klustregrif

There's some subleties lost in the "just filing paperwork" the regulatory filing reports are big content heavy documents, that need to be generated. But it's not just a job consisting of pasting in lorum ipsum. A lot of intelligence goes into creating those documents, which is why it hasn't been revolutionised by digital templating systems. But there is the very real potential for speeding up the process through AI document editing and reviews to turn 2 weeks of people sequentially doing edits, passing for review back and forth before being able to submit, to perhaps just getting everyone in a room for 2 hours and pointing out everything that needs changing and changing it on the spot. But even then you'll still sometimes have the hook back to the slower processes of having to generate new evidence or find and review evidence that wasn't included. But even a 25% increase in speed will have quite significant impact, so it's not like it has to become a turn key submissions solution to be valuable.

It's like saying "Cisco Developer" even though the company is Cisco Systems

The company is called Generate Biomedicines, and they reference it in short as Generate.

I’m still using Firefox, I was adding the perspective from back in the start of “why didn’t you just move over from IE” like everyone would just move because an alternative existed. Most didn’t and i get it. I am not the norm. I also ran gentoo back then which is not an option for most computer users.

Also being “technically most standard compliant” doesn’t mean anything to the average user who’s just angry that their browser isn’t showing their MySpace page correctly.

Calm down. Not every bit of real perspective on software short of “Firefox is perfect” is an existential criticism of it existing.

Back when Phoenix launched it was not a reliable alternative to IE or Opera, it was more like a sign of protest. You’d use it to tell the world that you didn’t care if most of the internet didn’t work for you, as longs as you where “sticking it to the man”.

I remember developing web pages with the purpose of ensuring they would work in both, so Phoenix was my main driver, but whenever anything was “done” the real work started of also getting it to work in IE, it was always a monumental effort. Sites with buttons for “go here for pheonix/go here for ie” where common. My friends who worked in the windows ecosystem mostly saw Phoenix as some “crazy hipster trend” and didn’t have a care as to if anything they made worked in it or not.

There is more money in selling shovels than you can ever win by having a monopoly on really effective shovels. They don't need to build a competitor to Google there's 300 companies throwing money at them while they build the "next google" and even if they all fail Anthropic still wins.

> then why even have source control?

I know you are joking, but the answer is the same. Because the agents need it, not because any human need it. The Agents quite actively use the history. It's more effective than any comments or separate documentation might be for the agents working on the code.

If someone kidnapped it and you where asked to pay 400$ to get it back. Would you pay the ransom?

Developers using rails are of cause not too satisfied with an answer to their question of “how will rails make my life better in the future?” Being “it won’t, use an AI coding agent and let it write rust for you” but it’s a keynote not a marketing pitch. If would have been silly to do a talk about some minor changes to rails and then open the conference where everyone except artisanal code carvers would talk about exactly how they’ve replaced most of that they used to do by hand carving with AI automation. He’s not talking about some far fetched future he’s talking about that has happened the last year.

Absolutely crazy concept. But looks like they actually threw something decent together. I'd wager the bulk of problems people face with teeth come from poor flossing, this makes it effortless to avoid that.

I've owned water jets, the ones I've had suck. I always end up going back to dental floss. These days string on a plastic holder which I hate because it feels so wasteful to have all that single use plastic, but they are just so effective and I hate the manual wrapping of string, so I accept the wastefulness reluctantly.

This product potentially hits home with what I'd want from an effective waterjet, and it also comes with a brush on top.

The price is high, that's for sure, but I'm guessing they aren't aiming at the average electric tooth brush market, more like a competitor to the oral b io series 9 segment. And sure they are quite a bit above that price point, but they got a lot more of a solution backing the price.

The Traditional View (How it actually works): If an investment fund manages $1000 of your money and charges a $150 management fee while keeping your $1000 completely separate, they made $50 on $150 of sales and have a 33.3% profit margin.

The "Insurance Style" View (If they copied UHG's model): If an investment fund counts your $1000 deposit as their own revenue and treats buying stocks for you as their own cost, they made $50 on $1150 of sales and have a 4.3% profit margin.

The distinction is that the insurance company is not selling you medical services; those are covered by your and other clients' own money. They are selling the service of managing a central fund to reduce risk for the people who are part of it. For them to claim that you were paying them for medical services, they shouldn't just be covering the hospital bills—they should be operating the hospital and buying and selling the drugs themselves. It might feel like they do that, but this is actually done by the healthcare providers and pharmacies, with the costs merely covered by the insurance fund.

