bartnp

Funny, for me it seems terrible exactly for the opposite reason. These kinds of baskets are too heavily weighted by things that go relatively down in costs like technology and airplane tickets.

The monetary reason is that the reason those things go down is because of technology advances and not because of changes in the value of the currency. Inflation should be about the currency, and less about what cool advances people are doing to make cheaper TVs and better websites

The practical reason is that if the basics like rent and food go up relative to wages, then a lot of people end up crushed by the basics alone and have no disposable income left for the cool stuff. The baskets are often too biased towards spending patterns of those who live the good life and for whom luxuries actually matter

If LLM's are going to keep finding vulnerabilities of this magnitude, we'll be sure to face a computer worm event of unprecedented scale soon. Best be ready for the moment the lights turn off

Funny, I've been having the opposite nitpicky issue with astra and sol, where

they

constantly put

linebreaks

on

trivial things

in c#

like

string foo(

string bar){

throw new Exception(

"TODO");

}

I hope the LLM's will tackle theoretical physics next. If you think the math community is bad in terms of gatekeeping, and it is, the physics community is so much worse. Even community insiders are afraid to share their more unusual ideas at risk of becoming pariah's, outsiders have no chance. And that while they seem more or less stuck in their current track.

Admittedly it's also just really hard to come up with something better than the current track, but doing better has to start with being eager to explore different directions. Even if the new directions don't quite work just yet. And that eagerness just isn't there in the community, new directions are threats to the careers of sensitive people

No, based on the professions named within the inscriptions. If a province has relatively many professions that are rare for the WRE, then it's considered more complex. See the paper for the actual estimates, the map in the article does not show the complexity estimation

>but I believe there were other possibilities.

Imo, the best solution is to just keep every time/date format eternally backwards compatible. And if you do need a change, whether that's leap seconds or daylights saving changes or whatnot: just create a new format

Except now there's no longer any guarantees there's even any people you can point at. It's already often diffuse responsbilitiy. Maybe today you can still sort of get around that by pointing at business/organization owners. But soon we're going to see situations where that isn't even realistic. For example if AI agents start spinning up their own agents which work outside of the control of anyone. We're going to need some way to deal with that.

>these companies need to adhere to the scientific community rather than expecting the opposite

Why? The pre-existing community doesn't own science.

Considering how hostile the community sometimes is to outsiders, how they frequently demand form over function and think connections are often more important than correctness of argument, perhaps it's good for them to be confronted with a new approach to science that does away with those things and returns to the real cornerstones: proof and empiricism.

If you don't want to engage with proofs that's your call, many of us are happy to see progress being made and don't need you specifically for the confirmation

I think this happens all the time actually, but it's often smaller scale. Like someone writes a neat architecture to do X at their company, and later someone else walks in, looks at this code and sees it's now super easy to do Y, which then turns out to have immense user/business value.

I have had periods where I mostly gave up on books because I actually rarely found them to be the right level of stimulating. Novels rarely stimulate, or even when they do, it often comes with relatively little learning per unit of time. Meanwhile some books such as advanced physics textbooks can be so overwhelmingly difficult and have so many missing prerequisites that you hit a brick wall in understanding and also learn little.

Now even knowing some great books exist, it can be quite difficult to find those works in the goldilocks zone of being worthwhile while accessible enough. So difficult even that the part where you are searching becomes so time consuming that it still ends up missing the mark on stimulation or learning per hour.

And so generally I find programming or working on other intellectual projects more worthwhile than reading, and reading books has kind of drifted into being a low stimulation activity I do when I'm tired or don't have the focus time for projects.

How do you get around that? How do you find and select what is actually worthwhile to read?

Yep.

And as an ignoramus: what it is that you are supposed to be using nowadays?

Think in the context of a small company making enterprise .NET (framework) code where Windows is the world, cloud wouldn't fly with the customers, SOAP is still king and your one IT guy is too busy to notice anything happened after 2010. Suppose also that entire software rewrites are impossibly impractical, and that while you'd love to take some security gains, you just don't have the capacity to do configuration deep dives let alone to gamble on something complex like Kubernetes.