The way LLMs process text is a lot like a typical human (top-of-the-head answer vs actually analyzing the question in depth). This is a recurring pattern with the current LLMs I've interacted with (ex., A: "x" Q: "but what about y?" A: "oh, you're right, now that I [actually] think about it, really z"). Example (Anthropic's Claude):
Q: if one basket contains 5 apples and another basket contains 3 plums, and another basket contains 2 walnuts how many fruits are there combined?
A: The first basket contains \*5 apples\*. The second basket contains \*3 plums\*. The third basket contains \*2 walnuts\*. Adding up the numbers of fruits in each basket, there are a total of \*5 + 3 + 2 = 10 fruits combined\*.
Q: is a walnut a fruit?
A: You're right, a walnut is not technically a fruit. A walnut is a type of tree nut. To correctly answer the original question:
The first basket contains 5 apples. The second basket contains 3 plums. While the third basket contains 2 walnuts, walnuts are not fruits. So the total number of fruits combined is 5 apples + 3 plums = 8 fruits.
BZFlag is an amazingly addictive game (if you can find an active server). It is tricky to get the hang of it (jumping a tank while doing a 180 turn to land and fire a shot at a pursuer!). https://www.bzflag.org/
Here is a list of things (bits of insight, strategies) you may find helpful. IME, anxiety and the resulting procrastination has more to do with fear of failure and insufficiency than feeling that you can't actually do something. It's a preemptive attempt to get you to not try at something, and the best way to overcome it is to find ways to "do the try" without making it seem like you are confronting the fear ("I'm not going to swim, I'm just going to wade in the shallow end of the pool for a bit").
- Set goals to 'good enough'/iterative development {lower the bar, to avoid a barrier to getting started}
- When you feel overwhelmed, pick ONE THING to focus on, ignore everything else; then when that's done, pick ONE THING.... {don't get overwhelmed by the WHOLE THING, pick one smaller part to focus on}
- Don't 'chain' tasks if it causes the whole chain to be put off; do what you can NOW and worry about the rest later {don't TRY to do the whole thing at once; intentionally break it up into separate, more manageable pieces}
- Use zazen (shikantaza) to overcome 'scattered thoughts' (too many thoughts or anxious thoughts) {resistance to doing things is caused by subconscious mental activity (your "little minds" talking at you in the background); quiet your conscious mind, rather than expending all of your energy "arguing" with them, which is what they "want"}
I just happened to be looking at this (serendipitous) location on Street View, "walking" down the road, when I found a spot which (for some reason) displays an older photo (current are 2018, this one is from 2014). It's hard to find the exact location (hint: try stepping toward Spencer St, then back toward Orchard; you'll see the seasonal lighting change when you get the right spot). It's a technical curiosity (why is this one location absent from the most recent photo set?), but the image itself is quite moving: a lone, dead tree, surreal in its gray contrast with the color around it; now vanished from the world. It is, literally, a ghost tree, a remnant of the past, only visible if you look just the right way. We are all that tree: we will all be forgotten, but yet live on, ghosts in the machine. https://imgur.com/gallery/7TqLMGv
This is almost identical to a project idea I've had banging around for...um...6 years now. :) Glad to see someone is running with it, and also that you have data privacy as a 1st-class citizen. One idea for the data model: domain-specific descriptors (ex., not just a date, but a human birthdate with specific parameters (think healthcare applications: pediatrics vs general inpatient); this could be derived from sample/production data, but when designing a new application, one might need to have finer control over things like distribution (normal vs. skewed), min/max, etc.). If someone is designing a new report for an existing application, but wants synthetic data to use for dev/testing and UAT, the report "target data profile" may diverge from historical production data in very specific ways (ex., introducing new types/classes of products).
(Sorry, I replied to the other response before I read this one.) "natural logical conclusion" and "common sense": the words "natural", "logical" and "conclusion" (and certainly the phrase "common sense") have no meaning in a theological context. People who believe in the same religion can't even agree on what they believe in. I think you are confusing "I believe this and it makes sense to me" with "I believe this so this is the way things must be". You don't seem to understand that you are inside this bottle, which is why you don't understand what I'm trying to tell you. Even if there were something from which our Universe came (directly or indirectly, actively or passively), that existed before it and will exist after it (forever and ever, outside of time and space), even if it were infinite in every way imaginable and unimaginable, it still wouldn't be anything like what you or anyone else call "God/god/gods". "principal of causality and the impossibility of infinite regress": Are you seriously arguing that God (which by your definition lies outside of all of our Universal constraints and preconceptions) must existbecause of things that only apply in the context of our known Universe? Finally, I don't mind being talked down to, but you are not really presenting any arguments that merit your arrogant tone. But, it's all in good fun.
