nonethewiser

Or perfect little rhetorical devices

Go is an incomplete language masquerading as a simple one.

You aren’t necessarily wrong but thats a dumb reason for space data centers to be good ideas.

>No, because good understanding of design comes from programming experience.

“Programming” is a bit loaded. Do you mean thinking through and typing everything out yourself?

What design skills specifically can you only develop from continually programming in this way? I fully grant that you need to know how to code yourself to build things with models but what specific ability to use models atrophies alongside your no AI coding abilities?

Personally I’ve found the opposite to be true. As writing out code myself has shrank to nearly 0, I now do way more designing. There is a much shorter feedback loop on design now. You get a lot better at design when thats basically all you are doing, and seeing feedback on your design in minutes rather than weeks or even months.

Read my comment again. And the one I replied to. He claimed that his ability to code through LLMs has decreased as his coding ability atrophied. That is what im questioning. Im not questioning coding for the love of the game.

> You don't expect everyone to stop wanting to do those just because they can be automated more or less effectively, right?

Please reread my comment and the one im replying to. That’s not what I’m addressing.

I dont think we need simpler types for agentic coding though. We need compiler speed. I guess those are probably related to some degree though.

>First, I like programming and don't want to stop doing it just because a machine can do it too. Second, I'm pretty sure atrophied coding skills will make me worse at directing the machines, thus worse at what seems to be "the job" these days.

In theory wouldn’t atrophied coding skills not matter if models are sufficiently good at coding? I mean isn’t whats left just design and architecture and testing?

Sure, if LLMs are producing shit code you need to have an understanding of what it should do instead. But I think that day is already gone.

Its hard to think of a skill that you’d need to build with an LLM that requires writing meaningful amounts of code by oneself. From my end all the complexity is business logic and system design.

Great, then you agree with me that its problematic to have all three in the same place.

I just looked it up and this is exactly what I mean by a separate location. Minneapolis has a bit of this too. I mean you could also use 3 dimensions space and put bikes up or down to resolve the core tension. All of these are of very limited viability so I understand from a pragmatic perspective why cities arent just doing this.

Have you heard of "The Copenhagen left"?

It's a method for a cyclist turning left at an intersection. Turning left from the bike lane on the right is of course impossible, because the land is on the right, despite being a basic function of biking somewhere.

So the cyclist wants to turn left. They go through the intersection and move off to the side, near any pedestrians waiting to cross. When the light turns they and the pedestrians can cross.

Otherwise the biker must leave the bike lane and merge across traffic.

In either case the bike lane is inherently problematic.

>It's not really infeasible, we have this in Holland everywhere and our cities are a lot narrower than the US ones.

I said it is inherently problematic, not exactly that it's infeasible.

The Netherlands is excellent support for my claim because of what you just said. The cities support less car traffic and slower driving speeds. Something has to give and in that case its drivability. In fact there are a lot more streets where cars can't go at all, or are just mostly bikes correct?

And the 3 modes/lanes in one place is still not even solved while minimizing cars. Cyclist are more than 1/3rd of Dutch road deaths and the Fietsersbond has even argued that the middle lane. https://swov.nl/sites/default/files/bestanden/downloads/FS%2...

This is more in the direction of what I'm talking about. I think it's a pretty good model and affirms not contradticts what I'm saying because you do have to sacrifice drivability (unless you can just add streets like this - but I assume not).

You misread me.

>Bikes don't belong on the road with cars and they dont belong on sidewalks with pedestrians and they don't belong in between.

The NYC bike lanes are inherently problematic. These are the "in between" that I'm talking about. They are not entirely separate paths in the way that I mean. They are a new lane within the existing path. What I mean by a separate path is something that is above, below, or in an entirely different location than the road/sidewalk.

Normally, if you’re turning right you’re in the rightmost lane, so nobody to your right is going straight. And likewise for left. A bike lane puts straight-through traffic to the right of turning cars so they come in from your blind spot. A "yield to bikes" rule doesn’t help much when you can’t see who you’re yielding to. And car traffic presents the same problem for bikes. They have to deal with this by merging all the way across traffic or cross and become a pedestrian. The fact that they may have to become a pedestrian is a major flag that they inherently dont fit.

Parking and buses have the same problem. The sidewalk and the road were designed to touch. When you put a bike lane between them, every trip from curb to car, bus, etc. has to cross it.

It’s essentially splitting 1 road into 2 with separate rules. It's inherently problematic. You can't introduce bikes without increasing the rule complexity and worsening the experience for everyone else.