Grocery-Bagging Analogy: Imagine you pay a teenager $10 an hour to help bag customers' groceries. In that hour, $2000 worth of groceries get bagged, and your business takes a $100 fee from the store for the service. After paying the teenager, you pocket $90.Do you claim a 90% profit margin on your $100 service fee? Or do you claim that your "costs" were $2010 because you included the value of the customers' groceries, pretending your margin was a measly 4.3% while walking away with almost all the fee?

A very beautiful tribute to her life and memory. My condolences go out to her family.

So your claim is that if there is no correlation between A and B then it proves that there is in fact negative correlation between A and B because there is no correlation?

And so the Dunning Kruger effect becomes true of all things that are uncorrelated?

> If the research can't demonstrate the DK effect, then the research is bad, like poorly designed.

It’s the opposite problem. The research is bad because it “demonstrates the DK effect” even for cases where it cannot possibly be true. Like “people who tend to roll lower dice rolls overestimate their own ability to roll high dice values and people who tend to roll higher values tend to underestimate their own ability”

Which is just obviously incorrect and the true result should have been “there’s no correlation between people’s estimate of their ability to roll dice and their actual outcomes”

If you want to demonstrate an actual effect like DK, you have to set up an experiment such the if it truly doesn’t exist then the experiment tells you so. A great way of checking this is to throw random data at it in which case it should come out saying “I saw no correlation” but that’s no the case with their setup.

> I could not reliably assign authorship percentages to many of my own recent projects.

This feels like a strange statement. Unless you are going out of you way to disguise AI contributions it's extremely simple to do some git magic to get an exact percentage. But you can also just ask AI and it'll tell you directly. And even if you've tried to disguise it I'm fairly certain that if you set aside 10$ for tokens, it'll be able to deduce how much is AI even with someone having tried to disguise it.

How do you go from “calculate that it would take longer than the age of the universe for room-temperature window glass to visibly deform” to “so the. It does flow”?

Glass flows a higher temperatures where it does act like a liquid, you can study glass blowing for examples, however no, room temperature glass is not a liquid and does not flow, for any practical definition of what flowing is.

That’s a misconception. Glass does not flow over time; it is a rigid, amorphous solid. The uneven thickness seen in old cathedral windows is a result of historical manufacturing. Glass was spun into discs that naturally became thicker at the edges, and builders installed the heavier side at the bottom for stability. Physicists calculate that it would take longer than the age of the universe for room-temperature window glass to visibly deform under gravity. Reference: Zanotto, E. D. (1998). "Do cathedral glasses flow?" American Journal of Physics, https://doi.org/10.1119/1.19026

The noice isn’t about the effect, it’s about trying to scale the outcome. We essentially have proof of a method that is significantly better than what is used with the broad population, but we cannot scale it to the broad population. That’s the “problem” in the two sigma problem.

And in general ongoing from “it’s obvious to me” to a quantized effect is always an effort. For instance I don’t believe you are correct in assuming that one would see a two sigma effect in physical exercise when comparing someone who attends a regular exercise course va someone who spends the same time with a personal trainer. Two sigma is a lot, and you won’t be lifting significantly heavier weights from hav a PT vs doing starting strength training. In my opinion you would most definitely see a two sigma effect from doing steroids though. But this is all pure speculation which underlines that part of the “noice” is about the documented aspect of the two sigma problem, where we have a body of data to work against not just personal assumptions. That said if anyone has studies on personal trainers va course work in fitness I’d love to see my world image challenged by data.

A lot of pessimism in the comments, but I am just happy that we are seeing some work towards bridging the 2 Sigma gap for regular education vs. elite private tutoring. I can't imagine that people assume it's the physical presence of the tutor that is making the difference, it has to come down to the personalisation and expertise which is exactly what AI can provide in a form. And yea it might not be "there" yet. But if we don't start trying and studying then it'll never get there.

Had this been a corporate environment the net saving by using one person partly and an agent as opposed to one person full time for the time it would take to implement this, would be a net saving enough to cover utilities, water and food for an entire village.

It’s silly to act like this was an added cost in a vacuum, or that any costs translate directly into charity for arbitrary families. Also in some place it would even cover rent for half a day.

> I've had papers sit in peer review for two years, get rejected

And for people who aren't in academia, lets just say the unspoken part: While one or more of the reviewers are actively trying to replicate the work so they can beat you to submission after rejecting you.

You are trying to kidnap what I have rightfully stolen, and I think it quite ungentlemanly!

> Oh so she cares about her own privacy?

