mtlmtlmtlmtl

Not sure why this is downvoted, it's just factually true.

Police and politicians talking about outlawing things that help criminals as though it will somehow affect the criminals, will never cease to amaze and amuse me. It's such an elementary error of logic.

The fact is that in a reasonably free society it's quite feasible to get away with lots of crime, if you're smart enough. There is no stopping this. Especially if it's a crime which doesn't leave a whole lot behind in terms of physical evidence. Downloading an OS is one such thing. Sure, if you seize my phone, you could prove it runs Graphene. But in a free society, you need probable cause for that, sorry. And if I am some major criminal, and Graphene stops my criminal enterprise from being proven, in a free society that's always preferable to getting busted, because the punishment for using graphene is gonna be meaningless compared to the punishment I'm avoiding by using it. Because a free society includes a protection against disproportionate punishments for minor crimes. Sure I'll pay your $500 fine to avoid 20 years in prison. Cost of doing business.

Once you realise this, you realise the only way to tackle crime is by legalising as many of them as possible, as long as they're not actively and unambiguously violating people's rights. Murder and other violent acts, obviously stay illegal. Drugs, prostitution etc? Legalise them. That's most of the crime right there, because these classes of crime actually provide something that's in wide popular demand. Demand + black market pricing + lack of taxes means lots of money, and money means power to create strong criminal organisations that can do whatever they want with impunity, including influencing politics. With all that out the window, all you have left is a bunch of individuals going at it alone; murdering psychopaths, desperate poor people, the mentally ill, crimes of passion, sex crimes, etc. And you just freed up a ton of societal resources to channel into those vestiges, both via targeted, intelligent policing and broader societal reforms that target the sociological processes that cause these kinds of crime(like wealth inequality, to name one).

Instead, what we get is a never ending arms race towards a totalitarian society. Oh well, see you after the next revolution, I guess.

>So ... exactly for what the device is being sold as? Weird complaint: "I purchased an apple, and all I got was an apple that's only good as an apple."

Like I said:

>>All that being said, there's nothing wrong with Arduino as a platform for learning and personal tinkering.

I was just adding my 2 cents on Arduinos based on personal experience. That is all.

>Then you would know that ATmegas are in a lot of successful commercial products from the past.

Yes. What led you to believe I was suggesting otherwise? I made no criticism of the ATmega328, any other ATmega chip, or the AVR ISA for that matter. I could make some if I wanted to, but it doesn't seem relevant. The topic was Arduino boards, which typically contain an AVR chip, but is in fact not a chip but a dev board.

I spent some time* working on the firmware side of developing custom electronics based on various AVR chips, ATmega328 among them. Arduinos are not good for much more than babby's first microcontroller project. They're not even that great for prototyping. Besides the aforementioned hardware design issues, the "arduino" language(really just C++) and core library had several problems both in terms of code quality and abstracting over things that shouldn't be abstracted over when working with such a limited chip(8bit, 2k SRAM...), like significant memory allocations and interactions with SREG.

My EE partner in crime ended up designing a prototyping board himself, with various creature comforts included that we needed shields for with Arduino, and I ended up writing just C with avr-libc instead of using any of the arduino library/tooling, developing a set of core modules to use the things we added to our boards, in a more flexible manner than the Arduino library. It took some time, but it saved us a lot of time and friction in our future prototyping efforts.

All that being said, there's nothing wrong with Arduino as a platform for learning and personal tinkering. I do think they could've done a better job bridging the gap between that and prototyping though.

* Ten years ago, so my memory of specifics is very fuzzy and only reflects the state of things back then.

It's ironic that you picked that example given that LLMs are simultaneously turning the internet into a vast ocean of useless AI generated garbage.

General web search will soon be a completely meaningless concept.

Yeah, I can't wait for this slop generation hype circlejerk to end either. But in terms of being used by people who don't care about quality, like scammers, spammers, blogspam grifters, people trying to affect elections by poisoning the narrative, people shitting out crappy phone apps, videos, music, "art" to grift some ad revenue, gen AI is already the perfect product. Once the people who do care wake up and realise gen AI is basically useless to them, the internet will already be dead, we'll be in a post-truth, post-art, post-skill, post-democracy world and the only people whose lives will have meaningfully improved are some billionaires in california who added some billions to their net worth.

