Perenti

Just a note on the website, I thought at first my browser had been hijacked by a shipping or travel agent. The first impression is how AI has improved ship tracking, so you can now track ships with 98% accuracy, with little to no hint this is AI infrastructure until you scroll down.

If you know what Captain is, this is not an issue. I closed the browser tab at first, thinking "what the hell is this, I don't give a damn about shipping forecasts"

This relates to my favorite hatred of LLMs:

"Let me refactor the foobar"

and then proceeds to do it, without waiting to see if I will actually let it. I minimise this by insisting on an engineering approach suitable for infrastructure, which seem to reduce the flights of distraction and madly implementing for its own sake.

Interesting. Seems you are automating my qwen workflow. Every output stage is verified through mathematical proof whenever possible, before being fed to the next step in transforming ideas into code. Except for when qwen decides to go in a very unusual direction, its working reasonably well at producing provably correct code. It's slowish though, with lots of nested iterations, and when qwen goes strange it takes a lot of effort to get it back on task.

You can run any smalltalk code from workspace-style frames in the Inspector, Workspace, Explorer, Finder and Debugger. You can edit classes and methods in these windows, as well as spawn Browsers as desired. I'm not sure what the integration points are that are lacking. That's not to say there can't be a better way, but I cannot see the point he is making.

It may have a tidy mmap api, but Smalltalk has a much better file api through its Streams hierarchy IMHO. You can create a stream on a diskfile, you can create a stream on a byteArray, you can create a stream on standard Unix streams, you can create a stream on anything where "next" makes sense.

Will this only apply to an OS with human user accounts? I wonder how autonomous agents that are operating systems running on bare hardware are defined under this strange law. Not all OS are for humans. Consider many uni-kernel applications.

Could you claim any book with boys being different to girls breaches the sex talk rules? I'm just wondering how you could use this law to show how ridiculous it is.

So use Zig to implement Smalltalk. All problems solved.

It would be nice if clicking on a list entry (say llama3 ) opened a window/tab on the home page of that model.

I've been playing with my own Smalltalk implementation. I guess it qualifies as a tiny _language_, but the class library is huge!

Yes, I know that all who do not understand Smalltalk are doomed to re-implement it, poorly. I'm just cutting out the middleman - and this allows it to do things Smalltalk normally doesn't. It allows me to think so far outside the box it's not even visible anymore.

I first saw an Apple I at a Maths Camp in late 1976. It was from the first batch to arrive in Australia. We were all enthralled. We were slightly less enthralled waiting for the floating point libraries to load from cassette tape.

Earlier that year I'd been on a school excursion to Lismore "to see the computer". Richmond River High had got themselves a computer. It was a WANG the size of a washing machine, with a separate mark-sense card reader and a separate RF adapter which connected to a big black and white TV. It was new by the way.

The rate of advance from the WANG to the Apple I was incredible. I'm still intoxicated by it.

Microsoft's problem is probably the same as the author of the article. Look at the last sentence. Either it was proof-read by an AI, or the author was so sure of his perfection he never proof-read it.

Not all of this is as straightforward as the author seems to suggest. In particular, I believe the massive increase in mass shootings is only in one country. Part of it is, I believe, the fear-mongering our glorious leaders and the media love so much.

How is this different from a CA with dynamic neighbourhoods? Other than the visualisation of course. It appears at first read to be isomorphic to what's shown, unless I'm overlooking something (quite possible I am). CA with neighbourhoods dependent on cell states and/or agents were what made later versions of SimCity etc work.

I was working on GACA with dynamic neighbourhoods in 1997.

It can also prevent competitors from entering a particular space. I was told as an undergraduate that UNIX was irrelevant because the upcoming Windows NT would be POSIX compliant. It took a _very_ long time before that happened (and for a very flexible version of "compliant"), but the pointy-headed bosses thought that buying Microsoft was the future. And at first glance the upcoming NT _looked_ as if the TCO would be much lower than AIX, HPuX or Solaris.

Then of course Linux took over everywhere except the desktop.

I use my phone on average 5m per week. This week is bigger, due to lots of medical things. I've spent 3m on it today as of 6pm.

No social media. No videos. No Music. I don't click on links in texts except the one that will show me where my taxi is.

At restaurants people around me sit together with food going cold on plates whilst staring at their phones. People walk around and into me whilst staring at their phones. I saw someone nearly step on a nesting Bush Stone Curlew, despite the protests from the bird's mate, because they were staring at their phone.

I do not believe we are cognitively capable of dealing with interruptions that demand our attention every 30 seconds. I know that despite a long list of life threatening illnesses I am the least anxious person I know, and I think that everyone else is stressing because they are staring at their phone.

* Anecdote, one person's experience. YMMV

I've seen bots promoting Replit on Steam forums of indie games.

