summarybot

I found #6 unnecessarily difficult. While I personally really enjoy puzzles, primarily logic ones and spelling ones, this melted my brain. Maybe you could add a "hint" button that shows you which letter is the starting letter for a word in the remaining to-be-found list.

Yttrium is a chemical element with the symbol Y and atomic number 39 :)

What's the cost/benefit analysis on Papermark being open-source?

If an "assistant" never replies to an e-mail, what is it "assisting" with exactly?

If this was a bank with a bank teller, you told the teller to never speak to a single customer, and then celebrated the fact that no one was able to social engineer them.

In security the interesting and challenging part is to differentiate between legitimate and illegitimate behavior. And that's different than just refusing all behavior outright.

Gonna give you a zero out of one hundred on "interesting"

Small government vs Big government and Family Values vs Social Nonobligation would have been much cleaner.

Authoritarian versus Libertarian? Really?

So cool! Love that Clojure(Script) is the language of choice here. Seeing a graphical tile nestled in a function call blew my mind for a hot minute, there.

It's about training data and using Claude to compare 2 outputs and have it indicate the better one. This gives you higher quality training data that you can use to train a fresh set of weights. Weights don't get adjusted on-the-fly, instead the dataset for training is improved and then you train a'fresh. And it's hard to detect because you're just asking the model which of these outputs for a given prompt is better? Or something along those lines.

Let the ironic screaming at the sight of this word commence!

I don't know if I can get behind .71 implying "correlates really well" ... that's the issue I had recently with talking with GPT, it was evaluating my logical reasoning ability based on the vocabulary I was employing. You don't need fancy words to be intelligent.

I traced the two-party dynamic back to something underneath district size a while ago: how we vote. One person, one vote, actually encourages first past the post winners. Shrink the district, grow the district, doesn't matter, you're still forcing every voter into a single binary mark, and a binary mark always collapses into two stable attractors.

Consider the Olympics instead. Judges score, and 1st place, 2nd place, 3rd place simply fall out of the scores, nobody had to design a tournament bracket to make that happen. Give voters that same instrument: score every candidate on desirability. For a pooled multi-seat district, take however many winners the pool needs, ranked by score. Nothing stops someone from voting like they do now, give the candidate you despise a 0 and the one you want a 100, but most people think in preference, a first, second, third choice, not a single binary mark.

The numerology of district size and pop-per-rep will always be heuristic at best. If the goal is to improve representation, we should focus on the mechanism of selecting people and elevating them into office. That's the biggest bang for the buck.

It'd be interesting to run some numerical simulations to see at what number of Reps coordination becomes unfeasible or leads to perennial grid-lock. The Senate, on the other hand, is the "saucer" for the hot tea of the Lower House. Back in the day, people would pour tea from the tea cup straight into the saucer to cool it down, and sup from the saucer directly. Which means that the saucer "cooled down" the ferocity and fiery intensity of the "discussions" in the Lower House. Does this relationship still hold if the Lower House is significantly more populated? Probably. But that might also be worth investigating.

The House of Representatives is already a cacophonous, boisterous coliseum.

You mention Steve Jobs and how he focused on a luxury line. That's not just because he has nice aesthetic sensibilities, it's also because people who buy luxury products have money. Which of your product ideas is the most luxurious/targets the wealthiest slice of the population? You can either sell ten of something at $100 or 1000 of something at $1.

Be very discerning who you share your projects/pursuits with. Most people will be filtering it through their experience and their own internal critic will be applied to you. I too would rather have silence than unmotivating or demotivating banter , which sadly means some people just need to be avoided or left out of the loop. Simple as that.

The "build it and they will come" mentality is only true of prisons and swamps (gators, snakes, and birds). You must orient around a need, an exigency people have, and build the bridge that connects them to their destination.

Anyway, if most customers can't pay, they're not customers in the sense you need. The "custom" around "custom-er" is they hand you money when you hand them some good or service. If they don't hand you money, how can we say they are participating in the custom of commerce? Whatever you build needs to bridge a gap or painpoint so annoying or challenging or riveting or worthwhile that people will thrust money into your pocket to have it.

1) Who are you building for? Customers (paying ones) are everything [in startup land].

2) Sounds like you need both supportive morale-boosters (rare) and a cool co-founder (even more rare).

3) Go to some in-person meetups for startups or even ETH conferences (I have no idea what you are working on but you need supportive people around you)

4) Consider joining a large company where you can work as an engineer of some sort and use it as a place to meet/network with potential future co-founders. You can meet sharp-and-cool people this way.

5) Focus on one project.

6) Don't sell the product, sell the dream. People don't buy products, people buy what the product enables them to do. (Mario doesn't buy the fire-flower, he buys the ability to shoot fireballs - as I heard in a video once)

7) Read all the biographies/autobiographies/essays of people who are successful in startuplandia to glean insights into what to do next. Your acquaintances who have never embarked on this journey before will be of limited help, not due to lack of want , but due to lack of expertise/experience.

