ajkjk

12 ms·

241.
by ajkjk 8mo ago
I know people love to hate on the AI overviews, and I'm a person who generally hates both google and AI. But--I see them as basically good and ideal. After all most of the time I am googling something like trivial, like a simple fact.
242.
by ajkjk 8mo ago
That's fine, they should still do a good job for moral reasons rather than economic ones, and they deserve to be dragged through the mud if they do not.
243.
by ajkjk 8mo ago
no, in the sense that they just follow whatever the rules are and don't care very much, or mildly break them as is convenient and still don't care very much
244.
by ajkjk 8mo ago
i don't see what that has to do with it
245.
by ajkjk 8mo ago
how I wish that "patriotic" meant something instead of just "did what we wanted". I'm so tired of living in an era where every communication made by every organization feels like a lie
246.
by ajkjk 8mo ago
I think your opinion is popular here. Quanta is, while better than nothing, universally disappointing. It seems like it would be much easier for them to do a better job -- write less vaguely, fact-check more, assume the reader is a bit more
247.
by ajkjk 8mo ago
This is entirely made up? Most people are totally fine with speed limits being what they are and don't say anything about it.
248.
by ajkjk 8mo ago
that's the point of the regulations...
249.
by ajkjk 8mo ago
that can't be right. If 90% of people are anti-airbnb and the other 10% are pro-airbnb then the 10% just open all the airbnbs.
250.
by ajkjk 8mo ago
cool idea probably need to have better pre-loaded examples, and divided up more granularly into subfields. e.g. "Physical sciences" vs "physics", "mathematics and statistics" vs "mathematics". I could
251.
by ajkjk 8mo ago
This is all stuff I feel like I was basically aware of but when it's described together it's so... depressing. Ugh.
252.
by ajkjk 8mo ago
it basically works outside of linear algebra also. For instance the function f(x,y) = x^2 + y^2 - 1 has as its 'kernel' the circle x^2 + y^2 = 1.
253.
by ajkjk 8mo ago
Aside: what's up with this style of article title? Reaching a boiling point... isn't a thing that really happens. It's not even a reasonable editorialization, given how many times, apparently, the same thing can reach a boili
254.
by ajkjk 8mo ago
I get the impression this is not at all confined to Stanford and is really just everywhere in the country at the moment. Not sure the word 'coward' is right though. Feels more like... people are far more interested in being '
255.
by ajkjk 8mo ago
*much more, oops
256.
by ajkjk 8mo ago
I am very confused why you are continually talking about rationals as if they are not real. every real number is also a rational number, in the usual conception of things, are they not? Perhaps you are distinguishing the two? like regarding
257.
by ajkjk 8mo ago
i think it is truly irrelevant like, a good looking person will get the occasional comp on the basis of that, but you'll never be friends with the staff on the basis of that. whereas anyone can be friends with the staff, if they are fr
258.
by ajkjk 8mo ago
i don't disagree with the gist of your revolutionary sentiment, but let me remind you that (a) you don't know anything about me, and (b) what you described is a complaint, not an idea.
259.
by ajkjk 8mo ago
What does it look like where some intentional effort is made by society to help people like this get what they are using these models to get, but in a healthy way? That is: how does society reconfigure itself so that people do not end up so
260.
by ajkjk 9mo ago
you don't have to be good looking. you just have to go to the same place frequently, and be friendly.
261.
by ajkjk 9mo ago
yes, I am describing imagining something. Imagine taking decimals and letting them go on without ending. That is conceptualizing them intuitively. It is easy. I don't really know what you're arguing about. You are describing the s
262.
by ajkjk 9mo ago
I guess we are talking about different things. It seems to me that it's trivial to imagine then conceptually. They go on forever and most of them never repeat? Sounds good to me. Sqrt(2) never repeats? sure, whatever. I never found the
263.
by ajkjk 9mo ago
What are you talking about? Infinite decimals give reals, do they not? Repeating decimals give rational which are a subset of the reals. The colloquial phrase 'infinite decimal' is perfectly intelligible without reference to wheth
264.
by ajkjk 9mo ago
Tensor are much less unequivocal to me. They seem to follow naturally from basic geometric considerations. C on the other hand is definitely i there but I'm not sure it's the best way to write or conceptualize what it's doing
265.
by ajkjk 9mo ago
That makes sense, but it assumes that the thing you would replace C with is a field. If physics' C is sitting inside a larger space I imagine that that space will not be a field (probably a lie group or something instead).
266.
by ajkjk 9mo ago
Yes I know and agree with that. But still I think physics can be described with either. There will, I expect be a physical meaning to that quotient. Maybe the larger space without the quotient is also physically meaningful too.
267.
by ajkjk 9mo ago
A decent substitute for i is R, an explicit rotation operator. Just a change of symbol but it clears a lot of things up.
268.
by ajkjk 9mo ago
well it's hard to formally define them, but it's not hard to say "imagine that all these decimals go on forever" and not worry about the technicalities.
269.
by ajkjk 9mo ago
> I doubt anyone could make a reply to this comment that would make me feel any better about it. I am also a complex number skeptic. The position I've landed on is this. 1) complex numbers are probably used for far more purposes acr
270.
by ajkjk 9mo ago
Doesn't count for much, unfortunately

More ›