tdesilva

If people weren't interested in solving puzzles for fun we'd still be banging sticks together in a cave somewhere.

The primary value of math has never been about producing "solved problems" (is there any practical value in "solving" NS in itself?). The primary value of mathematics has always been about "machinery for thought", i.e. the abstractiosn and methods that produced the solution.

I think there is a little too much pessimism of the "math is dead" sort. As long as there is a need for humans to think there will be value in doing math.

Yeah especially for doing math, I've found it's really helpful that I can just select some equations I wrote and shift them down (or insert more space). It helps with adding derivations or additional notes after the fact.

However I'm considering moving back to handwritten notebooks for some things, purely due to the simplicity (no worry about battery life, technical issues, or the difficulty in switching back and forth between my book reader and my notes app).

Mentioning neural ODE doesn't make sense here, as this is unrelated. Basically any implementation of transformer uses residuals, but you're not really training a neural ODE here.

Also consider getting rid of the em-dashes. I don't know if you mostly vibe-coded this or not, but the README is pretty clearly AI generated.

ah nevermind it's just a fork of OpenCode

Good, coding harnesses should be open source and LLMs should be treated as commodities. Minimize switching costs for consumers, and let people understand how they're interacting with the context and the LLM outputs.

The industry has been moving the wrong direction with Claude Code staying closed (despite multiple times leaking the source code!) and the open source Gemini CLI being deprecated in favor of closed source Antigravity CLI.

is this the ChatGPT finance features they launched in May? it keeps asking me to integrate my finance data, but I have doubts about how useful it would actually be (not to mention some distrust about how well they would actually protect my data).

> But enough people take this scenario seriously that we have to take them seriously.

no we don't...

not sure where this notion comes from that if enough public figures are worried about something, then we must also

glossy screens are better for visual clarity, especially contrast (reduces eye strain when reading text)

The interesting part is they chose to go with a normalizing flow approach, rather than the industry standard diffusion model approach. Not sure why they chose this direction as I haven’t read the paper yet.

We need a dating app with this filter

As with many startups (especially ones with high burn rates) OpenAI is risky. It could take down SoftBank and its data center vendors. 6% of nvidia’s revenue is not that concerning, as I’m sure they can find other buyers for those GPUs. But I really don’t buy the argument that OpenAI is the gen AI industry. If they ceased to exist tomorrow, the tech/genAI industry would just trundle along. At this point the tech is quite commodotize.

I'd say it's more like kleenex. Lots of people ask you to 'pass them a kleenex' when their nose is runny, but they just mean tissue. They don't actually care what the brand is. Similarly for LLMs most people may not care (or maybe they will, and it will be more like Google search), especially if they just use it via some other app that calls LLM provider APIs. My anecdata so far says early adopters try multiple LLM providers and use the best one for their use-case. No clue on what non-tech folks think though.

Well this was an entertaining take on the job market.

tl;dr he's salty other people ended up better off doing the same work for other companies, based on views of tech compensation that are very divorced from reality:

> I look at my own place in the world compared to people who just started at Apple or Microsoft 20 years ago then never left, and now they have made eight figures just over the past 4 years while my life path has lead me to… practically nothing. Then the tech inequality continues to compound. Imagine joining a company where the teenage interns have already made a couple million off their passive stock grants and other employees have been making $2MM to $6MM per year over the past 5 years there, while you’re starting over with nothing again for the 5th company in a row so what’s the point in even trying

Nevermind that there aren't really any interns making a couple million off stock grants, and this part:

> Do we just sit here and die in our overpriced studio apartments where rent increases 7% every year while other ICs doing the same work at better companies are buying 5 vacation houses from doing the same work?

Also love the part where he implies he's too smart to pass coding interviews:

> According to all the interviews I’ve failed over the years (I don’t think I’ve ever passed an actual “coding interview” anywhere?), the entire goal of tech hiring is just finding people in the 100 to 115 midwit block then outright rejecting everybody else as too much of an unknown risk.

What ends up being useful is hard to predict, so it's better just to do what you enjoy. Lots of useful math started out as just an idle curiosity, though mostly it ends up being useless. Probably most engineering projects are the same though (most end up in the dustbin sooner or later).

That sounds like an endorsement of their ads platform?

Why do you think that?

I'm sure ChatGPT has it's uses for some people, but the few times I've tried to use it for tasks I would have used search for it's been confidently, eloquently wrong. A search engine you can't trust, or at least evaluate it's sources, is completely useless. Recent publicity on LLM has been incredibly successful at over-inflating the hype, largely because the technology fulfills the fantasy of being able to interact with technology in plain language and get plausible, seemingly coherent responses.

Unless each parking stall will have an EV charger, you will have to share with others. That means plugging your car in (when it's not occupied) and remembering to go back down, unplug, and repark your car in another spot. When the charger is occupied, you'll have to wait until it's available. My condo does not have a charger and AFAIK there's no plan to add one any time soon.

> > ... which in turn causes people like me, who live in apartment blocks, to not be able to have a EV (I'm not going to spend half an hour and more every few days at an electrical charging station)

> You spend a half hour or more every few days at a gas station bud. Set a timer next time you go. Also, charge it at home?

Who spends 30 minutes at the pump? The actual act of filling the car takes less than 5 minutes. Even if you include wait times it's still less than 30 minutes in a busy, car centric city (and then you need to account for the fact that EVs also have to wait to charge).

The comment you replied to explicitly stated they live in an apartment, so at home charging isn't an option.

I would only consider an EV if I had a SFH. Even if the building I live in adds a few charging stations, it's not worth the hassle to go fully electric.

How do self-driving cars funnel money into public transport and and reclaim space? I think they're more likely to do the opposite.

Seems silly to rely on self-driving to reduce emissions when we don't know how to build self-driving cars yet, but we do know how to build better public transit and design walkable cities.

I profess that I like nice things, and buttons inside cars.

If anything is excessive in modern cars, it's the size and amount of touchscreens, not the amount of buttons.

It's not even a safety thing. Power seats with memory functionality are a must-have for anyone that shares their car with someone else. It's so much less annoying to press one button and have the car revert to your preferred seating position with side mirrors angle perfectly vs doing it manually every time.

The fact that everything is on the center display is the biggest reason keeping me from seriously considering buying a Tesla. Distractions don't belong in a car.

Your article doesn't directly talk about the tax rate for the top 1%.

The fact that the percentage of total tax collected attributed to the top 1% has risen from 24% to 30% seems to be more indicative of higher wealth inequality, especially if the figures the other posters have mentioned about lower total tax rates on the rich are true. To me that's a good reason to raise taxes on top earners and lower taxes on the middle class.

It's a lot easier to switch which store you shop than what phone you use. Switching iOS to Android costs a non-trivial amount of money. There's also a lot of lock-in, migrating from apps in Apple land to Android land. Some people may have multiple Apple devices even. These people face a very high barrier to switching.

To me this is like asking someone dissatisfied with the grocery store that has a monopoly over their town to just move to another city.

Yeah. It seems like the author considers himself a generalist, but it sounds to me like he's a front end specialist.

It's called a fallacy for good reason.

Or you could use differentially private data collection.

Sometimes the weather blows.