gtr32x

Author made frequent reference to Hebrew text, is there a particular reason historical Hebrew texts uses these methods?

The embedded mini-app ecosystem is a real model in China. Wechat being the most popular platform. Douyin also has a good share of it. You even see such ecosystem in payment apps like Alipay. I'm also certain there are special deals with Apple structured around this concept.

Pretty sure there can be multiple "scans" per location is what they are saying

Using a massive context window is akin to onboarding a new employee before every mundane task performed. While a trained employee will take new task easily with existing context.

The trade off is simply cost. The cost remains in the LLM scene with regards to speed of execution and token cost.

I understand that the answer is no here. Because this method is only suitable for the class of linear system thats the equivalent of sparse matrices. GPUs on the other hand are more optimized for the general purpose matrix multiplication here. Unless it can be shown that there are certain economically high-usage scenarios of this class of problems (e.g. the usage magnitude of bitcoin mining), the investment into this specific research does not seem warranted.

If "free will" is only a subjective feeling and not an objective state

I believe the idea is that not all entities and institutions are eligible to borrow via the FED discount window, e.g. there is the primary credit system (primarily banks), and the second credit system (for some other low risk entities). Thus the repo market serves this segment of the market for liquidity.

I'm curious how true this is, don't they have lock-up periods? Would love to get educated here if that's not the case or there are exceptions.

That actually sounds awful, sorry for my naivety if this is just industry standard. But for such a mission critical piece to have no redundancy build over it is just poor. Especially that it's prone to failure since it's situated on the outside of the plane.

It just seems to be that this is some terrible engineering done on Boeing's end of not fully understanding the critical situation here.

Generally two failures: 1. a lack of redundancy in a mission critical sensor 2. a blind trust on MCAS's priority over pilots

Thanks for the elaboration. Could you help me further understand one more thing? When you say MCAS only listens to one, does that mean during the time when one AoA sensor fails? Or it always listens to one during normal operation?

Also, it does seem like Boeing dropped the ball here to not build further redundancy here.

I've always been confused here on this, does that mean the 737 MAX has a high chance to have faulty reading from their AoA sensors? Or is that pretty much the industry standard right now? This has always seem like the actual culprit.

Reading both of the posts make me believe that Sutton has stated a more global outlook in the progression of complexity than Brooks did, or that Brooks is simply trying to continue to encourage the current generation of AI research.

My naive take of each of their arguments, which are seemingly obvious but nonetheless profound:

Sutton: advancement in computation capacity > specifically devised methods

Brooks: building specific tools help in solving the problem

You see, neither of them are wrong. However, what Brooks is arguing for is essentially - hey, we invented paper, but we have no computer yet, let's make some line paper and graph paper to increase our productivity, hooray! Then what Sutton is saying is, dude, show me how your method will continue to be productive when computers are invented.

I do also want to propose my takeaway from these pieces though. From Brooks I take that building tools/methods is essential to local optimization and tools/methods can be extended to fit new global advancements. And to Sutton's point, we are in a state of ever progression by the extension of the essence of Moore's Law.

Interestingly I was just thinking about this the other day, and hoping that someone here would have the answer. I'm really curious what is the total bandwidth per second across different continently globally without accounting for intra-continent bandwidth?

I think another way to think about it is that we are able to discover a world with a scale such that we are mediocre because it's more convenient for us to place ourselves at such position. What if there exists an alternative dimension on a quark with its own universe is yet something we are able to uncover.

While I don't believe it's hard to see that perspective and be cognizant of it, I don't quite agree with that sentiment. Categorization itself has an immense level of usability. E.g. building steps to simulate a real human with AI. Even if like the below poster says, the spectrum may be more continuous than discrete, it is perhaps much faster to try to advance in a particular field with categorization than solely relying on unsupervised learning.

I'd rather say fortunately for them it is number 1.

Also love the sign up dialog. A quick thing though, the color background for signup page and login page is too similar, so i switch between the two, the mental shift is slightly hard there. Maybe have a different background color for both would be great?

You would know when you have two particles entangled at the moment of entanglement. You could know you have a half of a pair of entangled particles when the other half is sent away. But you could never know when the pair has become disentangled.

In chinese there is a proverb consist of four characters: 相由心生。Its derived meaning is basically that: you will look how you are.

For years I've been daunting over the implications of it. I was never a firm believer nor a firm disbeliever. Advances in modern science such as this article only brings new light to how I think about this.

Whilst it may seem to be a form of discrimination to judge a person by their appearance just like racism or sexism, maybe there is certain evolutionary notion behind this. Maybe we as human have evolved certain abilities to recognize a person's inner traits/personality based on their look. I certainly do not believe that beauty or handsomeness maybe a fact in determining the personality of a person. But through observation a person's confidence or innocence can be somewhat picked out by how they appear. Which I do not believe is correlated with how they portray themselves in terms of exterior such as haircuts or the amount of make up they put on. But rather, their gaze betray them of the real self.

Perhaps that old Chinese proverb has some truth in it, and our science is about to uncover it.

In Canada the situation used to be same that you have to wait until after your contract is over then you can unlock your phone for a petty fee. Fido has just changed their policies early this year to allow unlocking for $50 within half a year of starting a contract. Not sure about other carriers, but can't say how glad I was to see this change as I come to US every few months.

Of course, still unfortunate that I have to pay the fee, though I'd rather have this than in states where you still have to wait until your contract is up.

> (By universe I mean something that follows a defined set of rules.)

