mcbrit

This Kind of War (reading list Marine Corps commandant 2026 Vietnam War) suggests the answer is that the US fought crusades through WW2. Then they got Korea; not absolute war, not a crusade. And the US had no reference frame for that. Who is winning and why and why are Americans dying for this?

Shuffling zk (Zettelkasten) cards is just fine. [1] The meaning of a note is largely determined by its connections, and so approaching a note through a different set of connections gives it a different meaning. Finding new paths uncovers new meanings, which is at least one of the zk points. Shuffling cards is one way you might find new paths.

[1] If you have physical cards you are destroying the default hierarchical path if you shuffle them and that could be a pain in arse to reconstruct, and your ability to find a note with physical cards also depends on the hierarchy. Digital cards have different problems.

A tax deferred is a tax avoided. (common wisdom)

You're talking to a dude. (in my case.) I mentioned 8 books.

I won't tell you exactly what to do, but one way to do it is to measure your surprise with me choosing each of those 8 books when you provide a recommendation back to me of what I should read next. I think I get kind of that experience talking to someone about books.

The algorithm didn't do that.

If I provide that list, a (real) person doesn't ask me if I've read the Hobbit.

I don't know. I entered, trying to be popular but at least slightly? opiniated:

Tigana, Hyperion, A Fire Upon the Deep, Blindsight, Moby Dick

and I got a list. Sure, read all that or wasn't interested for reasons, I added (only Neuromancer on initial recommendations):

Neuromancer, VALIS, Quantum Thief, Towing Jehovah.

List did not get more interesting.

Book recommendations are still kind of difficult.

Other than capital does a lot of work in that argument. Companies will not pop up and optimize much less micro optimize the tradeoffs. This isn’t a stock exchange; it’s a real capital intensive product.

Counting in people rather than people-days is problematic, and then you get to qol-people-days. Saying murder is not helpful; see how folks have responded to you.

Line: The ADR of standard colonoscopy decreased significantly from 28·4% (226 of 795) before to 22·4% (145 of 648) after exposure to AI

Supprt: Statistically speaking, on average, for each 1% increase in ADR, there is a 3% decrease in the risk of CRC. (colorectal cancer)

My objection is all the decimal points without error bars. Freshman physics majors are beat on for not including reasonable error estimates during labs, which massively overstates how certain they should be; sophomores and juniors are beat on for propogating errors in dumb ways that massively understates how certain they should be.

This article is up strolls rando doctor (granted: with more certs than I will ever have) with a bunch of decimal points. One decimal point, but that still looks dumb to me. What is the precision of your measuring device? Do you have a model for your measuring device? Are you quite sure that your study, given error bars, which you don't even acknowledge the existence of, don't cancel out the study?

France is from the legal past that the US emerged from and it's a criminal prosecution so seems relevant.

Offering inconsistent defense has got to be thing in France, particularly during criminal prosecution.

Louisiana is the only jurisdiction which does not adhere to the general rule that a defendant may rely, in a criminal prosecution, upon inconsistent defenses.

(In other words: prove it. I get as many counterexamples as my lawyers can dream .)

Robert T. McGraw, Criminal Law: The Use of Inconsistent Defenses, 26 Marq. L. Rev. 167 (1942).

Yes? That is just obviously correct given the judicial system for hundreds of years.

I get why you are outraged, but also: inform yourself. This is exactly what even minimally competent defense does and should look like.

How far do cables generally move power now in terms of hours, meaning time zone offset? This might seem like an odd formulation, but.

I /think/ formulating the problem this way means that 12h=power is always relevant. So: where are we?

I can drive several large trucks through that sentence while answering no, so: no. There are so many ways to create a no there is an important point.

Related: you are in an audit. The auditor asks you if you know what the time is. Correct answer: yes.

To point out something that is a fail: I don't want to hear about how you simulated 10M particles on the GPU without acceleration forces.

I am currently limiting myself to 500 lines of (particle engine) code while listening to visual artists talking about their workflow in UE5 or Houdini, and Odin+Raylib are lovely to work in.

GingerBill has shouted out Go, but Odin doesn't particularly feel like a Go flavo(u)r.

