cscheid

I mean, it literally does. Something like 70+ billion of those 80 billion are accounting adjustments because their debt is supposed to be handled in stock and their stock price skyrocketed.

I don’t think this is pedantic in this case! It’s the relevant precision necessary to understand the way in which the title is notated.

> All non-trivial properties of neural networks are undecidable.

hey, I don't know how to say this less directly, but: you're talking a lot about Rice's theorem in your comments, and I think you're using it way too broadly (look, I get it. It's a wild, mindblowing theorem). But it only applies when you take the claim in the piece to be much more general than it has to be, and when you take the narrow claim of the paper (current specific LLMs can be fruitfully analyzed with the tools we have), Rice's theorem just isn't at play.

The math analog is: you're right that the Halting problem says there are many unprovable things, but Lean + mathlib are still incredibly useful, and the halting theorem doesn't actually stop that.

> neural networks are algorithms

Again, that invites an interpretation that is too broad. Very concretely: any one neural network is a _single finite network that you can write as a single formula_. (Another analogy: we can't have an algorithm that solves the general quintic, but we can prove useful things about many specific quintics.)

(Sorry I missed your message for a few days). The short answer is "the GUI part of the stack doesn't exist": it's a cli tool (https://quarto.org). We have VS code integrations and other tooling support, but not built on deno.

The same combination of reasons we've been doing these kinds of heuristic implementations forever:

- people still get value off of an incomplete implementation, because we are allowed to be mindful of the issues (see, eg, UB in C++). In other words, many, many more bugs have been prevented by the borrow checker working as intended than have been caused by it working poorly. It's not particularly close.

- theory almost always moves slower than practice

The mutable state situation pointed out by the grandparent poster was a famous issue in typing SML under mutability that required serious changes in the language, see Section 4.2 here: https://smlfamily.github.io/history/SML-history.pdf

These were Turing-award caliber people figuring it out and, according to your definition, "yolo"ed it. This stuff is _hard_, and these driveby comments truly aren't helpful.

A few things off the top of my head (we've been on deno since 2022)

- They originally bet on being a TypeScript dialect that didn't quite match the expectations of node in a few small places that ended up mattering hugely.

- One of the original value propositions was "deno compile" and "deno bundle", and those never actually worked well enough to be robust for our real-world use cases (early on they didn't support TLA, then dynamic imports didn't work, then they had issues with ARM compilation)

- Then they simultaneously tried to support node syntax out of the box with npm import specifiers _and_ create a new javascript registry (jsr.io)

- At the point where we expected them to actually make their base-level ecosystem robust, they pivoted to edge compute, and then the writing was on the wall

I lead a project built on Deno; it was not my call, just to be clear. Deno turned out unfortunately to be a miss and we had seen the writing on the wall. FWIW, we're moving to a much bigger Rust core program with node for JS user extensibility. (In other words, I'm not willing to risk using the deno_core crates.)

The one silver lining here is that Deno had already increased their node/npm compatibility. Migrating off of the jsr ecosystem and back to npm is going to be less painful than one might imagine. I expect present LLMs to be sufficiently good at the task, for example.

Hey, I just wanted to say that this is, um, the fucking best.

I've been waiting for a literal decade for this, for the same reasons as the grand-parent poster. I literally had a chapter of my NSF CAREER proposal on this (failed, woof, but the reviewers were wrong! this rocks). The potential here is absurd. Eg, novel query optimizers and novel DB indexes could be created that, when connected to the right charting tools, would automatically emit efficient graphics and query results. Very, very cool work, thank you.

Pauli exclusion is a QM thing. Black holes are a GR thing. Famously, we don’t know how to mix the two.

This is so cool. It's a much better version of what Bill Cheswick and I did almost 15 years ago with footage from a SFO->EWR flight: https://cscheid.net/static/windowseat/

I'm just going to answer this one candidly. Yes, you are doing something wrong. Immediately: the commit history is useful to understand the context in which a bug was introduced, because it's the best context to understand the _reason_ the mistake was maybe, which is a really good way to prevent regressions. But more generally: when an entire industry has arrived at an accepted practice, you the junior developer (sorry, 5 years is _nothing_: you need to be told this too) have a chance to pick up on it.

Have you heard "have you played guitar for 20 years, or have you played guitar 20 times for a year?" Time only helps with accumulating wisdom if you let it.