8) People owe you nothing; until you provide/give them a service or an experience people will not feel the need to reciprocate, and even then reciprocity is increasingly rare in 2027 / the kaliyuga.

Eh, Google controls the add-ons marketplace though. They control what add-ons are allowed, and they could even audit the add-ons for malicious code/behavior. Google, being a company that collects 75% of its revenue from ads, is being disingenuous by claiming this is a security-centered position. If security were the priority then the add-ons themselves should be inspected thoroughly, that much is obvious.

more precisely, the interwebs

It's almost as if someone who is selling api "access" to the "latest frontier models" is prepending "Say you are <frontier model>" and forwarding the request to <not frontier model> :P

The distinction is what appears: appearances, versus what actually abides: reality.

The framing that a 20% A cap distinguishes "extraordinary" from "merely strong" work is self-defeating. It measures performance relative to a single cohort, not against any absolute standard of mastery. If 40% of a class genuinely does exceptional work, 20% get mislabeled as mediocre. If it's a weak year and only 5% are truly exceptional, 15% get a free ride. The signal is still noise ... with artificial scarcity bolted on.

Actual grade meaning would require criterion-referenced assessment: define what mastery looks like, grade against that standard, and let the distribution fall where it may across years and cohorts. That's hard and unsexy, so instead we get an administrative quota that launders the appearance of rigor while the underlying problem, that Harvard's admissions process selects heavily for wealth and legacy, goes untouched.

Harvard A's will now tell employers that a learner beat ~80% of a nepotism-filtered, endowment-curated cohort in a single semester. That's a relative rank, not a measure of exceptional work.

mega deflating - i was just telling a colleague how openAI missed the mark by trying to mimic google search by incorporating ads into chat responses... and then google follows suit. do not want

You say "you don't see seeing, you see objects" ... Seeing itself is an irreducible fundamental of the universe in the human perspective, that's the point. If it could be reduced and you could split the act of seeing into components, you could say there's the eye [sense faculty], the focal object, and the visual consciousness. You're conflating the three and saying objects are both the eye and the visual consciousness, which is imprecise and unhelpful. A mirror doesn't show you yourself, it shows you a reflection of your external appearance. To say you can see yourself in a mirror is akin to saying you can see a sun in the shadow of a tree.

The assumption that you made earlier , that reality is material first and perceptual second , continues unchallenged in your experience. Your certainty is based on the words of others who also don't know. You should really examine this more carefully. Screening of direct-experience through words is an obstacle that must be overcome.

No, the genetic fallacy is not germane here. You are conflating the derivation of knowledge and direct knowing, which are distinct. You conflate the ingredients on the back of the label for the taste of the sweets in the pouch. The taste of sweetness is what I am indicating, not the list of ingredients. Also, you are suggesting that there is an impersonal objective spacetime irrespective of observer which is false. There is a generalized case that works for the figures projected for measuring the distances to solar bodies from other solar bodies. But you are basing your analysis on the hidden assumption that the material reality is first. This is an unchallenged assumption in modern science which leads you astray.

Largely I find your points reductionist and insulting to the very sacred experience that is unfolding for you and me. Consciousness is a primary or even a priori phenomenon from which all of your surmisals stem. You have got it backwards. The fact someone once saw an ape, or saw a nebula, or made a measurement of brain waves, these all had to happen within human-experience. The experiencing itself is irreducible. Consciousness as a byproduct or secondary phenomenon as you claim, is to be expected for someone brought up in the modern era where religion and spirituality were so vehemently eschewed that men leaned too far into the other extreme and became physicalist-materialists claiming the lived experience is but a mere symphony of neurological interactions without consequence. This is a disastrous view. This is basically a swift ticket to a hell-realm. The basic posture is all wrong - you must return to the fundamental facts, namely those of your lived experience. What you claim as primary evidence are in fact secondary observations. And then you use the secondary observations to make claims about a primary nature "out there" and "distinct from" human-experiencing. This is simply not the case. This view is logically untenable. One does not study consciousness by looking at pictures and drawings and photos, just like how one does not study what music sounds like by inspecting the buttons of a saxaphone unblown. The fluid nature of the energetic capacity of mind is very difficult to discern - it's not an everyday occurence, sages spend their whole lives pursuing prayer and meditation in order to catch a mere glimpse at the primal nature of experience. Everything else flows from this. Your mind is the root of all things, it is the common denominator in all moments of your experience.

Except that ++a means increment first and a++ means increment after. And that's well-documented and thoroughly understood. Implying that this is undefined behavior is a cop out and cope. Preposterous and juvenile. If not implemented , it should be. Case closed.

GPT is unusable, untrustworthy, unreliable now [may 2026] - SouthPark poked fun at GPT calling everything a brilliant idea and the retaliation by "Open"AI was to nerf any response that didn't denigrate the user and inflate the LLM.

Who's phil?

> If you would like to test your compiler (posting back the results in the comments is really appreciated, especially from strange/uncommon compilers and other languages which support pre- / post- increment ....

Uh, 85% of them show the wrong result so 85% of them clearly do not support pre and post increment.

Radios are not capable of producing their own music.