It's so depressing to watch so many smart people spend their considerable talents on the generation of utter garbage and the erosion of the social fabric of society.

In my experience(currently about 15kg into a 40kg weight-loss program), eating enough fat can also be very helpful for losing weight. It seems counter-intuitive, but it works for me. Fat contributes a great deal to satiety. My diet setup has been to have breakfast and dinner only, no lunch on most days. This way I can make both meals quite calorific, filling and plenty tasty. Crucial for maintaining adherence to the setup, which is by far the hardest part of weight loss.

When you have to go 7 to 8 hours without eating before dinner you want plenty of slow-burning calories. Long chain fats, protein, slow carbs, with plenty of fiber.

My typical breakfast ends up being one slice of bread with liver pate and cheese, another with peanut butter and either nutella(if I'm doing morning cardio or some other exercise mid-day. Lots of sugar in nutella, which gets used up immediately by the exercise anyway) or various kinds of jam with no added sugar(usually pear and apple, since they're not so tart and are pretty sweet without added sugar), and a protein pudding cup(20g protein). The bread needs to be whole-grain, of course. Ideally 100% whole grain.

This ends up being about 700 calories, which is a pretty substantial breakfast. And most importantly, it includes a lot of protein(from liver, peanut butter, cheese, the bread and the pudding), a good mix of saturated fats with plenty of SCFA and MCT from the cheese and liver, mono- and polyunsaturated fat from the peanut butter, and tons of soluble and insoluble fiber from the bread and peanut butter.

This tends to keep me full until dinner time, at which point I can typically eat up to 1300 kcal depending on how active I've been.

On extremely active days, I might either add another slice of bread to breakfast, or have a protein snack and some fruit after exercise, as well as electrolyte drink with sugar in it during(important both for energy and fluid uptake).

Anyway, I'm rarely hungry except for just before eating, which is the idea. I think this would be much harder on a low-fat diet.

Yes, some people are fine, and some people are not fine at all. Even Terence Mckenna had at least one extremely bad trip(that we know of) on mushrooms that drove him to quit taking them for the rest of his life. That was with a lifetime of experience taking mushrooms and other psychedelics, and at a dose several orders of magntiude lower than the dose suggested by this paper.

And this is not a one-off thing, but a monthly regimen. So we're talking about taking a dose that's way beyond heroic, every month, for the rest of your life. That's so far outside the realm of responsible psychedelic use, I don't think any human has even come close to attempting it. The only thing that's for certain is there's no way of knowing what the psychological effects would be, but I have a hard time believing it wouldn't get extremely ugly.

I looked at the code for this once. It's sort of a hack. It generates a random puzzle, tries to solve it with a deterministic backtracking(IIRC) solver that detects situations where it's stuck. If it is stuck, it shifts some mines around in the place where the solver got stuck, according to some heuristics, and keeps solving. It keeps doing this until the entire puzzle has been solved, verifying that the puzzle can be solved without any guesswork.

I will second the recommendation. As someone who's wasted too many hours on minesweeper, it radically changes the game. Because I know there's a logical solution, I'm able to find patterns that I never found in the original, because I'd often assume it was just one of those guesswork situations. It's similar to how chess puzzles are easier than an equivalent position during a game. Because you know there's a neat solution, you're more willing to put in the legwork of searching for it. Learned a lot about the game simply by playing Simon's version.

Fully agreed. Norway has this same legislation. It's the kind of thing that only makes sense if you only look at it for 2 seconds, through a thick fog of radical sex-negative feminism.

Yes, it is true that the pimps and human traffickers are the real criminals, and that the vast majority of prostitutes are in fact victims. And yes, it's a good thing not to prosecute them. But when you make buying illegal, you force prostitutes away from the safety nets that could help them anyway. If you're the police, how do you catch johns? Follow the prostitutes, of course. So they're forced to avoid the police, lest they're unable to meet demands from their pimps, and get punished, often violently. And in avoiding the police, they also become more vulnerable to abuse by johns.