Probably you are missing sth because it’s so one sided.

It’s always you are running too fast. Slow it down, walk more, figure it out. You simply shouldn’t feel bad or even breathe hard unless you want to when doing 2 walk/2 run. If you are: too fast! Slow down!

Most folks don’t slow down because they think they feel fine at the beginning of a run and feel that they should be going faster AND feel ridiculous running that slowly or…

Slow down. Solved.

One of the hard things to do when building a game is to figure out why it's fun. It's hard enough that, in general, most folks just remake another game that's already figured out the fun.

You're doing a math game, math gamified. Let's throw a choice in there.

Since you replied, here's one idea:

(1) present five numbers. (2) You, the player, chose two numbers (3) You perform an operation (3.1) operation: add/subtract/multiply/divide, but perhaps exponentiation and modulo and lcm and factorize and whatever else. it's probably best to keep it simple. (3.1.1) this can get random: what was the highest number last round? how many green letters are there on the screen? (3.2) operations are tied to the special attacks,eg tier 1 attacks are add/subtract, tier 2 mult/div, and so on. (4) you type in your answer (5) if you type in an answer that's the correct result of an operation applied to two of the numbers, then you do the corresponding attack.

So it's not add these two numbers pass/fail. It's you decide what math you want to do, and can do, and can do in a time limit, and that achieves the effect you're looking for.

Anyways, it's always fun to make a thing.

Assumption: wanted feedback, saying kid was not saying shibboleth.

Games are a series of interesting decisions. That’s one formulation. Being asked what x+y is with some graphics is not an interesting decision. Perhaps an interesting decision comes later, but I wasn’t interested and bounced.

(computers generating hypotheses beat non-computer aided humans generating hypotheses should adequately engage a large class of arguments that your comment seems to suggest that you'd like to make)

The "just" a hypothesis-generating step is THE HYPOTHESIS.

Generating THE HYPOTHESIS is THE non-scientific step in the SCIENTIFIC METHOD. To not undersell this: where the actual fuck does a hypothesis come from? Particularly one that works out?

Looking at your profile (now), you have a PhD in computation biology and you have 29k+ karma, but: what? I don't understand your objection, man.

A good hypothesis is hard to come by.

Can you help me out?

Chipotle ensures all paths lead to a customer-pleasing Burrito, which is kind of sort of the same Burrito once you squint in the way Chipotle slants. Choose away; it does not matter very much. I would say cooking/Cooking is finding interesting variations of a Burrito. So while Chipotle may be explained as turning a Burrito into a Monad, a Burrito, and cooking a Burrito, is ideally not a Monad.

You are meant to feel it. Just: it does whatever is helpful.

No one who cooks, cooks like this. So, no, a burrito is not a monad, unless you are performing Catholic Mass and the burrito is sth sth, in which case you have more words to write and I while I believe you can write those words, the words are not interesting. That it why I am saying your analogy is not interesting, and I think you were just attracted to burritos because they can hold.. anything? Even though that's not the path you went down?

Many chefs go on about this; I don't see anything unique or insightful in the article.

Personally, I think the Japanese ryokan tradition is amazing. It's obsessive food, and you /can/ taste the difference. I thought it was mindblowing even as a 20-sth dude in the early 2000s that grew up with Zagats in Atlanta.

The difference is spending 30 minutes (Chang) vs 30 years (ryokan).

Imagine an athlete being told that they should never do the same workout twice.

Thanks, no, I prefer winning.

(Proof by contradiction by analogy. Also the same workout twice is never the same workout.)

All models are wrong, some are useful. CAP is probably at least as useful as Newtonian mechanics WHEN you are explaining why you just did a bunch of… extra stuff.

I would like to violate CAP, please. I would like to be nearish to c, please.

Here is my passport. I have done the work.

It is important to realize that big companies are friction free to a small set of folks; you will note marked tiers of less friction at some earlier point. You appear to have had a full-friction experience.

This mostly has to do with top-down control and trust and should you get to do what you want to do because it’s maybe probably locally optimal but you didn’t notice the 5 semi trailers that will crush you on your current trajectory.

Your last two sentences are fair enough, but perhaps this adds some context.