If this is the way they are marketing their product, I don't see it as having a future. What I've seen in the Dwarf Fortress forums alone makes me want to avoid the company with a 10' pole.

I had dinner with one of the co-authors Wednesday night. He's doubling down on the "significance" test that has H0 that all possible incoming trajectories are equally likely.

He's convinced it's an essentially a local phenomenon. I look forward to how he spins this paper.

I wonder how much extra work is required to make a vertical panel stay up in a 200kmh cyclone (hurricane for the Americans, typhoon for the Asians)? I saw a flying cow once during Cyclone David, and that wasn't a particularly strong storm. I guess they could be attached at the sides to some other strong structure, but doing that without getting shade on the panel could be tricky.

I have issues with my right hand due to damage to my brachial plexus. I changed to Dvorak about 22 years ago, and have far less fatigue and pain when typing longer documents.

The article mentions in passing how Dvorak may help people with physical hand issues - well it certainly helps for me. YMMV

I don't do banking on my phone. I really don't understand why anyone would. If I can't get to my PC or laptop, I'm probably near an ATM. I've already given so much autonomy to Google/Alphabet/Apple, I won't give them access to my bank account.

I should point out that one of the authors believes Star Trek to be the epitome of Science Fiction.

Given mass distribution of our galaxy is decidedly anisotropic I would expect the answer to be a resounding "no". The ((5/57)/ (4 Pi)) implicity assumes uniform incoming trajectories - I think. There's an odd mixing of radians and steradians in this formula, if the "4 Pi" represents the total solid angle of a sphere.

I suggest you read the paper. It's packed with subjective language (Row one of table one, the incoming trajectory is said to be "virtually" in the ecliptic plane), and has so many unstated assumptions behind their so-called significance of the trajectory it's not valid.

And the stated 5 degree angle disagrees with published observations.

And the estimate of the size is over double the confirmed observations of size.

While "Not aligning with scientific consensus doesn't make your suggestions worthless" is true, ignoring published results does.

His argument regarding the trajectory into our Solar System is pretty flaky. It completely disregards Hopkin's computation of a "steep entry angle" and supposition that it comes from the "thick disk", instead assuming the incoming trajectories of interstellar objects are uniformly distributed across the celestial sphere.

Mass distribution in our galaxy is decidedly anisotropic - most mass lies in the galatic plane.

Loeb's estimate of the comet size is strange, when two observatories concur that the maximum size is around 10km.

Look at https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=44713579 for links to real science.

Yep, keep how to make PCP in a bathtub away from kids. Keep holocaust deniers away from kids. Keep race-hate videos away from kids.

Keep Hancock and Joe Rogan away from kids.

Keep lies and conspiracy theories away from kids.

You seem to think kids are good at risk analysis and critical thinking. There are exceptions, but most people don't develop these things until their late teens when the pre-frontal cortex is developed.

I believe the simple answer (vs complicated truth) is that the donor cell, a fertilized egg, is in a state accepting a not-quite-formed nucleus. There are no male cells that can get into that state AFAIK, possibly excepting pluripotent stem cells that are somehow convinced to undergo ovogenesis.

The truth is of course much more complicated than my limited understanding.

I've taken my time to respond to this. Firstly, that's a big statement about someone you only know from TV.

Secondly, he was one of the most functional human beings I've ever met.

The reason he was so good at herpetology is because he was raised with dangerous reptiles. The backyard of his home in Botany Circuit was crawling with snakes, crocs and goannas. I rarely played at his place, because it un-nerved me. He was very confident and capable, and understood animal behaviour even at 6yo.

I was better at playing with spiders though, no doubt that changed as he grew older.

I encountered this in 1968. This was at Clarinda State School, in grade 1. The 1A class used ITA, and 1B used proper latin alphabet. My best friend, Steve Irwin (yes, _that_ Steve Irwin. Everyone had to go to school somewhere) was in 1A. Every afternoon after school he'd come to my place and we'd go through our readers for the day. I'd read the English one to him, and he'd memorise it to recite (pretending to read) to his teacher the next day. I assume he was taught properly when he moved to Queensland in 1969.

I can't imagine how hard it was for people less bright than Steve. No wonder the scheme trained illiterates.

I've taken quite a lot of these. I was on 3600mg/day for about 5 years. I was later on lyrica for about 3 years.

These drugs _do_ help you to tolerate nerve pain, but do _not_ stop it. I found they led to my otherwise amazing memory developing "holes" - I knew I knew something, but I couldn't put my finger on it. As someone accused of having an eidetic memory (I'm not convinced) I found this really disturbing. I also felt more stupid, and less quick.

I've been off gabapentinoid medications for about 4 years. My pain is more "in my face", but I no longer feel retarded.

Note: The advice on the gabapentinoid box "May increase the effects of alcohol" is both warning and recommendation. It's not unknown for the mix to include open-eyed hallucinations.