The real world just doesn't work like this. You can't nearly separate these things into legal/not legal bins. They're entangled and can't be unentangled merely by way of ideology or wishful thinking.

The other issue is of course, is it wrong to buy sex? If you're a sex-negative feminist, the answer is yes, because your ideology rests on projecting your own sex-negative outlook onto all women, which to me seems hilariously and ironically sexist. Personally I believe women have very diverse attitutes to sex and should have autonomy to do whatever the hell they please with their lives and bodies.

To me, the only thing that really matters if whether the sex is consensual, without clear-cut coercion. Is it wrong to buy sex from someone who is clearly a victim of human trafficking? Absolutely, I think so. This is basically slavery.

Is it wrong to buy sex from someone who's selling it, because it's their only option? This one is trickier, but I think it's about as wrong as getting your iphone screen fixed by someone who couldn't cut it in "real" IT work. Or getting your garbage picked up by someone whose only marketable skill is emptying a bin into a truck. Society is full of people doing jobs they hate because it's all they got. And that sucks, but criminalising their customers doesn't seem like a reasonable solution. It's a systemic issue.

Is it wrong to buy sex work from someone who does it because they genuinely love it(yes, they do exist, though they are awfully rare)? How the hell could it be?

So in summation, it seems to me human trafficking is the real problem. Criminalising johns seems like a stupid way to tackle it, and it demonstrably does not work. Extending it to the online sphere makes even less sense.

If you don't care, why is it the only thing about this news that you're engaging with in your comment?

However, unlike cocaine, alcohol(in reasonable amounts) doesn't make your dick useless...

Maybe Wayland works without any faffing around for you, but the last time I ran it(via KDE), it completely hung my system whereas X11 worked out of the box.

And Wayland has been around for at least 15 years, btw, not 5. You'd think 15 years would be long enough to get something stable, but apparently not.

No accounting for taste, but my similarly terse vim config includes relativenumber and number. Relativenumber is just so damn useful for doing things to larger chunks of code without having to count lines or anything.

I'm also an IDE user though. I tend to maintain a dichotomy between emacs(with evil-mode, of course) as the "kitchen sink" set up, with all the fixings, and vim with a config so short I can type it in as commands if I need to.

Vanilla vim is really perfect for quick edits to config files, scripts on random servers/VMs etc.

Bigger projects, at least for my usage, all happen on the same system , and having a bit more involved of an emacs set up makes sense there.

I suppose one could do a similar dichotomy with vim/neovim, if one had a distaste for emacs.

I'd be interested to see those studies. I think there could be a couple different types of tolerance, one of which only occurs with rather heavy use. It's something I've seen reported anecdotally from a number of people who've used psychedelics very heavily. It might not show up in human studies because of ethical concerns. There could be some interesting pharmacological differences too, where this only occurs with specific drugs. The psychedelics are quite varied in terms of pharmacodynamics beyond just the 5-HT-2 receptor subfamily.

This isn't completely true. Tolerance to psychedelics is a thing, and can often ve extremely long lasting. I have a friend that when given heroic doses of 2C-B(50mg or more, orally), hardly experienced more than threshold level effects. This was 2C-B tested and confirmed to have 95% purity, and it affected me exactly as expected. He was not on any drugs except hash, which is typically synergistic.

In his case, according to him he yad used 2C-B very heavily many years previously, and it seems he developed an extremely high level of tolerance which remained unchanged for many years of non-use.

In the cases discussed in the thread, it's possible that something similar was happening. Indeed, many antidepressants also alter serotonin receptor expression over time, and it's plausible that in some people, these effects could linger for a long time.

I think this is too dismissive of the transformative power of psychedelic drugs. They absolutely can alter your life permanently. They certainly altered mine. I think, in a positive way. But that power cuts both ways. I also know people who had harrowing, traumatic experiences and developed PTSD.

My advice to people who haven't tried it tends to be that if you're scared, you should abstain. Your presuppositions of what the experience will be, will in themselves shape the experience. If you expect a bad time, you're likely to get one.

