kepeko

This kind of tests are interesting but they shouldn't be given much value. AI is a tool that can often give useful answers. But given that we know its limitations we should never give it status of "AI knows better than human". Its answer must be judged by its merits (like human answers). All kind of AI results can be interesting but they should not be mistaken to be some kind of revelation from higher entities. What I'm worried is that at some point people start using "AI says so" as an argument which it's not at all. That's why my aversion to giving too high value to AI answers.

After a short/zero copyright it would be a "free for all". But that sounds lovely! It would be a different business model, not ripping someone off. I don't recognize copyright as some kind of "natural law". Taking someone's physical property, that's theft. Singing a song that you have heard, that shouldn't be theft.

It's cool. Here a little different way to calculate. Day number + month number + year number, modulo 7 => weekday number. Year number this year is 3, goes +1 every year, +2 in leap year. Month numbers if not leap year: 033614625035. Day number is ordinary day of the month. 24th Dec 2026 would be: 24 + 5 + 3 = 32. 32 mod 7 is 4 (Thursday)

"international law doesnt actually exist." Wow that's an interesting way to put it.

73°C isn't unusual. I checked out what's source for the Wikipedia article that says it's 80 to 110°C. Oddly it's a Chicago Tribune article from 1970. I don't think I ever visited a 110°C sauna.

Maybe the positive is that access control might break the illusion of privacy.

Okay it's quite private in the sense that we don't know our friends browsing history but we know somebody, somewhere is collecting data and selling it to their 100 partners.

Do you think there might ever be a moment when someone decides, legally or not, dump enormous amount of info, in a way that allows people to see what google searches other people did or browsing history etc? A moment when people's embarrassing secrets come into light.

Anybody who ever lets AI do things autonomously and publicly, risks it doing something unexpected and bad. Of course some people will experiment with things. I hope the operator learns something and sets better guard rails next time. (And maybe stops doing AI pull requests as nobody seems to like them at this point)

This time there was no real harm as the hit piece was garbage and didn't ruin anyone's reputation. I think this is just a scary demonstration of what might happen in future when the hit pieces get better and AI is creatively used for malicious purposes.

Agree. team needs to know about the shit. It's important information that helps them prioritize their work and motivates them as they know that what they do is important for the bigger bosses. If manager shields me from everything I go apathetic, not knowing why I even do the boring stuff if manager doesn't tell me his manager is giving shit

Cars are so expensive I'm happy if somebody brings cheaper cars to Europe. EU regulation is probably a factor in making cars too expensive and it's time to stop and think, how to find a better balance.

That's interesting. People are really different. I had my own stages to being still not socially normal person. I always wanted friends, sometimes had some, sometimes felt lonely. In case you happen to read this, did you not have friends in childhood but didn't feel bad about it?

Cont. I was always somebody who does well in school and thinks he is smart. But I had some situations that gave me a lesson. E.g. when I was younger I got to know some people who were kind of fun to spend time with but I thought they are a bit crazy, not smart. At some point I noticed, well, they seem to be doing better than I, in fact. They have a nice job, they have friends, they have a comfy apartment, they seem happy. I was a poor technical student in university who was struggling with studies and life, and not finding a great job. So I thought, "I think I'm smart but what use is my smarts if the dumb ones are doing better?" I developed this mindset of forgetting smarts and not categorizing people with that so much. And don't be proud of your smarts, instead show what valuable skills you have.

Even if you are smart you have to work. And the work isn't necessarily funnier than the "stupid" work that almost anybody can do. I still think I liked my time at construction yard more than my time in front of computer screens. But I do this to be able to pay my bills. There are many counter arguments to the point that smart people are less happy because of what their jobs but I still wanted to say, "better" job is not always happier. Disclaimer, construction workers are smart but there are entry level jobs where smarts is not needed.

My new dream job is tukang kalason

What if something works even if the arguments are unscientific? Example: How to get an apple from high up in the tree where I can't reach? My theory is that if I knock them with a baseball bat they fall because they are afraid of baseball bats and don't want to be hit. I have tested it and it works. A physics teacher I know disagrees, and a biologist disagrees.

What if psychology has such things that just work even if the theory is wrong? The trauma healing layman psychology industry might have a method that works for some people, so that they get into a better mental state.

I don't think this from the point of view of who I'm rewarding. To me, Israel looks like a state with its independent foreign policy, army, government.

How about Gaza/West Bank, no even before Oct 7 attacks it didn't look like a state. Israel is right now so much more powerful that it won't let Palestinians have independence. This situation is so strange I don't have time to write a more detailed answer about my opinions.

I think there should first be something resembling a state and only then it could be recognised. Now there isn't any entity that looks like an independent Palestinian state. For that reason this recognition seems pointless to me although I'm sympathetic to finding a peaceful solution.

That was a good bit of humor.

Also there are some popular ways of explaining things that don't do the job (your experience is maybe different). For example: try to learn very basics of object oriented programming. The tutorial will inevitably have examples like "Class Bicycle" or "Class Car". These are out of programming context and never helped me to understand how to benefit from OOP in programming.

Another example is git tutorials. Having used git for years it feels so simple. In the very beginning it wasn't and those maps with circles and arrows didn't help.

The writer mentions "panic monster" which is something like deadline or fear or public embarrassment and it forces you to work. It's kind of strong external motivation.

I wonder if ADHD can be described in terms of motivation instead of in terms of attention. Like what if someone with ADHD can regulate his attention as well as somebody other but he's not motivated enough to do it. Could ADHD be described as a better than usual resistance to "panic monster"? In a class somebody might feel very stressed out about homework and about being in time (are those things "panic monsters" to him?) while somebody other feels uninterested. Somebody other is not even scared of getting reprimanded by teacher if he directs his attention to talking with friends during class. He's not scared of being late. He's not scared of getting bad grades. He's generally not easily stressed out and he does fun things while the other reads homework.

If both internal and external motivation are lacking for him he might have some troubles graduating from university. If he's expected to work without much direction or pressure(e.g. remote coder) he might have troubles getting good results in work.

This idea is surely simplistic but can you relate to this, that instead of ADHD person being more prone to divert his attention to fun things randomly he might be just feeling the external motivation in a weaker way?

I don't have ADHD even though the article made me think about it.

I wonder if human singer instinctively chooses another note, that is not 100% same frequency as in piano. You know, there are always imperfections in piano tuning even if it's done in today's standard way(all intervals are not perfect). I'm not a piano tuner but this is my understanding. Possibly trained singers can sing in a better harmony somewhere where piano gets it (very) slightly wrong?