I created a make-your-own-circuit simulator in python to help learn electronics. The best part about this is that it is entirely hosted online and people can just go through the lessons, learn electronics by skipping the maths, and in the process have made their own circuit simulator (which is arguably a pretty cool project on its own) at the end of it.
I think they are largely uncorrelated, in fact I'm willing to go out on a limb and say that they are anti-correlated. James Maxwell, who everyone regards as absolute genius, was a famously bad teacher. My own grad experience also adds that an absolute beast of a researcher is not necessarily the best teacher. I believe the term "curse of knowledge" is popular enough that it suggests people who are way too deep into their abstractions seldom rise above it when it comes to communication. Hence the stereotype of nerds being socially awkward and hard to communicate with.
Hi HN, in the era of agents where people produce upwards of 15 pages under 5 minutes, I present you "I wrote this slowly," a medium that forces you to take your time. Any communication shared via this medium is guaranteed to have taken a defined amount of time to generate. Next time you send your colleagues an appreciation, write apology letters to friends, or communicate something with a human touch, use this app and let them know that you took your time to write it.
For the life of me, I could never get electronics. I used to love the idea of me coming up with electronic circuit designs, but the arcane art of electronics never really clicked for me because I just couldn't intuitively grasp the maths no matter which book I read (AoE, I'm looking at you). But then it hit me, I don't need maths, I just need a formal language to represent the circuits. So over the past few weeks, I worked on a code your own spice (the electronic simulator). So now, for the first time in history, I finally understand how circuits work and how they are designed. And I did this all by coding circuits in python and making my own functional spice (which used to seem impossible at one point, it's surprising how easy it is though).
I gave it a book on human consciousness I was writing and it flagged it. This model is hilariously bad. Anthropic has defanged this model to the point of malice. No way am I paying to use something that is basically useless.
i'm sorry, I meant attention of the project (as in surfacing it). It'd be worth specifying your methodology somewhere in the page. That is arguably an important piece of important.
I'm not sure if there are any research showcasing the effects humanity has had in general due to low sun exposure. From all the benefits of Vitamin D and the recent human behavorial shift leading to low sun exposure (car travel, air conditioning, sunscreens even), there are bound to be new biological or psychological changes humanity is experiencing for the first time.
Precisely. People don't realize that it's all numbers. Given average IQ of people involved in a project is 140, an AI with an IQ of 150 can replicate each and every such individuals in the pipeline. People saying AI can't do this or AI can't do that should come to terms with the fact that this IQ gap is monotonously increasing.
Clever. My first impression was that surely this saturates the filter too fast as we're setting more bits at once but looks like the maths checks out. It's one of those non-intuitive things that I am glad I learned today.
AI will scrape your blog and your personal philosophy will eventually become a part of collective Human Intelligence. That's a pretty good reason to blog imo.
I remember it vaguely but there used to be a badge awarded for being among the first 100 people to solve the problem. I was obsessed with getting that badge to the point that I spent obscene amount of time solving the-then recently released problem even when the following day was my final exams. I did manage to get that badge though. This was circa 2013. Fun times!
That would be something that is intelligent to you. I believe the author (or anyone in general) should be focused on mining what intelligence objectively is.
Perhaps it was due to English not being my primary language, but it took me an embarrassing amount of time to learn that probability and likelihood are different concepts. Concretely, we talk about probability of observing a data given an underlying assumption (model) is true while we talk about the likelihood of the model being true given we observe some data.
If you think about it, this has evolutionary advantages as well. No time to feel pain when your life itself may be in peril due to starvation. Finding food for sustenance easily supercedes recovery.
Reminds me of Simulated Annealing. Some randomness have always been part of optimization processes that seek a better equilbrium than local. Genetic Algorithms have mutation, Simulated Annealing has temperature, Gradient Descent similarly has random batches.
Nice effort. As far as textbooks for QM, Electrodynamics, and any sufficiently complex field of study goes, I always feel that these have been written using abstractions that people have developed much later retroactively. I understand the advantages: it makes the entire content concise, structured, and basically straightforward. However, what I crave is a technical book that is based upon the history of the subject. Something that doesn't start immediately with Hilbert spaces but starts off by talking about why Max Plank did what he did, how did Einstein improve upon it, what mistakes were made, what misguided hypothesis were later corrected in what manner, how were different things then unified... you get the point. I think this narrative based approach would motivate me much better than something that's condensed and distilled.