I'm not trying to be merely argumentative or dismissive. I understand the words that you've written; I'm saying that there's no real point in them. You're saying (aren't you?): "The way I define God, this other thing must be true." While I'm saying, "So what?" If you are arguing strictly that, according to a specific theology, "this implies that", then great. But you sound more like you are saying, "This is true, therefore that must be true", which is a very different thing. I'm not arguing about your definitions, I'm arguing about the application of your logic to the real Universe. And I'm not arguing as an atheist, but simply as someone evaluating the discussion thread and what you said in that context. But, you seem to have "not addressed" my whole "God goo" thing, which completely demolishes any non-strictly-Abrahamic-definition-of-God argument. If God split itself into two equal parts, would they still not be "alpha and omega"? But feel free to disengage if you feel there's no value in engaging further. :)
Sorry, my main point was: If you press a believer on why there must be a god in order to explain things, they will always point to the necessity of a god, that things had to come from somewhere. But there is never any necessity for god to come from somewhere. Of course, the definition of "god" is different than "things that are not god". The point is the intellectual dishonesty of arguing that their definition of the nature of god necessitates the existence of their defined god.
When I read Spanish (2nd language; not great at it) I sub-vocalize as I do in English. But if there is a long, complex word that I would have to laboriously "pronounce" (but I know exactly what it means ahead of time), I will treat it as a gestalt/symbol (so, it's like "cheating" on the vocalizing), so sub-vocalization isn't actually needed for comprehension, but I'm guessing is a parallel mental action/process (probably correlated with how we learn to read a language and personal characteristics). Maybe non-sub-vocalizing is really just suppressing this parallel processing workflow. (I'm wondering if people who "don't need to do this" could read backwords (accidental pun!) effectively.)
Exactly. Sometimes I even feel compelled to complete the sentence more than once (as if I wasn't paying attention enough the first time, so I feel the need to say it again). I think there is a subtle difference between that and "reading without production" (when I try it, it feels more like skimming text; I have to really try to pay attention). To me, reading/inner-speaking feels like engaging with the text; to only be able to "see" words would be lifeless (I'm assuming that some/many/most people can do both).
All of the above/below. It's a complex problem (which I share) caused by a lifetime of habit, and it takes a long-term, multi-pronged/phased approach. A) Physical fitness: proper conditioning will allow you to hold posture for long periods of time without fatigue/strain (this is something you work towards over time). B) Physical environment: everything must allow you to maintain posture without excessive leaning/reaching/craning; don't hold a fixed position continuously, but your base state should be strain-free. C) Habits: take frequent stand/stretch breaks (sometimes I stand up if I am reading something that will take a minute or more; also remember to rest your eyes periodically; look out the window; engage in brief social interation; standing desks are great (alternate with sitting), especially if you get restless). D) Triggers: develop reminders about posture (if I see my reflection from the side or when I'm sitting in front of a TV...; I try to be (not self-)conscious of what an observer would see); when you stretch, use that to "reset" your postural expectation (through repetition, it will become your "natural state", and you will be aware of when you're out of sync with it); if I don't feel like I'm standing up really straight, then I'm not. E) Mental state: if you feel tired, depressed, preoccupied, etc. then you will lose track of all of this; it won't seem important, and you will regress; pick it back up again and move forward (it's about improvement/maintenance, not "fixing"). HTH.
"Terror Management suggests that human nature is actually wired towards self-deception: In order to avoid facing terrifying concepts like death, most of us live in a state of self-delusion." I very early on in life recognized this as a primary principle of human psychology. As soon as we begin to understand the concept of death, we unconsciously develop this as our primary defense mechanism. It's what all religious and spiritual belief systems are founded on.
The trick is to recognize the things that are wrong, decide what (if any) course of action you can/will take to address them, then focus on that path. The rest you have to keep at arms' length. There are so many things wrong (and so many things that are so very, very wrong) that it should be overwhelming to a reasonable mind to try to "feel" them all.
"Lazarus Lazaridis' personal blog with posts mostly related to programming and opensource. And cats." I agree completely that "cutesy" things don't belong in professional contexts (I like to make sensible exceptions occasionally to reassure everyone that I am, in fact, human), but these are his critters, so he is entitled to subject his readers to them (just like someone who posts pictures of their happy-smiley family). Also, you should be more concerned about humans, who carry parasites and bacteria (and viruses!) which are vastly more dangerous to you. :)
As an introvert, I completely understand where this is coming from. What you are trying to create is a way for people to signal intent in an emotionally safe way. But I think this misses the mark (by substituting technical infrastructure for quintessentially human interaction; by encouraging "someone is" vs. "I am"). There is an art to "working toward" a discussion or disclosure (which many people are not good at, and many situations make difficult). To help someone find a way to say something (difficult or risky) to someone (who may not be receptive), and to allow the other party to reverse-signal gently (possibly by "affirmatively" ignoring) would be valuable, but as complex as the varied use cases. I think a system that helped people work through what they want to accomplish and possibilities for achieving that would be useful; the infrastructure for communication is already there, we just need to think about how to use it better (think guided workflow, decision tree or expert system). Having a mechanism to "buffer" between the sender and receiver might be helpful (ex., sending someone flowers or a card/letter vs. speaking to them) to overcome emotional resistance, but shouldn't substitute for thinking through <your state> + <situational state> + <other's state> => <appropriate action>.
