potamic

Most things that go viral actually have a concerted marketing push behind them. I suspect that was the case here. Something about the way people talked about it didn't come across as very genuine.

Can someone who is new to Star trek start with DS9 or need to watch earlier series for context?

The people looking at invisible gamma farts at the edge of our universe is what led to understanding of supernovas, and the research on supernovas is what enabled ASML to build an EUV light source for their machines. EUV machines are arguably the most important machines on earth right now, responsible for modern GPUs and the recent growth of AI. If somebody told all those researchers in the 20th century to "focus on something of importance" instead, we may easily be a couple of decades behind with the state of semi-conductor technology today.

You're right. If you were educated, you would have learnt about the numerous applications of particle physics in modern technologies.

Love the brutalist style. Are the components all hand-rolled or something off the shelf?

In such cases does the registrar jack up prices next year or do you get to lock in the price forever at the time of purchase?

Blurring the cost-benefit analysis in the interest of downplaying the costs.

There was a narrative here earlier that I'd rather trust Google/Apple with my data than any other company or any government. The end result is the same in the end. When it comes to privacy, the only thing that works is zero trust.

Member when today's biggest advertising company used to claim no ads as their USP? Tegridy members...

You don't have to believe one's bullshit. You just have to believe others will believe the bullshit.

I suppose the question of how to prioritize scientific funding is itself a scientific problem, so we would first need to decide how much to allocate to the scientific funding sub-discipline so that all of scientific funding is as efficient as possible!

In all seriousness, I don't know how science policy works but I expect it is more goal-oriented than objective-oriented. Science rarely starts with, "What are the biggest problems faced by humanity", and then tries to take them up. Rather what it's saying is, "I know this and this about something. Given this, I think I can figure out what is that", and then tries to figure out "that". There is no greater objective to figuring out "that", other than it is there to be found. You could perhaps say the ultimate objective of science is simply to know, and so you take whatever steps are in front of you that will help you know more.

It might seem kinda wasteful on the outset, but 400 years back nobody would have dreamed that studying why these dots in the night sky move will help understand tides on earth, which in turn leads to understanding tidal currents, which in turn leads to understanding climate at a given place. 200 years back no one would have imagined that the key to health and diseases lie in finding invisible things moving around in the air. A mere 100 years back it would've been impossible to conceive studying why tiny flecks of dust jiggle about when floating on a drop of water, would lead to unlocking immense reserves of energy for civilization. Everything we are today, everything we can do, all the scientific and technological progress we have achieved is a result of this very process. It happened simply because many thousands of curious minds tried to take the next step in front of them. If some of them didn't because they were told it wasn't a worthwhile investment of resources, where would we be today?

> Everyone looks really busy though, I guess that’s all that matters anymore.

This is a dangerous tide incoming. I once had a conversation with a new exec as to why a certain team doesn't "look busy". In their mind people are just "coasting" and need to pull up their socks and improve delivery. The concept of being proficient and streamlined about your work simply didn't strike a chord. That place went downhill pretty fast.

Could you share some details? How many lines of code? How much time did it take, and how much did it cost?

I, on the other hand, had the privilege not to watch this. I don't know how one can without feeling sick to the stomach.

As someone who is neither a Jew nor a Palestinian, I'm going to take this with a grain of salt, because there is so much mud being slung across from both sides.

This is an unfortunate trend we will see across software going ahead. When the bar to make something is low, the market is inevitably flooded by cheap and mediocre stuff that overshadow everything else. Soon there won't be an incentive to make high quality stuff because even if you did, you wouldn't be able to grab anyone's attention with it because it's all taken away by the endless slop that won't stop.

I followed the docs for ollama configuration, but it says unknown LLM provider when I try running the research command.

Counterpoint:

https://williamdepaolo.substack.com/p/correlation-is-not-hea...

People at large have still not learned to question what they hear from social media or what youtube influencers tell them. So this is a far cry. If anything, I feel the population getting more vulnerable to suggestion compared to the pre- smartphone era.

> Asked about “the pros” of ChatGPT by Jimmy Fallon on a December episode of “The Tonight Show,” Altman talked effusively about the tool’s use for health care. “The number of people that reach out to us and are like, ‘I had this crazy health condition. I couldn’t figure out what was going on. I just put my symptoms into ChatGPT, and it told me what test to ask the doctor for, and I got it and now I’m cured.’”

I've always believed, don't blame the tool for the user, but can't help but feel the sellers are a little complicit here. That statement was no accident. It was carefully conceived to be part of discourse and set the narrative on how people are using AI.

It's understandable that they want to tout their tool's intelligence over imitation, so expecting them to go out of their way to warn people about flaws may be asking too much. But the least thing to do is simply refrain from dangerous topics and let people decide for themselves. To actively influence perception and set the tone on these topics when you know the what ramifications will be, is deeply disappointing.

What is duckdb better compared to? What were people using before it entered the scene?

Check out the list of all CSS specifications [1], and then open any one of them and see how lengthy and elaborate each is. Then do the same for each version of the spec published over the last thirty years. Before you can start, you must read and understand all of this at a great level of depth. Still, specifications never tell the complete story. You must be aware of all the nuances that are implied by each requirement in the spec and know how to handle the zillion corner cases that will crop up inevitably.

And this is just one part. Not even considering the fully sandboxed, mini operating system for running webapps.

[1] https://www.w3.org/Style/CSS/specs.en.html

Everything in moderation. An understated benefit of fruit is their prebiotic nature which promotes a healthy gut. A lot of healthy eating advice is settling down towards one idea. Eat a wide range of raw and fermented plant food.

That's a poor justification. There are companies that sell you all kinds of labelled data. OpenAI, Anthropic didn't train on their own user data.

About how many "parameters" do they evaluate roughly for a full body scan? And is one typically qualified to evaluate across the entire body or do they specialize in different areas of the body?

I thought radiologists need to know what to look for in order to diagnose something? Do they brute force every potential condition in the body that can be detected with an MRI?

There have been reports of lidar damaging camera sensors. If it can damage sensors, it can damage retina. And unlike the sun, it's not visible. Someone could stare straight into it for a good while and not realize.

No way to see without signing in with github? The sign-in also appears to be broken.

I hope you succeed, just to rid the industry of this abomination that is leetcode.

I don't think they are confused. They are simply challenging the assertion that the model should not work with other software. Which is fair because there is a lot of precedent around whether a service can dictate how it must be consumed. It's not a simple answer and there are good reasons for both sides. Whichever path we take will have wide consequences and shape our future in a very distinct way. So it is an important decision, and ultimately up to us, as a society to influence and guide.