You're right that I can't reproduce it like a phone camera could, and that the more precise you are the better (and it might be that with my eyes closed I'm doing something closer to addition in log-odds, like a separate comment responded), but this is super useful even coarsely. The visual affordance gives Bayes's theorem a physicality unlike any other tool I've found.

Seriously, though, there's one nomogram you (yes you) should know about and have it well-enough engraved in your mind's eye that you can use it with eyes closed. A nomogram for Bayes' theorem: https://www.ovid.com/journals/nejm/abstract/10.1056/nejm1975...

Gentry Lee is in this? That's very funny.

If you stare at the CYK algorithm long enough and see it for the dynamic programming approach it is, you'll then realize that you can do the same parallelization trick for any context-free grammar!

CRAN has very different social structures and culture than other languages' package repos. CRAN _will_ pull your package from the repository if you fail to play nice with all packages, for example. This is evidently controversial, but it's accepted practice and one possible explanation for why CRAN feels more cohesive than NPM or PyPI.

(People might not know the inside joke here, namely that WotC has in the past sent the actual Pinkertons after some people suspected of leaking unreleased cards)

I want to point out that you are posting from a 5-months old account (squarely within a time frame where LLM-powered accounts would be created), with an UUID-sounding username, claiming a 10-year-old professional history in the field, and using those credentials to bring up the possibility that a 14-year-old account claiming to be an MD with `md` in the username and _lots_ of comments is LLM-generated and asking for skepticism.

It's not particularly helpful; you could easily have done the 5 minutes of work.

Yes! That "prefeitura do Rio" huggingface URL is definitely shocking to read to this Brazilian as well (I'm assuming you and parent also are from your usernames).

I know this is irrelevant on the grand scheme of things, but that WebGL animation is really quite wrong. That is extra funny given the "ensure it has realistic orbital mechanics." phrase in the prompt.

I prescribe 20 hours of KSP to everyone involved, that'll set them right.

(Disclosure: I work on https://quarto.org, for the same company that the author of WebR works on) Thanks for sharing that PDF link. It's so good! Would you be willing to write a bit about how you produced that PDF? It's a great example of what places like CIDR should be encouraging in terms of academic publications.

Science is just Stochastic Graduate Descent, as we used to say.

(FWIW, I'm the technical lead on the Quarto project)

RMarkdown isn't going anywhere! Quarto exists to bring the RMarkdown experience that folks love to a broader set of users and contexts. It is true that we try to keep the .qmd experience in Quarto pretty close to the .rmd experience in RMarkdown, and it is true that Quarto does things that RMarkdown never will. But it's not the case that "RMarkdown is being phased out and replaced with Quarto".

I’m dismayed that people are willing to put their names on garbage like this.

If you want the serious version of the idea instead of the LLM diarrhea, just go Jonathan Shewchuk’s robust predicates work: https://people.eecs.berkeley.edu/~jrs/papers/robustr.pdf from 1997.

Presumably because one of the two things are true:

- there's competition, and so if it's possible to rent for less than 1000-eps and still profit, someone will

- there's no competition, which is a cartel, the kind of thing that civilized societies ought to frown upon

You can also just grab the same piece from Substack: https://thenoosphere.substack.com/p/just-how-many-more-succe...

This is the kind of task that LLMs are precisely terrible at; there isn't an abundance of Zod 4 examples, and the LLM will sure as shit will give you _something_ you are now by definition ill-equipped to assess.

I'm confident about this assessment because I maintain a large-ish piece of software and perenially have to decipher user reports of hallucinated LLM syntax for new features.

(I imagine you agree, so this is just to expand) a secondary, insidious issue is that administrators diffuse their rules through the bureaucracy. In the case of CS, you start seeing references to csrankings in recommendation letters for grad applications, faculty applications, or even tenure letters. At that point, it can be hard to fight against it.

Please - if I wanted to know what an LLM thinks about this, I would have asked it myself.

(Context: I’m an IC and told my Manager multiple times that I’d quit if they ever make me a manager)

If you truly believe that, please do yourself a favor and read “The tyranny of structurelessness” to understand what a managerless place becomes. everyone and no one becomes a manager, and there’s no explicit avenue of recourse. There’s a good reason management arises. We can discuss good management vs bad management, but pretty fundamentally there’s no such thing as “no management”.