eterevsky

Looks suspicious, but the proof is significantly different.

I drew "girl, born in the Balkans in 3208 BCE", which I find super remarkable since this fits the place and time for a relatively small population of people who spoke Proto-Indo-European as their native language.

Isn't the same as just taking every triangle from the mesh, calculating the volume of a prism-like polytope between it and its projection on one the planes, and then taking it with a + sign if its projection is oriented in one direction, and with a - sign if it's oriented in another? This kind of formula works based on the basic geometry.

With my minimal steering Fable wrote 20k LoC porting JAX library to Mac with Apple Silicon. It currently passes 98.4% test from the original JAX test suite. The performance is about 10x compared to the CPU on the same machine (I'm testing on M5 Ultra).

Within OS consistency is much less of thing a thing than Web design conventions. Windows by itself has had several different UI frameworks over the years, so different "native" Windows programs can look completely different from each other.

They are comparing it to Haiku 4.5. Not Opus, not Sonnet, but Haiku, the smallest Anthropic model, 3 versions old.

You can absolutely negotiate to work 4 days weeks and get 80% salary. I've been working like this for the last 3-4 years.

It was an alternative to RSS from 20 years ago that didn't catch on.

I don't often use AI to cleanup my texts, but when I do, I fully own the output. I make a conscious decision whether to leave in every AI suggestion or not. The final text _is_ what I want to say.

It's a good advice, if you are watching on a reference monitor in a dark room.

James Cameron is one of the few who do this.

I think whether any text is written with the help of AI is not the main issue. The real issue is that for texts like police reports a human still has to take full responsibility for its contents. If we preserve this understanding, than the question of which texts are generated by AI becomes moot.

In all seriousness, XSLT looked stillborn even 25 years ago when it was introduced.

If they are replacing a fixed cosmological constant by a model with variable dark energy, doesn't it introduce extra parameters that describe the evolution of dark energy over time? If so, wouldn't it lead to overfitting? Can overfitting alone explain better match of the new model to the data?

Probably not for 32” monitor, but I think 8k would be noticeably better for a 43”.

The plan is to improve AI agents from their current ~intern level to a level of a good engineer.

This article seems to argues from the way scientific discoveries are made by humans. It seems to me that its gist is similar to some article from the 80s that claims that computers will never play good chess, or an article from the 2000s that claims the same for go.

The general shape of these arguments is: "Playing chess/go well, or making scientific discoveries requires specific way of strategic thinking or the ability to form the right hypotheses. Computers don't do this, ergo they won't be able to play chess or make scientific discoveries".

I don't think this is a very good frame of reasoning. A scientific question can take one of the following shapes:

- (Mathematical) Here's a mathematical statement. Prove either it or its negation.

- (Fundamental natural science) Here're the results of the observations. What are the simplest possible model that explains all of them?

- (Engineering) We need to do X. What's an efficient way of doing it?

All of these questions could be solved in a "human" way, but it also possible to train AIs to approach them without going through the same process as the human scientists.

If we achieved local maximum at something, the only way to progress is to make a big leap that brings you out of it. The trouble is that most of such big leaps are unsuccessful. For every case like you are describing there are probably hundreds or thousands of people who tried to do it and ended up with something worse than the status quo.

ZIP codes are a simple approximation, which does their job good enough in most cases.

The alternatives that the author suggests are much more complicated, both in terms of the implementation and in terms of convincing the user to give you their full address.

I would assume some limit no higher than 2^64, since all common file systems have file size limits: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Comparison_of_file_systems

Government employees are never elected. They are hired by the elected officials. In this case the general public in the US was aware of DOGE before the election and chose to vote for it.

Because it was the only widely used generic text format for structured data.

To be precise, JSON was a replacement for XML, not the other way around. And the problem with XML was that it's way to verbose and difficult to write by hand, so it's exactly the opposite of the direction YAML/JSON5/... are taking.

This entirely depends on the subscription fee, doesn't it? The amount of ad revenue that the service is getting for you is limited, even accounting for the fact that as a paying user you might push the price of ads up a bit.

If you set the subscription fee above this value, you as a service will be better off regardless of the advertizers.

It is always possible to have several tiers of subscriptions, a cheap tier with some additional feature and ads, and a higher tier with no ads at all.

I am perfectly willing to pay extra to support a website or service that I'm using, but only if it removes all ads.

In C++ you can force the move of the parameter by wrapping it with std::move() this should take care of unnecessarily cloning the argument in the example.

470'000 ft = 140 km altitude

Because for that to make sense you need to have some strong evidence that the resulting status quo will be better for consumers than the present situation. You don't break monopolies just for the sake of breaking monopolies. You do that to avoid locking into some suboptimal outcomes for consumers.

It sounds like you want to artificially make the dominant product worse (i.e. non-free) just to make the life of competitors easier.