There is plenty of basic intuition here.

- Pairs. Each pair of modes (car,bike,pedestrian) needs its own set of rules. Two modes is one pair. Three modes is three pairs, so adding one mode triples the relationships.

- Introducing a "middle": Every segment of one street crosses every segment of the other. Adding a middle lane on both sides takes an intersection from 9 overlap zones to 25, and from 4 where different modes meet to 16.

- Fixed width: The street doesn’t get wider. Any space dedicated to bikes costs car lanes, parking, or sidewalk.

This is an intractable problem with normal sidewalk/streets. Bikes don't belong on the road with cars and they dont belong on sidewalks with pedestrians and they don't belong in between. This is why both drivers and pedestrians hate bikers.

Ideally we have entirely separate paths for bikes. Of course this is infeasible for most established cities. Doesn't mean they are't inherently a problem in these cases though.

Please read the article. Comments here are wildly misinformed.

This is a lack of linux driver support for firmware designed for windows laptops.

This is a problem on the MSI Prestige laptop using the RTX Spark platform. Lets assume it also applies to the Asus and Dell machines using RTX spark.

RTX Spark is a new platform and all of these laptops ship with Windows. You cant get Linux on any of these machines from the factory. There is also precedent for NVIDIA shipping linux support well after Windows (2 years in the case of Dynanmic Boost, a similar power sharing feature).

How is everyone wildly misunderstanding this article?

It's lack of linux driver support for firmware designed for windows only laptops.

What is going on here? Commenters here are clearly extremely paranoid about NVIDIA centralizing inference. This is not reflected in the facts nor narrative of the article - it's completely fabricated out of left field her in the comments.

This is a problem on the MSI Prestige laptop using the RTX Spark platform with Linux. Lets assume it also applies to the Asus and Dell machines using RTX spark and Linux.

RTX Spark is a new platform and all of these laptops ship with Windows. You cant get Linux on any of these machines from the factory. NVIDIA may even ship drivers for linux later as they did with Dynamic Boost.

>Wtf. Are we actually seeing a push towards being 100percent dependent on the cloud?

This is a linux driver problem. On laptops designed for windows.

Read the article and stop sensationalizing.

This is a problem on the MSI Prestige laptop using the RTX Spark platform and Linux. Lets assume it also applies to the Asus and Dell machines using RTX spark and Linux.

RTX Spark is a new platform and all of these laptops ship with Windows. You cant get Linux on any of these machines from the factory. NVIDIA may even ship drivers for linux later as they did with Dynamic Boost.

Kindly remove this from your list of "Evidence that NVIDIA is Colluding to Centralize Inference" and everyone else take note of this confirmation bias in action.

libtard and conservatard are both there on when I tested on my Mac 26.2

There is a lot more interesting stuff to mine from this.

The phrase blocklist for the Chinese lanaguge is a lot larger (surprise, surprise). It about 281 KB for Simplified Chinese, 325 KB for Traditional and 160 KB for Cantonese, against 28 KB for English.

apparently there are `shouldShowTaiwanFlagEmoji()` and `deviceIsChinese()` functions as well but that doesn't have anything to do with this database.

Apple's built-in dictionary flags on my Mac: 26.2, which is newer than the article's 15.6. Apple has changed several things since:

  ┌───────────────┬────────────────┬──────────────────────────────────────────┐
  │               │ Article (15.6) │             My Mac   (26.2)              │
  ├───────────────┼────────────────┼──────────────────────────────────────────┤
  │ Total entries │ 199,019        │ 199,940                                  │
  ├───────────────┼────────────────┼──────────────────────────────────────────┤
  │ Vulgar        │ 1,050          │ 850                                      │
  ├───────────────┼────────────────┼──────────────────────────────────────────┤
  │ Offensive     │ 663            │ 727                                      │
  ├───────────────┼────────────────┼──────────────────────────────────────────┤
  │ Sensitive     │ 2,558          │ 2,748                                    │
  ├───────────────┼────────────────┼──────────────────────────────────────────┤
  │ Oedipus       │ vulgar         │ sensitive (sex topic)                    │
  ├───────────────┼────────────────┼──────────────────────────────────────────┤
  │ cooties       │ vulgar         │ clean                                    │
  ├───────────────┼────────────────┼──────────────────────────────────────────┤
  │ Biden         │ clean          │ now tagged politics topic, still no tier │
  └───────────────┴────────────────┴──────────────────────────────────────────┘

  These are unchanged:
  - Trump is still sensitive with the politics topic. The lowercase card-game word "trump" is still
    clean.
  - Obama, Putin, Vance and Harris have no tier. Musk still isn't in the dictionary.
  - Tom and Mick are still offensive, and pee, poo, niggle, underling, blacklist and Isis are still
    sensitive.
  - idiot is still sensitive, and now also has the catch-all "sensitive context" topic.

