mathgeek

18 ms·

301.
by mathgeek 1y ago
Which analogy(s) are you going for? The world is about to end so money is essentially worthless? The players with all the money are going to move on to something else soon? The game ceased to be fun for anyone so they all want to find other
302.
by mathgeek 1y ago
Location: Orlando, FL Remote: Preferred Willing to relocate: No Technologies: Generalist. Most recently Ruby, JS, Langchain, pytorch. Résumé/CV: https://www.linkedin.com/in/taintedzodiac Email: tain
303.
by mathgeek 1y ago
Exactly this for me the last couple of years. Interviewing at most companies these days results in me getting through the final rounds only to be presented with “feedback” about all the secret things they really wanted that I didn’t meet th
304.
by mathgeek 1y ago
I know it’s a silly question to begin with, but if you analyze it seriously, you’d want to at most compare human intelligence->superintelligence with the 20 million years between the first homidinae and homo (and even that is probably to
305.
by mathgeek 1y ago
While I agree with the idea of vetting things, I too get a chuckle when folks jump straight from "we can't trust this unknown code" to "let's trust AI to vet it for us". Done it myself.
306.
by mathgeek 1y ago
Theoretically, any sentient being with the necessary technology to get a craft to our solar system and spot the aiming of a telescope at that distance would have even better technologies for detecting what we are doing.
307.
by mathgeek 1y ago
Normal being closer to what I said than what is usually achievable for folks with extra chromosomes? Yes, I do. I didn’t say it _was_ that anyone can achieve anything.
308.
by mathgeek 1y ago
> It'll be a local max, not a global max. There really isn’t any way to know this for a fact. The future could hold technology that allows us to expand far beyond the current population, but it also could lead to setbacks that the p
309.
by mathgeek 1y ago
While "what is normal" is a reasonable question, a normal development is certainly closer to something that allows folks to achieve most things in any career/hobby/pursuit they choose.
310.
by mathgeek 1y ago
> Everyday I passed by the bus stop she would be dancing her heart out to a Britney track waiting for the bus and it made my world a little brighter. As someone who absolutely loves to "be weird", I often wish the world was so
311.
by mathgeek 1y ago
Can you clarify what your goal and outcomes are for that?
312.
by mathgeek 1y ago
> I'm convinced that it was nothing less than business collusion. Wonder if it’s “not illegal” if it’s done in international waters.
313.
by mathgeek 1y ago
It’s a perception thing because you start noticing once you notice one. Malcolm Jamaal-Warner died as well for example but not as many people noticed as Ozzy to be the “first of three”.
314.
by mathgeek 1y ago
It never stops being surreal to see the death of someone who heavily impacted an entire generation so profoundly.
315.
by mathgeek 1y ago
No worries. I’m just wondering what you are expecting to constitute the minimum since the next logical step is to ask where the government should then draw the line on helping folks or essentially kicking them out of the city. Right now you
316.
by mathgeek 1y ago
If you won’t quantify your expectations, would you mind elaborating on what the minimum qualified definition is for you? In terms of what must be met, not what must not be met? I can agree it’s nice to not have folks living in tents and RVs
317.
by mathgeek 1y ago
> If they can not afford SF, then they need to leave SF and live somewhere else where they can. To clarify: you believe that the cheapest available housing today should be used to determine if someone is allowed to live in SF? If not, ho
318.
by mathgeek 1y ago
Good analogy IMHO. Knowing whether a given language is a tool vs a toolbox is important.
319.
by mathgeek 1y ago
[flagged]
320.
by mathgeek 1y ago
> It's astounding how radical the public library system is… As a child of the 80s/90s I absolutely love how both of my generation’s uses of “radical” fit perfectly in this sentence. Well chosen.
321.
by mathgeek 1y ago
Can we assume this is a product of the biased real world training data? Feed an LLM data that shows women (unfairly) earn less on average and you’ll get advice that they should earn less than average.
322.
by mathgeek 1y ago
This is certainly part of it. The survivors write the narrative.
323.
by mathgeek 1y ago
> Trust by default, also by default, never ignoring suspicious signals. While I absolutely love the intent of this idea, it quickly falls apart when you're dealing with systems where you only get the signals after you've alread
324.
by mathgeek 1y ago
This certainly feels like a “the cows have mostly escaped, close the barn doors!” moment. I imagine this will proceed similarly to other incumbent businesses trying to milk their younger “partners”, and those will quickly turn into direct c
325.
by mathgeek 1y ago
> but generally a wifi/bluetooth chip isn't going to be the point of failure that brings down an entire appliance... most work without them The good ones do, but some will stop working if any functionality dies. Hardest part is
326.
by mathgeek 1y ago
No one claimed that. Reducing the number of parts doesn’t imply that every single one should be removed.
327.
by mathgeek 1y ago
Every feature that is added, even if you don't use them, is another piece of tech that can break and potentially be non-serviceable. I've several times now had to repair or replace major appliances in the first 3-5 years of use be
328.
by mathgeek 1y ago
> The people who make the money in gold rushes sold shovels, not mined the gold. Sure some random people found gold and made a lot of money, but many others didn't strike it rich. Another important group to remember is those who own
329.
by mathgeek 1y ago
> an excuse for not getting through the boring parts that lead to long term impact Personally I don't worry too much about long term impact. It's incredibly hard to actually predict what will have an impact after you're go
330.
by mathgeek 1y ago
"AI trained on human language predicts that humans will deceive, scheme, and threaten each other"

More ›