eximius

Not clear to me that this is true. The expense was incurred, they just claim it over 5 years. It's not clear that the same employee is required to be there in subsequent years to claim the expense from year 1 in year 2.

Is there any difference here from running a normal DNS server?

Any of your special domains will be ones your server claims as authoritative, so I don't understand why you need a root server?

Tax subsidies are when the government taxes you less, thereby reducing your tax burden. You don't receive funds, you just owe less.

Considering they are probably the largest component of R&D expenses... yes, _if_ you think R&D should be tax-subsidized in some way.

Maybe. But I think this is a useful time to engage in the conversation about what we do as a semi-post-scarcity society and how we should treat people under that framework. If we _do_ replace all the jobs, how should we, as a society, treat each other?

Fundamentally, you either continue down the path of pure capitalism and let people starve in the streets or you adapt socially.

Ah, shame. `foo := someFallibleMethod()?` would have been nice for when you don't want to handle/wrap the error.

I'm not super strongly against the constant error checking - I actually think it's good for code health to accept it as inherent complexity - but I do think some minor ergonomics would have been nice.

Those are not the comments I'm talking about. There are some in this thread that are derisive due to its focus on qualitative theory and predictions instead of a mathematical foundation.

There is so much anger in this thread because someone is making qualitative predictions instead of quantitative predictions (except there are some statistical predictions, albeit based around correlations to existing observational phenomenon, but that seems valid to me?).

In some ways, it is a symptom of the success of science so far that we consider that the baseline for credibility.

If the predictive observations from this theory hold true, then it's possible a mathematical framework can be developed for it.

In relation to cosmology, that's mostly correct?

Is there anything inherently requiring the three stage cosmological theory to bring about the Blowtorch theory?

I find the Blowtorch theory very compelling - but the cosmological/evolution argument seems qualitatively... less scientific, or at least less physics-related. It is very interesting! But, I think its association would damage the pair.

Anything stopping Blowtorch theory from standing on it's own?

So, addition under a particular elliptic curve is isomorphic to multiplication under integer modulo groups...

But for some reason the author keeps referring to the underlying group as "Diffie-Hellman" instead of the process operating on some group.

The result is interesting, the journey to get there was very confusing.

For you, perhaps. For me, the former is denser, but crossing into a "too dense" region. The JSON has indentation which is easy on my poor brain. Also, it's nice to differentiate between lists and objects.

But, I mean, they're basically isomorphic with like 2 things exchanges ({} and [] instead of (); implicit vs explicit keys/types).

I don't disagree. I'm furious with these people. They're close to me.

They aren't stupid... just not paying attention and skeptical due to a combination of propaganda (fake news!) and rightful incredulity at the state of things.

But I can't excuse them.

Yes and no. It seems obvious it was the advertisement but I know people who voted for Trump that are otherwise fairly liberal. They were either grossly uninformed, misinformed, or simply _didn't believe_ the reporting about various issues.

The last is the most frustrating to me because there is a hint of the truth there - the stuff reported about Trump _is_ insane. They're doing things so openly and brazenly that there are kneejerk reactions to either ask "is it really so bad if they're doing it in the open" or "surely the reporting must be a lie because no one would be that shameless".

As I read the paper, you would be able to detect it in a couple of ways

1. possibly high loss where the models don't have compatible embedding concepts 2. given a sufficient "sample" of vectors from each space, projecting them to the same backbone would show clusters where they have mismatched concepts

It's not obvious to me how you'd use either of those to tweak the vector space of one to not represent some concept, though.

But if you just wanted to make an embedding that is unable to represent some concept, presumably you could already do that by training disjoin "unrepresentable concepts" to a single point.

This really feels like trying to use Go for a purpose that it is inherently not designed for: absolute performance.

Go is a fantastic case study in "good enough" practical engineering. And sometimes that means you can't wring out the absolute max performance and that's okay.

It's frustrating, but it is fulfilling it's goals. It's goals just aren't yours.

Completely true, but comparable with lots of other coffee drinkers habits. I make mine half chai concentrate from a local restaurant and half 2% milk in small portion sizes of about 120 calories, so I don't feel _too_ bad about it.

I might have slightly more sugar than is strictly recommended DV, but not by much.

I drink chai lattes instead of coffee. Never could get on board with the bitter, brown bean water.

I have no problem with 'OpenAI', so much as the individual running it and, more generally, rich financiers making the world worse in every capitalizable way and even some they can't capitalize on.

Again?

I'm very curious what this math pretest looked like, whether it was "proper" high level math or, like, computing some trig problems. Folks who have aptitude with algebra or number theory or topology, I'd expect that to be correlated, but not to rote computational math.

If you can't stop an LLM from _saying_ something, are you really going to trust that you can stop it from _executing a harmful action_? This is a lower stakes proxy for "can we get it to do what we expect without negative outcomes we are a priori aware of".

Bikeshed the naming all you want, but it is relevant.

The three things I wish were more standardized in the languages I use are

1. Stacktraces with fields/context besides a string 2. Wrapping errors 3. Combining multiple errors

VS Code + Github Copilot (Editor Inline Chat) + GPT-4o

It really seems like the sheriff and jail ought to be able, and morally obligated, to ignore such an ask/order from ICE if they know it to be legally invalid.

I'm still pretty pessimistic on all this. Just today, I had what should have been an obvious win for an LLM coding assistant to help me. I was writing a go function that converts one very long struct into a second very long struct. The transformation was almost entirely wrapping the fields of the first struct in a wrapper in a completely rote way. If FieldA was an int on src, I wanted a dest{ FieldA: Wrapper{ Value: src.FieldA, Ratio: src.FieldA/Constant }, ... }.

It couldn't do it. I prefilled in all the fields (hundreds) and told it just to populate them, but it tried to hallucinate new fields, it would do one or two then both delete the fields I had added and add a comment saying 'then do the rest'. I tried a bunch of different prompts.

I can see how some vibe coders could make useful things, but most of my attempts to use LLMs in anything not-from-scratch are exercises in frustration.

Is Amazon a product or a place to sell other products? Does that make Amazon not a winner?

Tariffs make things less globally economically efficient. Sometimes that is the goal for specific industries. Economic efficiency is not the ultimate goal.

But no other country has blanket tariffs on so many other countries.

"Things are hard, so don't try"?

Seems like it's just advocating for cowardice hiding behind moral grandstanding.

Welp, now I know my weekend project.