p-o

It also adds up to 76, which he made fun of in the video. LLM can't count, his words, not mine. Although, I tend to agree with him!

Maybe you should just go ahead and watch the video instead of throwing hundred of hypothesis. It'll take just as long and you'll be informed by then.

Nobody is arguing about the legal boundary of Freedom of speech, you're the only one making this argument.

We're talking about the quolloquial "free speech", here.

Free speech absolutist, btw.

This is going to be a meta comment, my apologies.

But I now understand the growth in Github's activity that led to its instability recently. Folks just see a project (Cursor's Origin), open up a claude session with a couple harness, and just throw a lot of money, and external energy at generating what will most likely end up being garbage.

But this garbage looks and feels good at the onset, and so a few iterations happen, more PRs, more commits until it dies down.

In the end, almost nothing of value was created, it was just machine creating stuff for other machines, while humans were mostly spectators of an illusion.

Rinse and repeat.

I don't understand why you can't see my argument for what it is: People work hard on their own merit.

Wealth generation is not a meaningful driver, that's why people choose career with very low income trajectory, have hobbies, etc.

Calling people lazy is reductive and pejorative. People aren't inherently lazy.

You mischaracterized my argument, people aren't "lazy" by default. Most people that walks the earth wants to explore, create and socialize. But you seem to imply that kids would otherwise "sit around and do the bare minimum" if not pushed from a young age to be industrious. This is ludicrous.

There are way more empirical evidence that luck plays a much bigger role in wealth creation than effort.

The pervasive myth that hard work == wealth needs to die. Every people I have met in my life wanted to have a shot at a decent life and would have put the necessary work for a decent wage.

The word lazy should be identified as what it really is: a pejorative.

> It's a long form post on a site I can't read because I have literally half an ounce of actual self respect.

Glad I'm not the only one.

They really are the impressive tech, it's really a shame that they aren't the one capturing all the media spotlight.

I don't know if we'll get there eventually, but if we do, I won't be surprised if it's because of Waymo.

We're all about to come face to face with this reality. This dance can only last so long.

Although it's encouraging, they do mention that the reduction in the BMI also have an effect (they take it into the consideration by lowering the β −0.092 to β −0.066 (P < 0.001)).

Just skimming through it, it's possible there are direct benefits, but it could also be other environmental factor. This study will most likely generate others that give us more insight in the future.

It doesn't have to be that complicated. Just absolute terms could have the desired effect.

- 1% tax of 10 million = 100k

- 20% tax of 100k = 20k

Hence, the rich pays more tax.

This line of thinking could be applied to literally any company in the world, even to Spirit Airlines 5 minutes before it went out of business.

Hard to not look at the crazy valuation of SpaceX and not see a correlation. At some point, something's gotta give.

Wayland uses UNIX socket for message passing, but then offload most of the work to shared memory when the real work begins (GPU rendering). I just wanted to add some nuances that it's not as black and white as this comment made it seem.

It's interesting how you elect to name two presidents in an era that were democrats while conveniently omitting the republican president in between. With all his baggages, I find this quite convenient.

Not always, and in this case, the study is very light on details on how the selection process was done. The burden of the RCT is on the research team and the quality of the randomization varies between studies.

If a study is going to draw debatable conclusion after 10 years on high dose Vitamin D during pregnancy, I'd expect at least some comment in the study on the general socio economic landscape and grouping.

Regardless, this study looks like a sham to me.

I don't know, the study seems pretty mild in findings and the research doesn't mention anything about the socioeconomic environment in which each of the children grew in.

Maybe it's the high dose vitamin, maybe it's because one cohort was skewed one way on the socioeconomic spectrum, maybe it's something else entirely. More evidence would be needed imo to confirm Vitamin D3 has a direct contributor to cognitive performance as the research portrayed.

What's wrong with voicing opinion on the Internet? It's a personal blog, you don't have to read it if you don't like it.

There are plenty of strange things that gets publish every day, I don't see why you get hung up on this post.

Yes, absolutely. The Cybertruck was indeed the first of its kind to have 4 wheels attached to its structure. No car company before Tesla had ever done this before and as such, it was impossible to gauge what kind of material was best suited to handle stress over long period of time.

It's just ridiculous.

> Geeks who didn't even stand near professional sports should really shut up about anything sport related, lol.

Reggie Dunlop is ready for duty, he'll get the job done.

I'm sure it's a preventive measure and no one placed bets to enrich themselves in the last 12 months...

It's undeniable that it has improved the productivity in _some_ areas of development. But my point stand nonetheless, if development is improved, it seems to be difficult to surface that to end user.

The premise, originally, was that AI would empower workers to do more with less. Granted this is anecdotal, but most of the stuff I use today is much the same as it was 5 years ago. It seems the world is improving at the same rate as it did before, generally speaking.

This is a neat experiment, and I read the story before joining the conversation here and realizing it was written the way it was.

Many people here already chimed in on the emotion of being caught reading something that might not have felt AI so I will offer another angle. Akin to many The New Yorker article in the past, I felt disconnected with the article for a good portion at the beginning. So much so that I had to skip most of it.

The piece that got me very hooked was when he drove to Carol Lindgren’s farm. I read the remainder of the text and thought the content was engaging and thought provoking, in some sense. I loved the idea of manual override that logged into the system and changed the system behaviour over time. That's something that got me thinking about AI, actually.

Now, I would be curious which part of the author's genesis made it into the final text and how much of that couples with what I found to be intellectually engaging.

Thank you so much for sharing this video, it's just amazing to see a bunch of young amateurs getting so excited about things that would have been virtually inaccessible 20 years ago.

> Why not? Why can't faster typing help us understand the problem faster?

Why can't you understand the problem faster by talking faster?

I could give the benefit of the doubt to any other administration doing it.

This one? I really have a hard time thinking it's nothing else then another grifting scheme.

I am not delusional about those power-hungry people, but I somehow thought that with better access to information, society would have been able to better regulate them.

Maybe in hindsight, "flooding the zone" will be considered a much bigger threat than it is today. Most of what's going on in the last 12 months have happened in plain sight and would have never worked 30 years ago. Today, it just flies, attention span be damned.