- shwajWe don’t know that, AFAICT (after reading the Ars article and the Bluesky post). Some of the puzzles are probably reused, and other new ones using the same mechanics may have been written. I’m not sure why you’d so confidently state “Blow didn’t design these puzzles at all”… do you have something against him personally?
- Agreed. The head of the fly also seems to have weird depth.
- Why? Wash trading is about selling and then requiring the same asset for tax purposes. How is this analogous, other than that you presumably dislike both practices?
- It’s “Fuchsia” with a “chs” not a “sch”. Where do you get your information that it’s dead?
- “it”
- Well said, except for the last sentence:
Just because everyone does it doesn’t mean one isn’t a sinner for doing it.
- The bet, (I would have thought) obviously, is that AI will be a huge part of humanity’s future, and that Anthropic will be able to get a big piece of that pie.
This is (I would have thought) obviously different from selling dollars for $0.50, which is a plan with zero probability of profit.
Edit: perhaps the question was meant to be about how Bun fits in? But the context of this sub-thread has veered to achieving a $7 billion revenue.
- I use VSCode on a Mac, using remote SSH to edit code on a remote Linux machine. So I voted twice
I’ve never been able to get used to default Linux key bindings, and never been able to customize them to feel quite right.
- It’s an inadvertent step toward Newspeak, where we no longer have a word that means what “literally” used to unambiguously mean.
- Another glaring example:
> Set theorists use the language of logic, computer scientists the language of algorithms.
Computer science doesn’t use logic? Hello, Booleans.
So lazy, especially when you can ask an AI to tell you if you’re saying something stupid.
- Are you asking whether the whole podcast can be boiled down to that translation, or whether you can infer/translate that from the title?
If the former, no. If the latter, sure, approximately.
- Informally, people will way “antigrav”.
- It’s not a tautology. Check out the work of Michael Levin (easily accessible on YouTube) for examples of non-genetic heritability.
- Can current LLMs actually do that, though? What Ilya posed was a thought experiment: if it could do that, then we would say that it has understanding. But AFAIK that is beyond current capabilities.
- Not sure, probably depends on the content too. When you read text, the eye definitely isn’t jumping “arbitrarily”, it’s clustered around what you’re focusing on. Might be different for a FPS game where you’re looking out for ambushes.
I’m not sure what you mean by “look through the entire image to reacquire the iris”? You’re talking about the image from the eye tracking camera?
- Fanny packs: so uncool! Man-purses (or “murses” in my corner of the world): so righteous!
- I would guess that the “foveated” region that they stream is larger than the human fovea, large enough to contain the saccades movement (with some good-enough probability).
- lol! What corner is that?
- You missed the point: they were referring to the sentiment that lead to Trump’s election. Many of those voters , I would guess, feel that the way Trump is doing it is cruel and chaotic.
This obviously doesn’t imply that those who voted for Trump on this basis want to go back to the open border Biden days.