cheesecakegood
cheesecakegood on Hacker News
In theory I could still see a hellish reality where a TV will automatically join any free guest WiFis (eg a neighbor’s) and update its firmware that way!
I like how Matt Levine at Bloomberg put it - crypto is just “speedrunning the history of [traditional] finance”.
I think a lot of people seem to believe that the current setup of banks, currency, and regulation (writ large) is arbitrary and unique, but a lot of the basic building blocks are actually quite natural consequences of evergreen problems handling money.
Please keep this kind of AI-written comment out of the forum. If you have something worth saying, say it yourself!
Stupidly expensive from one perspective, but if you look at clothing and fashion it’s actually more surprising to me that the market effectively tops out where it does. Billionaires have more or less the exact same phone options as we do, and from base model to top model is only a bit more than 2x differential.
I think bigger efforts won’t work when smaller ones have been so haphazard. For example, “e.g.” I feel should become just “eg” in writing purely for convenience’s sake (plus almost everyone likely understands what you mean)
I just call it “pi but for curves”
I’ve long been struck by this study [1], “Parents think - incorrectly - that teaching their children that the world is a bad place is good for them”.
To tl;dr a bit, this and other analyses tend to agree that whatever benefit you get from being too paranoid, distrusting, skeptical, etc in the name of safety is often overcome by the additional opportunities you get from being open, trusting, optimistic, and so on.
In other words, it is best to teach your children the world is a good and wonderful place; they can usually adjust their expectations accordingly later, but the reverse is less true, since it’s much harder to gain that sense of wonder and trust from nothing.
[1] https://ppc.sas.upenn.edu/sites/default/files/parentsprimalb...
…but that ended up being Ukraine
I think Anthropic are sincere but nutcases. Despite this, I’m glad they are around, because diversity of thought is good in the current environment.
At least
in theory (TypeSafe has been pretty close-lipped about the details so this might just be hot air, and I think the evidence is a bit spotty) this is false, since they use a different reinforcement training method.
If the word “calibration” in probability doesn’t mean anything to you, the difference isn’t very apparent, but that doesn’t mean it doesn’t exist.
For those sick of “Pareto frontier” talk, just shorthand it as “it’s the best at some very
particular thing”. Obviously that one thing/tradeoff it’s good at may not necessarily be compelling, but it is either a loose sign of quality, or a sign that they’ve chased some tiny edge into the ground.
I’ll be curious to see which it becomes in the next year - nba “very narrow record”, or a sign you can hang with the big boys.
Most Mormons are not Christian nationalists and in fact tend to oppose such, especially in comparison to most red states and evangelicals.
Right, and part of that is nurturing student interest and buy-in, because it can increase. Traditionally smart teaching and the right structure could result in some percentage of reluctant learners being drawn into good habits and better retention. I think the subtle part of the AI in education crisis is how it basically has smothered that "nurturing" in the cradle, right from the get-go, so it's a bit of a cold-start situation in many classes.
Flipped classrooms are like, the quintessential siren song for teachers. EVERY teacher dreams of a day when they can focus on what they're best at (teaching deep topics, getting 'aha' moments, making connections, asking questions, and so on) and do less of what they dislike. But sadly this is just not how things work.
Flipped classrooms have incredibly weak causal evidence. However they are popular in spite of this - perhaps because of this if you're cynical - as the educational research field is pretty questionable in its standards and the profit motive is a strong thing lurking in the background. Wikipedia has a big warning on the article for a reason, but even then it has serious issues.
"Active learning" is a thing (insofar as it has meaning rather than be a useless buzzword catch-all) that does work. But the "flip" specifically does not, or rather, sometimes a mix of extra effort on behalf of the teacher and other loosely related effects occasionally can make a modest impact that makes up for its failings.
Most of the people pushing flipped classrooms are the same people who think that students learn best when they "discover" concepts on their own, maybe with a bit of guidance. This is the other, more serious, lie in education right now, akin to the whole idea that you didn't need to teach phonics to kids when they learn to read.