I just want to make a mention for this point. Ahh but you see, for all we know, the universe could have simply followed 'a set of rules' up till the point we are living at and until a set future point in the 'timeline' (or something we perceive as the timeline). Then all of a sudden all the laws we know will break because the 'universe' entity decides to play another recording. Then all of knowledge of the 'universe' collapses. I think this is what the parent was talking about. You cannot predict nor even conclude that such scenario cannot happen.

Nah no need to say sorry haha. You brought up some very valid points, just it's hard to category anything as awesome or not in a strictly objective sense.

Throughout human history, there's no telling whether or not a particular event or happening is awesome or not, it's just the natural progression of humankind seeking power and regime.

In terms of contribution towards modern science and industrial revolution though, you are perfectly right about China not participating too much in it. For me personally, I rather feel like the more I learn about life, the more I wonder about the power of mind and less about the materialistic world. Hence ancient Chinese's philosophies of life and Dao is surprisingly more powerful to me than modern scientific advances, yet it seemed to have entirely lost its roots throughout history sadly.

Why then did math, astronomy and other sciences, and natural philosophy not originate in China, but centuries earlier in Europe (with a loose definition of "originate", I know Europeans were not the first)?

A few examples, Pythagoras Theorem is called 勾股定理 in China, named after its individual discoverer Gou Gu from China. Circa 1090~ AD, There is a book called 梦溪笔谈 by Sheng Kuo consisting of discussion of various topics such as Astronomy, Physics, Math etc. Some other books in Math include 数学九章，四元玉鉴。Circa 500～ AD, Zu Chong Zhi figured out Pi to 6 decimal digits. Sorry I didn't have time looking up the English name of those books.

I see you have made your edits thereafter. Though I would just like to say really it's hard to define what is 'awesome' or not as per your argument.

"China invented gun powder, but they didn't use it to gain a military advantage."

So is it awesome to utilize tools made to enhance men's life to slaughter men?

"Most of Chinese philosophy seems to me to be mostly about society and the duty of men etc."

This is largely correct, but it isn't any less than the modern science we have today. Iching in particular is really a science of life, the science of nature. Yet nobody can understand it now.

While I like some of your arguments about China missing out on further opportunities, but to simply dismiss China as not 'awesome' is also an over stretch.

Correct.

If that's the case, he just sounds sour ಠ_ಠ

Can someone help enlighten me a bit here. From a layman's standpoint after reading all the comments associated with the Amplituhedron article, it seems both from a semi-professional standpoint and layman standpoint it was an unique discovery. Now that a true professional has responded, is Scott here simply mocking at the marketting success of the Amplituhedron or is actually making a point about the existence of such mechanics prior to the discovery of Amplituhedron? Thanks.

I think what the parent meant was such an organization must have re-organized or manifested into a separate identity(s) than which they were reported as to divert attention.

At least that was my interpretation.

We acknowledge that the drug addiction is a complex issue and with our current understanding of human psychology it's hard to generalize the rationals behind the addition.

With regard to the law system, it basically boiled down to this: if such a behavior or activity does have the potential to threaten recipients in their well-being and the others around them, then it's probably better to ban it to allow a more harmonic society. Such as jay-walking, it is also illegal.

However, do people still jay-walk? Of course they do, because it provides convenience, a sense of accomplishment -> dopamine. So is it similar to drug use? Of course. The difference is that jaywalking laws are enforced way less than hard core drug uses.

Now laws aren't always black and white, judgment is often involved. Outside of law, mentally should we be more accepting and acknowledge drug use instead simply putting it down? Sure why not. As long as you can safely understand that it won't cause harm to you or your surrounding. But can anyone be absolutely certain of that? Afraid not.

I am writing this in part directly to gizmo but also to the rest of the HN readers. First of all, I didn't think it was necessary to call this 'crackpottery'. Coming entirely from a scientific perspective one could write this off as completely philosophical and almost non-sensical. I would like to say that I've definitely gained some new insights or nearly a moment of eureka from reading certain words of the article.

Of course, I can't describe exactly what is it that I've felt. But I can sort of provide the environment into which I've felt that feeling to try to find that common denominator which may exist in all of us.

I've been a big fan of Buddism, I can't say I'm a Buddist but I definitely try to take elements from Buddism that I concur with to better define my own experience with the world. Buddism has a notion which is identically described by the author - observation of the world without egos. Buddism suggests that being able to achieve this allows inner zen. I'm here not to advocate nor prove anything related to Buddism, I just want to use it for a setup leading to where I am at.

Through schooling an education, one thing we've learned is to be objective, and unbiased. This means innocent until proven guilty; do not accept any claims without facts; discounting scientific discoveries without proofs etc. That is, we come to be capable of being objective with things that do not 'directly' connect with our consciousness. Now, entering the consciousness, can we still be objective? Can we observe our own failures just like how we observe the failures of others without emotional attachment? Can we connect to what others say to comfort us when we experience a rejection, a breakup? Can we understand that the past cannot be adjusted and therefore NEVER experience the feeling of regret and ONLY gain experience of what could be done better next time if the same were to happen? In general, can we completely deattach ourselves from our emotions and just observe the entities, whether it be you, him, or I, it's all the same.

I can't speak for others, but for a brief moment while reading the article, I've felt a weird out-of-place sensation where I'm just a being, and I am not I. It's almost as if disconnecting my consciousness with my body, it's almost scary.

Just food for thoughts.