do, I usually find a multitude of minor or major problems. Doesn't matter how "state of the art" the LLM that shat it out was. They're still there. The only thing that ever changed in my experience is that problems become trickier to spot. Because these things are bullshit generators. All they're getting better at is disguising the bullshit.

I'm sure I'll gets lots of responses trying to nitpick my comment apart. "You're holding it wrong", bla bla bla. I really don't care anymore. Don't waste your time. I won't engage with any of it.

I used to think it was undeserved that we programmers called ourselved "engineers" and "architects" even before LLMs. At this point, it's completely farcical.

"Gee, why would I volunteer that my work came from a bullshit generator? How is that relevant to anything?" What a world.

Yes.

And how much energy does a human being consume while spending 90 minutes on an IMO question?

Amphetamine is actually a very effective weight loss drug. And it's sort of orthogonal to the fact that it's a stimulant. Stimulants in general can cause an acute reduction in appetite and temporary weight loss. This tends to stabilise with tolerance, however. As someone with obesity and ADHD, thus was my experience with methylphenidate treatment. And I used to think the weight loss effects of amphetamine were analogous until recently.

Amphetamine and methyphenidate(MPH) have very different ways of acting as stimulants. MPH is an inhibitor of the dopamine transporter(DAT) and the norepinehrine transporter(NET). These cross-membrane proteins essentially "suck up" the dopamine or norepinehrine after neurotransmission, thus regulating the effect. MPH inhibits this process, increasing the effect. This is called a norepinephrine/dopamine reuptake inhibitor(NDRI). Cocaine also works like this, as well as the antidepressant wellbutrin(bupropion).

Amphetamine on the other hand, is a bit more complicated. It interacts with DAT/NET as well, as a substrate, actually passing through them into the neuron. Inside the neuron, it has a complex series of interactions with TAAR1, VMAT2, and ion concentrations, causing signaling cascades that lead to DAT reversal. Essentially, enzymes are activated that modify DAT in such a way that it pumps dopamine out of the neuron instead of sucking it up. How that happens is very complicated and beyond the scope of this comment, but amphetamine's activity at TAAR1 is an important contributor. As such, amphetamine is a norepinephrine-dopamine releasing agent(NDRA). Methamphetamine, MDMA, and cathinone(from khat) also work like this.

Anyway, recently I was reading about TAAR1 and learned something new, namely that TAAR1, besides being and internal receptor in monoaminergic neurons, is also expressed in the pancreas, the duodenum, the stomach, and intestines and in these tissues, TAAR1 activation will increase release of GLP-1, PYY, and insulin, as well as slow gastric emptying.

So in essence, there may be some pharmacological overlap between ozempic and amphetamine(I'm still looking for data on how significantly amphetamine reaches TAAR1 in these tissues, so unclear what the relevance is. But amohetamine is known to diffuse across cellular membranes, so it's likely there is an effect).

Also interesting, amphetamine was recently approved as a treatment for binge eating disorder. Not only because it causes weight loss, but because it improves functioning in the prefrontal cortex(crucial to its efficacy in ADHD), which is apparently implicated in the neuropsychological aspects of BED as well.

Stockfish being so strong is not merely a result of scaling of computation with search and learning. Basic alpha-beta search doesn't really scale all that well with compute. The number of nodes visited grows exponentionally with the number of plies you look ahead. Additionally alpha-beta search is not embarassingly parallel. The reason Stockfish is so strong is that it includes pretty much every heuristic improvement to alpha-beta that's been thought of in the history of computer chess, somehow combining all of them while avoiding bugs and performance regressions. Many of these heuristics are based on chess knowledge. As well as a lot of very clever optimisation of data structures(transposition tables, bitboards) to facilitate parallel search and shave off every bit of overhead.

Stockfish is a culmination of a lot of computer science research, chess knowledge and clever, meticulous design.