I mean, News is a collection of newspapers who pretty famously have supported themselves via advertising basically since forever, so complaining about ads in News to me is like complaining that a hamburger combo on a fast food menu includes soda. If you read the news, you get ads is a pretty normal social contract.
“Requires” is a strong word. Apple does have an extremely easy mouse-only solution for this and it dates back over a decade: map the fan-out selector (I forget what they call it these days, maybe Mission Control?) to a “hot corner”.
Additionally romhacks exist assuming you own the original game, which layer some quality of life tweaks on top! For the SNES version at least.
In theory Jev “calibrates” the probabilities, meaning a probability of 20% is optimized to happen near 20% of the time, which as you point out traditional models with schemas do NOT optimize for at all
Personally I think every single medium to long form piece of writing should go through an LLM
grammar check at the minimum (they are great at catching stuff like correcting “reign in” to “rein in”, not to mention their/they’re and so on) although I don’t think they generally have the self control to make the corrections themselves without screwing stuff up.
I can see being lazy and skipping it, but refusing to use them even for more minimal advice purposes seems crazy to me.
I wonder if a good analogy would be, they are trying to tune the “gut feeling” of a model more directly
If luck = something you didn’t choose or had no control over, sure.
If luck = it could have gone otherwise, that’s nonsensical; if you had different parents you wouldn’t exist to begin with, as you are literally a specific fusion of your biological parents. Similarly, if we take luck to mean something probabilistic, or something coincidental? Also meaningless in this case.
If luck = how your situation compares to others, I would argue “fortunate” is the better word here.
And of course there’s a parallel spiritual debate if you believe that identity to be separate (were you “assigned” to parents, was it deliberate or random, etc)
I’ve seen about 8 therapists and 3 coaches at various times in the last 15 years. 5-6/8 and 2/3 respectively were, I eventually realized, mostly in it for the money and didn’t actually care too much (if at all) about me making any positive changes permanent. It wasn’t all bad; having someone confidential to talk to is in itself valuable, but the cost/benefit ratio is not at all consistent.
With that kind of benchmark comparison, it’s not all that hard for AI to present some kind of favorable value proposition, even if also inconsistent but with a harder ceiling on the upside.
Yeah, because sleeping directly on the ground leaches heat from your body too fast, because of said lack of insulation. Sleeping too directly on the ground is also particularly dangerous in survival scenarios, doubly so if you are cold or wet. A common mistake when assembling a temporary shelter is to spend all your time on the “roof” but very little on the “floor”.
Yeah, I really think this should be the new universal standard. Mostly for respect reasons, but also going through and saying “what DOES my app actually do?” (which is something writing a README forces you to think about) is pretty much the minimal last line of defense attempt at quality control.
You can and probably should do more quality control than that, but it’s a reasonable assumption that if the initial landing document hasn’t been quality checked, the rest hasn’t either.
AI is not deeply unpopular, that’s just nonsense. The complaint ratio is just relatively high from a loud minority. Don't believe me? Just check Pew.
https://www.pewresearch.org/internet/2026/06/17/americans-an...
It’s true that about half of all adults overall never use chatbots, but it’s not out of a negative perception, it’s largely just lack of interest with a side of privacy concerns and inaccuracy concerns. While people do tend to think AI will eventually be a net negative in society, this isn’t like an overwhelming feeling and opinions on the impact to themselves personally is less strong, not more.
I do get the sentiment for sure.
Personally though? I’ve made peace with the fact that I might have a 20/month subscription indefinitely. It’s slowly working its way towards being like a cell phone or Internet bill, although there’s reason to hope that the amount might decrease over time eventually.
It also works as extremely effective engagement farming, for lack of a better phrase
I’ve personally found that Google’s AI mode is surprisingly capable and almost absurdly fast, although the hallucination rate is somewhat proportionally higher too to match its seeming over-responsiveness. Which means Perplexity in effect doesn’t have anything to differentiate it.
I’ve long been curious what you (and a lot of people that express this) feel the cutoff is to know how to code? Because obviously there’s a sliding scale between truly knowing very little, being able to adapt similar work, extensive modifications, coding everything from scratch, etc. on top of understanding certain programming concepts and organization.