There's also a group of people who are curious about using psychedelics to treat mental disorder. My advice to those people is to find a way to do it in a clinical setting. Psychedelics have enormous potential for effectively curing anxiety disorders, but it's not just a matter of taking the drugs. The experience must be guided by a psychologist who knows what the goal is. And then integrated and processed afterwards, also with expert help. Psychedelucs are not a treatment in and of themselves, more like an accelerant of psychotherapy. The therapy is still necessary, it's just that psychedelics allow you to do in a handful of sessions what could take years in a sober patient. As a case in point, I have a severe anxiety disorder myself, and my many self-initiated experiments with psychedelics haven't magically cured it. If combined with therapy, it might have. I'm still waiting for clinical practice to catch up, so I can have psychedelic therapy.

Your points are well taken, though I want to nuance them a bit. My experience(with severe ADHD-C) is that this type of advice can work. It's just that it's not something you can just decide to start doing and immediately find success at. It's just a lot more complicated to get this off the ground, but it's possible. For some complex organisational system, you need to compile that system into "ADHD byte code" and for that, you need to bootstrap a compiler. Create an incredibly simple, extensible system which can do things your ADHD brain can't on its own. Then you need to find ways to force yourself to follow that system using various hacks like alarms tied to QR codes, body doubling, regular therapy or home visits, etc. then you can start implementing more complex structure in that system. And even the simple system is not gonna be easy. It's gonna take months of trying, failing, starting over. The ADHD brain is absolutely capable of developing habits(just look at the comorbidity rates between ADHD and various types of addiction), it's just a lot of work.

I'm in the process of doing this myself, and after 8 months, with many setbacks, I kinda have a base system I'm following that's significantly improving my quality of life and ability to keep up with everyday tasks. And it's still a struggle, but it's getting easier.

I'm writing a blog post about it currently, which will be more structured. It's about how I used my software dev skills to think about and tackle my ADHD(and other issues). Not about writing actual software(although software is involved), but imagining the brain exhibiting ADHD is a software system , identifying the "bugs", and combining concepts from software dev and behavioral/cognitive psychology to fix, or at least mitigate them.

This blog post could be finished two days from now, two years from now, or never. ADHD is still hard to live with, and I'm still quite dysfunctional. I guess if I do finish it, it'll be worth reading since I'll be on to something...

Also, in bigger cities(Oslo in my case), even if you throw empties in public trash cans, they get fished out by various types of poor people who walk around all day collecting them. Though I tend to leave them next to the trashcan as long as it's not too windy, just as a nice gesture to the less fortunate. Or, often you'll see one of them as you finish your drink and you just hand them the bottle. Of course, I'd prefer a society where people didn't need to do this to get their next fix or meal or whatever it is, but it is sort of neat that utrash sorting can just naturally emerge in a society once the trash is imbued with monetary value.

One wonders why we don't do this with larger categories of garbage that needs to be sorted. I suppose bottles and cans are fairly easy to semi-automate given their fairly standardised shapes. But that just feels like an implementation detail.

For me, who's daily driven FreeBSD in the past, and switched back to it again recently. FreeBSD serves as a refuge from systemd, and the only BSD that is a fairly drop in replacement for linux in terms of software compatibility, as well as the only game in BSD town in terms of support for modern hardware.(though it does significantly lag Linux in this regard still, so YMMV).

As to why I use it over the various systemd free linux distros? Well, there's a couple things. First lot of those distros, like Artix linux say, actually have smaller communities than FreeBSD(I'm guesstimating based on the activity level in their irc channels). The Linux community might be much, much larger than the FreeBSD community, but it's also extremely fragmented.

triggerwarning, hyperbole incoming. Don't bother correcting me, it's a polemic, not a scientific paper

