Notably, this is a looped (latent recurrent) transformer. GPT-6 Astra is speculated to be the same.
438 karma · joined January 7, 2018
> Another explanation for why the JWST may have seen an overrepresentation of galaxies rotating in one direction is that the Milky Way's own rotation could have caused it.
> Previously, scientists had considered the speed of our galaxy's rotation to be too slow to have a non-negligible impact on observations made by the JWST.
> “If that is indeed the case, we will need to re-calibrate our distance measurements for the deep universe," Shamir concluded. "The re-calibration of distance measurements can also explain several other unsolved questions in cosmology such as the differences in the expansion rates of the universe and the large galaxies that according to the existing distance measurements are expected to be older than the universe itself."
I wonder why they have this policy? They have all the necessary information to facilitate a conversation. Heck, with services like Hide My Email, they could even keep the identities of each party private.
My summer class was taught by the late professor Wojbor Woyczyński at CWRU and it completely changed my understanding of statistics. Instead of rote memorization, we built the foundations of statistics from the ground up in Mathematica. The subject felt so alive and it clicked in the six short weeks of the summer session.
I suspect the first-principles approach would resonate with the HN crowd. It certainly did for me. Should you be interested, check out the book he co-wrote and used to teach the class: Introductory Statistics and Random Phenomenon. https://catalog.case.edu/record=b2504793
https://www.reddit.com/r/jimmyjohns/comments/rq1hy7/wtf/ https://www.reddit.com/r/jimmyjohns/comments/rq1cok/no_words... https://www.reddit.com/r/jimmyjohns/comments/rpzetd/who_want...
Check out r/jimmyjohns from around December 27 for more. A few commenters indicate that the online ordering system uses DoorDash under the hood. Perhaps some cache entries got mixed up? Just thought it was fascinating.
> I’ve largely covered sqlc’s objective benefits and features, but more subjectively, it just feels good and fast to work with. Like Go itself, the tool’s working for you instead of against you, and giving you an easy way to get work done without wrestling with the computer all day.
I've been meaning to write a blog post about sqlc myself, and when I get to it, I'll probably quote this line. sqlc is that rare tool that just "feels right". I think that feeling comes from a combination of things. It's fast. It uses an idiomatic Go approach (code generation, instead of e.g. reflection) to solve the problem at hand, so it feels at home in the Go ecosystem. As noted in the article, it allows you to check that your SQL is valid at compile-time, saving you from discovering errors at runtime, and eliminating the need for certain types of tests.
But perhaps most of all, sqlc lets you just write SQL. After using sqlc, using a more conventional ORM almost seemed like a crazy proposition. Why would someone author an ORM, painstakingly creating Go functions that just map to existing SQL features? Such a project is practically destined to be perpetually incomplete, and if one day it is no longer maintained, migration will be painful. And why add to your code a dependency on such a project, when you could use a tool like sqlc that is so drastically lighter, and brings nearly all the benefits?
sqlc embraces the idea that the right tool for talking to a relational database is the one we've had all along, the one which every engineer already knows: SQL. I look forward to using it in more projects.
> Any license bought after Sept 2019 warrants three years of updates, including "major" ones, analogous to the Sublime Merge licensing model. A road for upgrading a previously purchased license (potentially recently) has not been decided on yet.
The Sublime Text 4 dev builds pulled me enthusiastically back to Sublime full-time, and I'm excited that it's close to release. It's been carefully modernized and is a joy to use. In particular, writing Go in Sublime with LSP (gopls) and Sublime's Go Build System plugin essentially makes it an IDE for me, but still as snappy as, well, Sublime. That's a hard combination to beat. I suspect Sublime's approach of "do one thing well" (text editing) is especially well-suited for a language like Go, which has such an excellent selection of first-party tools. Sublime's approach lets those tools shine rather than hiding them away.
It's hard to name all of the features that feel fast. Some are little, like scrolling; many are bigger, like starting up the editor, switching projects, and searching for symbols, all of which are instantaneous. Even the dev builds have been remarkably stable; the result of the care taken is that the whole application feels crafted. It's a quality that HN (rightly!) laments is lacking in much modern software.
There are caveats; in particular, to get gopls to work, I recall having to search around a plugin's GitHub issues to find a solution for some problem with my $PATH. Not everyone will want this upfront learning investment. For me, the tradeoff was worth it. Having gotten familiar with the Sublime console and just a bit of how its plugin system works, there are no longer any parts of my editor I'm scared of and consider a black box.
Finally, I am happy that I paid for Sublime; I own my copy. The VSCode community seems vibrant and sustainable, but when trying it, I couldn't shake the feeling that I was living in Microsoft's world. They've shepherded it well so far, and it would seem they have incentive to continue. But despite being OSS, I never felt it was mine. One modicum of validation to that feeling: Microsoft recently (last year?) switched to a closed-source model for the Python language server that made the VSCode python experience so great for me. So overall, the transaction with Sublime HQ felt clearer to me. I paid them money for a great editor, rather than using an editor for free in exchange for goodwill or developer mindshare. That is a transaction I'd make again.