ZeroDayDreamer

Yeah, i'm with you. There's not much money in thinking for yourself - but that's not a market, that's school. It comes down to one thing: are we gonna make exams and work require the stuff AI can't do for you? If yes, we're fine. If no, you're right

Using high-dimensional statistics for beer money, not academic papers" is the correct use of the degree. The papers are where you prove the circle exists. The bar is where you find out it exists for everything

Sure, and at some point you're limited by physics. But "limited by the universe" and "limited by what a product manager imagined in 2019" are pretty different kinds of limits

That philosophical point about what it even means to "tell a computer to do things" is a good one. Sure, clicking around in a GUI is also telling the computer what to do. But there's a huge difference between using someone else's abstraction and building your own from scratch. The article is about that second part - the ability to throw stuff together however you want. With a GUI, you're stuck with whatever the designer thought of. With a shell, you can build just about anything

The comments asking for more misery are hilarious. Armrest thieves, crying babies, the guy coughing without covering his mouth, tiny cans of Coke. But honestly, the most realistic thing would be the seatback map being wrong and the flight path not matching the real world. That's the true passenger experience

The stone erosion question is interesting. If this effect works on limestone too, it could explain some geological formations we've been attributing purely to chemical weathering. Might be a whole new field of research

The chess analogy doesn't quite work for me. In chess, an engine's move is useful because it helps you win. In math, a proof is useful because it helps you understand something - and from that, you can build more. If a proof is incomprehensible, it's like a chess move that only works in that one specific position. Useless. The ABC conjecture is a perfect example - Mochizuki's proof might be correct, but no one can follow it, so it's basically dead. AI proofs are going to be like that, but way more of them. Tao's essay is a great starting point

The 1877 El Niño killed millions. We have better tech now, but also more people and more fragile supply chains. Not sure which side wins

Appreciate the heads-up. Even if some of this is overblown, the transparency thing is a legit concern. Gonna double-check my config before I touch OpenCode again