Secondly, for someone like me, who's been using various unix like OSes for two decades, FreeBSD is just a nice, batteries included, well integrated system. Things like jails, Dtrace, ZFS, Bhyve, pf etc. All being in the base install means they're just better integrated with the kernel, and eachother. Most of those things exist for linux, or have equivalents, but they're not all part of the same project. Obviously Dtrace and ZFS originated in Solaris, but they've been made first-class citizens. There's a harmony to FreeBSD that Linux distros lack. Documentation is also very good, all accessible via manpages(no GNU INFO...). And, as I mentioned briefly before. It doesn't have a lot of the cruft that's been added to linux distros over the years(though some of it is available in ports if you want it). In FreeBSD, my experience is actually useful. Things I remember how to do from 5 years ago, 10 years ago, 15 years ago, still work. If I'm on some modern, plug and play linux distro, I have no idea what's going on under the hood any more. All I know is it's not what was going on 5 years ago, which isn't what was going on 10 years ago, which isn't what was going on 15 years ago. The amount of pointless churn going on in the linux space is ridiculous. When I started using linux, what I loved about it was that it was transparent. I could change anything. The system was easy to understand. Yes, it was janky, but it was understandable jank, whereas Windows was janky in an opaque way. 20 years later, Linux is still janky, but nothing is understandable, at least not to my greybeard brain. Systemd takes over a new daemon every distro upgrade. DNS resolving now involves 4 different daemons with 15 different configuration files, there's two display protocols, both broken in different ways, /etc is full of long files written in strange, alien languages, and every file has its own bespoke language. There seems to be 54 different ways to make any change to your system, and all of them are somehow unsatisfactory in a unique way. I just can't, anymore. Enough already.

Exactly. I'm in Norway, and here, to watch the English Premier League legally, the price this latest season was over $70 per month. Keeping in mind the fact that most people will maybe watch one game(their team's game) a week, the prices are just getting absurd. There's no way to buy single games, subscribing to games for a single team, etc. To watch the 38 games your team will play last season, the only available option was to buy access to all 760 games. The company holding these rights is struggling financially, layoffs and all. Because their subscription numbers have plummeted

They've already crossed the threshold where this is no longer profitable. The next licencing deal will likely be so expensive, no Norwegian or Scandinavian company could possibly be able to turn a profit from it.

Of course, the CEO of the company has been in the media talking about how IPTV funds criminal networks and such nonsense*, calling for bans, yadda yadda. They're not listening to the market at all. Just using illegal streaming as a scapegoat. And I've decided, as long as this is how it's gonna be, they're not seeing a single dime of my money.

* I find the concept absurd. No matter where we spend our money, some of it ends up with criminals and various other despicable people, who will use it for evil. No one has the ability to prevent this. There's no reasonable expectation in current societal and economic structures for the consumer to somehow keep track of all their money once it leaves their wallet. This is no more the case for IPTV than it is when I buy a burger from some hole in the wall, which unbeknownst to me is a money laundering front. Or when I buy some chocolate and most of the money ends up with some white rich guy and not the children in Africa who harvested the cocoa. The whole argument is so intellectually dishonest and morally pathetic it pisses me off. And I don't even pay for IPTV.

Sure, if you wanna be reductive, absolutist and cynical about it. What you're conveniently leaving out though is that there are varying degrees of trust you can place in the result depending on who did it. And in many cases with people, the odds they screwed it up are so low they're not worth considering. I'm arguing LLMs are fundamentally and architecturally incapable of reaching that level of trust, which was probably obvious to anyone interpreting my comment in good faith.

That's all well and good for this particular example. But in general, the verification can often be so much work it nullifies the advantage of the LLM in the first place.

Something I've been using perplexity for recently is summarizing the research literature on some fairly specific topic(e.g. the state of research on the use of polypharmacy in treatment of adult ADHD). Ideally it should look up a bunch of papers, look at them and provide a summary of the current consensus on the topic. At first, I thought it did this quite well. But I eventually noticed that in some cases it would miss key papers and therefore provide inaccurate conclusions. The only way for me to tell whether the output is legit is to do exactly what the LLM was supposed to do; search for a bunch of papers, read them and conclude on what the aggregate is telling me. And it's almost never obvious from the output whether the LLM did this properly or not.