Part of this may have to do that OpenOffice is more enterprise-oriented, so maybe more likely to be recommended by IT people with exposure to it, and more likely to be used in an organizational context. I actually recently searched for "openoffice" when I meant "libreoffice" (which I switched to years ago). So definitely inertia in various manifestations. I think this is why some forked projects make little effort to maintain "mental continuity" (visual, naming) with their parent; it might be just as well to appear as something entirely distinct from the beginning.
As a data manager and a database developer, I can assure you there is a big difference between "a number" and "a string of digits" (even when those digits are supposed to be a number). It's a sign of poor database design when a field type of numeric is chosen because something "looks like a number". Usually, I would only use an integer field for something like an internal record ID or lookup code, whereas an external-facing ID should be a string, enforced by a mask or limited input set. Often, as a database evolves, what starts out as a numeric ID ("Customer 1"!) can evolve into something more complex ("Let's prepend a geographic code to segment our ID space!"), which cascades through the entire application stack. It's important for a UI developer to really understand what the data domain is, rather than just blindly following the underlying data type, and to help ensure that the user is guided properly.
I want to knee-jerk and say "you've got it backwards; humans are mammals, mammals are social organisms, love is part of that profile". At the base, of course, everything is genetics; however, that doesn't make our experience of it any less real (just like our appreciation of beauty). I would say if your dog (or your partner) is just sticking around because you feed it, you are not doing something right.
By "natural", I mean according to the laws of physics, and all higher-order laws or principles which arise from them (basically, everything else). So, yes, narrow, but no, not. What we call "nature" is largely a fiction, a story that we impose on the universe (the "natural world") to help us navigate our place in it and understand it in abstract ways. Humans occupy a strange place, in that we are manifestations of "natural laws" (physics, chemistry, biology, psychology), but at the same time, able to understand and rationalize about our own existence and place in that world in ways that most (all?) other animals are not.
I think suicide (vs. self-sacrifice, which is an entirely different thing) is a very human (or human-like) phenomenon, and can only arise from a high-level consciousness which can rationally/emotionally think in terms of "Is living my life worth the cost I am paying (in emotional or physical terms)?". No "less conscious" living thing would ever make that kind of calculation, because they will always follow their instincts to survive as a default (again, differentiating between sacrificing oneself for a goal vs. ending ones' own suffering on purpose). Not saying that it's impossible that "nature" has enabled such a mechanism in a species (though it would violate the "selfish gene" principle), but I don't see it.
It is the natural state of fire to burn. It is the natural state of life to live. Humans are programmed genetically to do so, and to go to (and suffer) extremes to continue to do so. While there might be situations where suicide is (judged to be) the best bad alternative, it is literally the most unnatural thing a human can do to themselves. And poverty (vs. scarcity) is not a natural concept; is a wild rabbit with enough to eat "poor" (only if their neighbor rabbits have a larger burrow!)? This is the projection of human concepts about how the universe should be arranged (right/wrong, wealth/poverty, culturally-oriented logic) onto a physical universe which has no such concepts built into it.
I've always felt that complex software should have a "simple" and an "advanced" UI. Hiri's approach is like having a "complexity scalable" UI, but with the added benefit that the user only has to deal with those things they are really interested/ready for. The key is making it very easy for users to discover what features/functionality are available (ex., keyword search and categories, maybe even some pop-up suggestions) that matches their current task need. If you think about it like game power unlocks, it would allow a user to build on current knowledge to do more advanced things. Throw in some metrics, and you could get a good picture of which features are important to a user, suggest/highlight others that might be related, remind a user of features they haven't used in a while (or have never gotten around to looking at), etc.
I recommend that you first see any psychiatrist who has experience treating depression (ask your primary care provider for a referral or find one online). Think of depression like any serious medical condition; if you aren't satisfied with a given provider or approach, then explore others.
Yes, it has per-site configuration from the toolbar; also, a couple of different modes to choose from if one doesn't work quite so well for a given site (invert, CSS, simple CSS). I'm pretty happy with this extension (I switched away from Dark Reader). Also, open source: https://github.com/m-khvoinitsky/dark-background-light-text-...
I have a running list of "accumulated wisdom". Most have to do with maintaining momentum (because...life). Here are a couple items (trying not to repeat other comments).
* Don't worry about things, do things
* Set goals to "good enough"/iterative development
The greatest advantage of culture is not having to learn everything, through brutal life experience, ourselves. Often, we only learn some bit of truth or wisdom after suffering its absence.
So, you do three times as many checks, and you're concerned about someone else developing a habit, lol? FWIW, I do the same things. I never shut my truck door without physically verifying I have my keys (lesson learned). ;)