  Words in the capitalized sensitive list that the article doesn't mention include Saddam, Grindr,
  Oedipus/Oedipal, TERF and Viagra. Trump is still the only living politician among them.

Lower levels of football are the safer ones though. In terms of reducing CTE it would be better to remove NFL then College. Pee wee football is the safest level of football.

Additionally, people in college and NFL have played waaay more football which increases the chance of CTE. 95% of HS football players will not play beyond HS.

Removing HS football and lower wouldn’t make a big difference and would negatively impact the most people.

>The whole thing has an unpleasant vibe to it that reminds me of the way "pickup artists" used to talk a decade ago.

I found it quite odd and a bit unsettling as well.

He says

>“Something like 9 out of 10 people that I’ve met who had strong touch aversions were also visibly maladjusted in the same way that you would expect from the stereotype of an animal that was cringing away from normal touch (e.g. from other members of its own species).”

In an article where he clearly has a touch aversion. Another post of his describes physical intimacy as "slimy pushups" and clearly has an issue with sex. It just feels like a call for help or nod to issues he's dealing with when he says that people with touch aversion usually have other issues while he rights a lot about touch aversion.

In terms of the pickup artist vibes he talks about orgasms (not sex) as incentivizing him to "Try to convince some other cool and interesting person to drop all of their cool and interesting activities to do some slimy pushups with me"

This whole thing is much weirder yet: https://homosabiens.substack.com/p/on-puberty-identity-and-s...

I sympathize. It just gives the writing a feeling of beating around some bush that we cant see.

Like how he somehow fails to mention that he is indeed gay.

It gets weirder:

  Intimacy is great, but you’re fooling yourself if you think that doing
  slimy pushups against each other is the optimal way to produce it. It
  may (sadly) be one of the best ways in practice, given what nature has
  left us with, but that’s very different from saying “yes, this is
  definitely how a good designer would have designed this system from
  the ground up.”

  A literal actual majority of the people I’ve talked to about this
  genuinely claim to believe that yep, this is the right way for
  intimacy and pleasure to be created, it’s ideal, no actually better
  system could exist, any major changes would be worse.

  And they are deeply confused. You are deeply confused, insofar as you
  are (probably) a part of that majority.

And:

  I’m quite fond of orgasms, as it happens. I wouldn’t write them out of
  the universe. I just wish they incentivized me to do something that I
  straightforwardly want to do, rather than incentivizing me to:

  - Sit alone tediously massaging a body part, instead of doing anything
    actually interesting

  - Try to convince some other cool and interesting person to drop all
    of their cool and interesting activities to do some slimy pushups
    with me

And much more.

https://medium.com/@ThingMaker/on-puberty-identity-and-sex-6...

Unless they want humanity to end, a childless person has to hope other people don't agree with their lifestyle. If everyone had 2 kids everything would be fine. If everyone was childless humanity would end.

Give life

Webs are made of lines. A twig has a path back to the root. And you are only a leaf node until you reproduce, after which you are a branch and perhaps a shared part of this “web.”

>I'm saying the original article's claim checks out even for machines.

Im not sure where the misunderstanding is.

The article says better players calculate a similar amount of moves and your anecdote shows the better player calculating a lot less.

So yeah it rebuts but the idea that GMs analyze more moves but it doesnt agree with the article, right? I guess just in the sense that its not more.

> Meaning, you analyse 100 moves will not be the same set of GM 100 moves. And GM work on better 100 moves than yours. If you pick the moves that GM not thinking of, you likely get crushed because those moves are very inferior moves that GM already can see the outcome without the need to consider.

This is intuitive and I guess I'm not surprised this is what was meant. They analyze the same amount of moves they are simply better at it (picking candidates, calculating, etc.)

I guess maybe im being a bit nitpicky but I feel like this is still a misleading way to say that.

> the average chess grandmaster during a classical game will analyze roughly the same number of moves as an amateur player, but they analyze only the most critical moves and do a better job with that analysis.

You could just omit "only the most critical moves" instead of listing it as an additional thing.

> the average chess grandmaster during a classical game will analyze roughly the same number of moves as an amateur player, but they do a better job with that analysis.

"only the most critical moves" sounds like less, especially when listed in addition to analyzing better.

I digress.