In your experience, can you take the tech debt riddled code, and ask claude to come up with an entirely new version that fixes the tech debt/design issues you've identified? Presumably there's a set of tests that you'd keep the same, but you could leverage the power of ai in greenfield scenarios to just do a rewrite (while letting it see the old code). I dont know how well this would work, i havn't got to the heavy tech debt stage in any of my projects as I do mostly prototyping. I'd be interested in others thoughts.
Would you mind expanding on what you do for anticorruption? It has been something ive been thinking about and wanting to get into lately. It seems like complete poison to democracy, and more should be done to bring it to light wherever it occurs
generally there is a "temperature" parameter that can be used to add some randomness or variety to the LLMs outputs by changing the likelihood of the next word being selected. This means you could just keep regenerating the same response and get different answers each time. each time it will give different plausible responses, and this is all from the same model. This doesn't mean it believes any of them, it just keeps hallucinating likely text, some of which will fit better than others. It is still very much the same brain (or set of trained parameters) playing with itself.
I have been using search for engines for 30 years, my queries are not vague, i put as many keywords and "inurl"s and whatnot in as i can manage. I dont use kagi blocklists. Google results for my specific queries are garbage. I am much happier with kagi. If you are happy with google, thats fine too. Perhaps we are just in different bubbles and mine are not well served by google.
I haven't found quoting helps much. I also feel like i shouldnt have to craft search queries with a lot of inurl or other tags or quoting. Kagi just seems to work better. Its worth 10$ a month to me to not have to worry about it, I use search engines a lot.
I have used kagi for quite a while now, and i use it pretty much exclusively. I was unhappy with google ignoring many terms in my search queries and giving me results that I generally considered to be 'intro' pages and generic content, even when my searches were very specific. I have found kagi much better. I dont use any of the advanced stuff like summarisation or ai stuff, i just want search results that have my keywords in them.
You need to break down the lignin without damaging the cellulose. Boiling and mashing doesnt do this very well, you still get bundles of fibres sticking together, you really need them all to separate. The bonds holding lignins together are slightly different between grasses and wood. For grasses sodium carbonate or hydroxide dissolves the lignin pretty well (i havnt tried but you could probably get away with wood ash and some salt for this, to provide sodium and high ph), and allows you to make some pretty nice paper. This as far as i know includes things like papyrus, sugarcane etc. Wood is different, you need sodium hydroxide and sodium sulfate to dissolve the lignin. This contributes to the smell of the paper making process where wood is used. I dont think the ancients knew about the use of sulfates, so their papers were mostly made of grasses or leather (vellum).
Of course there has been 'climate change' and 'global warming' before, caused by things like large volcanic eruptions (deccan traps) or meteorites. But they have pretty universally coincided with mass extinctions. And when we say glabal warming is anthropogenic, we mean this time humans are causing the warming by emitting a lot of co2 (and methane and no2 etc). It is fairly unequivocal at this point. This time its entirely within our power to prevent another mass extinction, because this this time we are causing it. Why wouldnt we try?
Australian houses aren't bought with american dollars though. If this were the case wouldnt we see a big correlation between house prices and USD exchange rates? Why wouldn't the correlation be with other currencies such as china. Honest questions, it seems to me like massive immigration/low supply seems to e plain things pretty well.
What is the coconut coir for? How did you stick everything together? Does it all go in a bag of some sort? How does price compare to retail mattresses? Hoe comfortable is it?
If a 'superintelligence' achieves the same outcomes as humans without engaging in the same class of intellectual tasks that humans do, wouldnt it still be a superitelligence? Deep blue was beating everybody at chess without engaging in the same process as humans. If chess is a metaphor for life, it seems some algorithm might do better at all the things a human does while not arriving at its decisions in a remotely similar way.
The title "you wont survive as human capital" sounds interesting, but beyond the first paragraph, i cant quite connect the content to the title, it seems to mostly talk about the size of political groups. I feel like it needs a conclusion paragraph that ties the points made in the article back to the central point.
Humans are currently on track for around 4 degrees of warming by 2100 assuming we hit all our current emission reduction targets (i.e. reaching net zero when governments have said they would). So removals are quite necessary.
This whole 'undesireable side reactions' thing is completely overblown for basalts. The effects to soil of volcanic ash from eruptions is quite well studied, not to mention crushed basalt is a recognised fertiliser in organic and biodynamic farming, and there have been places spreading it each year for the last 40 years (purely as a fertliser). You cant use rocks with significant sulphides or other heavy metals though, that has to be tested before spreading. Basalt is quite wide spread.
The fourier transform converts between time domain and frequency domain. The fourier transform is linear, which means it can be implemented as multiplying your time domain signal by a matrix of complex fourier coefficients. Usually we dont do it this way because the fft is faster than matrix multplication, but the result is the same.
Im australian, and a "couple of things" is some small number, like 2-4. Using it for exactly 2 seems like people are confusing it with 2 things that are coupled. Why not just say 2 if thats what you mean.
That is a completely different usage of the word as far as I'm concerned, like confusing nut ( and bolt) with nut (from a tree), in this case 'a couple' like two people in a relationship implies a link, like they are coupled. A couple of apples does not imply any link, it just means some small number.
you mention climate being a waste, but one of the only extinction events bigger than KT was the permian triassic, and that was caused by high atmospheric CO2. We're already on track for a pretty bad time (if all current government climate commitments are met, we're still on track for 3.8 degrees of warming by 2100, which is already a mass extinction), I would put climate induced mass extinctions above asteroid induced ones, just because we are in one now, and it is guaranteed to get worse.
This is in the voluntary carbon markets, quite separate to regulated carbon markets. It is unfortunate that so many may be junk, but in the end 380 billion T of carbon needs to be removed from the atmosphere between 2050 and 2100 to keep earth at 1.5 degree warming, assuming we hit current net zero pledges. This just means more regulation is needed for trust, not that carbon markets themselves should be ditched.
If the sea ice melts and the chicks drown before they develop waterproof feathers, then the melting ice could easily be the culprit, and still captive breeding would work.
Sticking aerials in the soil seems so unlikely to work. Even theoretically, an aerial would mostly be picking up human transmissions, resulting in vanishingly small voltages/currents in the soil. If there is indeed an effect, why not just use a fixed source/oscillator and find the optimal parameters. I think i need to try this myself, on the outside chance there is some effect.
The next trend line to look at is that without pulling co2 out of atmosphere, just quitting fossil fuels still gets us to 3.2 degrees of warming (this is IPCC modelling). This is climate armageddon. So the growth in renewable energy means nothing if we dont get real good at offseting emissions.
A lot of carbon needs to be removed from the atmosphere, something needs to do it at scale. The IPCC says we’ll need global cumulative net-negative emissions of 380 GtCO2 from 2050 to 2100 to return to 1.5°C after a likely overshoot. Focusing solely on emissions reduction will lead us directly to a global warming induced dystopia.
The increase in demand drives up the price of offsets, which increases supply and investment in better carbon capture techniques and scaling. Im lumping in things like direct air capture, bioenergy carbon capture and storage, and enhanced weathering as offset generating technologies that are currently too expensive to be widespread, but with higher carbon prices would become practical.