She didn’t choose to make that move. PET (the equivalent of FBI) made the decision to protect her address. I’m sure she much prefer the time back when she was living at her own place and her address was freely available to the public without any issues.

There is no hypocrisy here. As for releasing social security numbers of people, she’s against it no matter who’s doing the doxing and who the target is. But yes, obviously the government knows hos government issued ID corresponds to who. That’s pretty obvious. But that doesn’t mean everyone in the country has to have access to it. Your doctor also has access to your medical journal, that doesn’t give you the right to publish the medical journal of your doctor on Facebook if you get angry at him for giving you a bad diagnosis.

By what metric? The fact that he got arrested for stalking the prime ministers children and releasing private information speaks toward protecting privacy not an issue if lacking privacy.

You can’t just declare “I am an anti violence activist” then go out and beat up politicians and declare that the system has a problem with violence when you get arrested.

This is the equivalent of what he’s done. He claims to support privacy laws so he violated the privacy of someone who is currently protected by the PET (equivalent of FBI) due to safety concerns and he proudly proclaimed that he did so by stalking her children. He’s not a political activist he’s a drug dealer who’s hell bent on getting revenge on politicians because he just spent 8 months in jail after being convicted on counts of death threats harassment and illegal possession of arms and drugs.

Success in what exactly? There a very strong political movement in Denmark towards protecting privacy rights, then there’s this nutjob who just got out of jail for bribes, harassment, death threats against politicians and immediately he starts stalking the kids of the prime minister.

He’s not doing anything for the cause he claims to fight for. He’s doesn’t want a right to privacy he wants to be allowed to continue to sell drugs “in private” from the government. And he thinks freedom of speech should cover his freedom to harass and threaten politicians which it doesn’t and shouldn’t.

Scenario: cop does cocain on the job and allows friends to sell drugs without enforcing the law.

Me: that’s kind of fucked up and not activism.

You: So you support Hitler!?!

I think you’ve got his fake activism mixed up. When he was a cop he wasn’t claiming to be a privacy advocates his stick then was that cops should be allowed to do cocain while on the job and that if a cop though selling drugs was ok they should be free to not uphold the law whenever they felt like it.

His fake stance on privacy came later when he faced consequences for doxing politicians and using the public Facebook pages of politics to advertise his drug peddling enterprise.

I don’t have any non public information. This is all public record, he was found guilty and charged with jail on multiple occasions. He pops up in the news periodically for having broken yet another law and i charged and convicted for it.

And “being opposed to mass surveillance” and literally stalking kids of the prime minister to attempt to expose the PET (equivalent to FBI) exposed secret location her family is staying at are not the same.

Obviously every drug dealer is going to “be of the ideology that dealing drugs should be legal” but that doesn’t make dealing drugs activism. Same as abusing the office of being a cop. It doesn’t matter if you believe it should be legal for cops to beat up protestors, that doesn’t make a cop breaking the law to beat up protestors an act of activism.

The guy is just a sleezebag who cries “activism” every time he faces consequences for breaking the law in this illegal activism or when he’s harassing politicians. That’s not actual activism and he’s not supporting any cause he’s just acting like an idiot doing what he’s doing.

He was saying that he broke the law routinely and they decided to end the investigation. That’s corruption, police should be investigated for routinely failing to do their job just the same as when they break the law or abuse their office.

No, it’s not just unlisted number and address. PET (Danish equivalent of FBI) by administrative decision has had her move out of her Copenhagen apartment and to an undisclosed location due to security concerns. Her and her family are literally under protection due to security concerns and this guy is stalking her kids trying to dox her.

> you could elaborate on the claims that be was a corrupt police officer and drug dealer.

This is public record. It’s entirely published he’s charged and received a prison sentence for the crime, the investigation into corruption started but needed early when he handed in his resignation. which is just proof that he was a corrupt cop in a corrupt system. I mean no drug dealer who gets charged is going to get off by going “ok I’ll quit then”.

> My understanding of his own account is that he left the force when he wasn't comfortable arresting people over weed

This flips the script. He public made statements that he would carry drugs on the job, and felt I’d should be legal, and that he wouldn’t enforce the drug law. The investigation that followed he handed in his resignation. And the corrupt Danish police force being what it is, dropped the investigation.

His “activism” has since consisted of amongst other things starting to sell drugs and then claiming that its activism when he got charged with prison for it. To be clear, he didn’t stage the public sale of a symbolic amount to get arrested and protest through civil disobedience. He straight up went breaking bad and started a drug peddling operation.