The only way in which this is useful, then, is to find a random, non-exhaustive set of papers for me to look at(since the LLM also can't be trusted to accurately summarize them). Well, I can already do that with a simple search in one of the many databases for this purpose, such as pubmed, arxiv etc. Any capability beyond that is merely an illusion. It's close, but no cigar. And in this case close doesn't really help reduce the amount of work.

This is why a lot of the things people want to use LLMs for requires a "definiteness" that's completely at odds with the architecture. The fact that LLMs are food at pretending to do it well only serves to distract us from addressing the fundamental architectural issues that need to be solved. I think think any amount of training of a transformer architecture is gonna do it. We're several years into trying that and the problem hasn't gone away.

Again, I didn't write this, but in general, to take a chess engine and apply to another game the main things you'd have to change are the board representation, and you'd have to retrain the neural net(likely redesign it as well). The tree search should work assuming the game you're going to is also a perfect information, minimax game. Though it could also work for other games. There's a good chance there's prior work on applying bitboards(board representation) on whichever game that is. Chessprogrammingwiki is an invaluable resource for information about how engines like this work. Godspeed.

Could you elaborate on this? I thought alpha-beta first appeared way back in the 50s/60s.

Not the author, but probably very poorly. This seems more like a proof of concept, it's written in Python, has a very basic tree search which is very light on heuristics. And likely the NN is undertrained too, but I can't tell from the repo. In comparison Stockfish is absurdly optimised in every aspect, from its datastructures to its algorithms. Considering how long it took the LeelaZero team to get their implementation to be competitive with latest Stockfish, I'd be shocked if this thing stood a chance.

Of course, beating Stockfish is almost certainly not the goal for this project, looks more like a project to get familiar with MLX.

Am I the only one amused that nVidia flagship GPUs are now so large that you can fit 3 backbacks inside their packaging?

Please tell me this is sarcasm. I mean, I know people love to extrapolate current LLM capabilities into arbitrary future capabilities via magical thinking, but "infinite context" really takes the cake.

IANAB, but from what I do understand. It depends what you mean by different genes. Information wise, DNA is a string of base 4 digits(nucleotides) in groups of 3 digits, these groups are called codons. Each codon corresponds to a specific amino acid*. A protein is made up of a bunch of different amino acids chained together. The gene determines which amino acids are chained together and in what order. This long chain of amino acids tends to fold up into a complex 3 dimensional structure, and this 3 dimensional structure determines the protein's function.

Now, there are a couple ways a gene could be different without altering the protein's function. It turns out multiple codons can code for the same amino acid. So if you switch out one codon for another which codes for the same amino acid, obviously you get a chemically identical sequence and therefore the exact same protein. The other way is you switch an amino acid, but this doesn't meaningfully affect the folded 3D structure of the finished protein, at least not in a way that alters its function. Both these types of mutations are quite common; because they don't affect function, they're not "weeded out" by evolution and tend to accumulate over evolutionary time.

* except for a few that are known as start and stop codons. They delineate the start and end of a gene.

That part looks fine to me, but then again I'm a lisp guy.

>With weed, there's no another way

Based on what, your personal experience talking to stoners in college? Plenty of people smoke socially, and among people who smoke cannabis, only a small fraction "lock themselves into apartments and smoke weed all day". In fact, that fraction is much smaller than the fraction of people who drink alcohol who lock themselves in their apartments drinking all day. And I don't know if you've spent any time with those people, but they all have cognitive issues too. As do people who do speed all day. As do people who do heroin all day.

Cannabis can be a wonderful social drug, as can amphetamine or cocaine, and I'm sure even opioids, though I don't touch those because I have significant genetic risk for opioid addiction.

I don't think judging a drug by its most addicted users is fair. Especially since you're doing that for weed, and then comparing that to the most reasonable alcohol users.

All that being said, I absolutely agree that cannabis is not good for you in large quantities. It's absolutely bad for cognitive ability, working memory, and long term memory when used chronically. But the only people I've met who would disagree with that are cannabis addicts, and usually young ones at that(the older ones tend to figure it out unless they stay stoned for their entire lives, which does happen). Most people I talk to are well aware of these things. And at least from my own experience, these effects will generally pass once you cut down.