> "Values" is (one way) how strangers bootstrap trust, "value" is how colleagues (dare I say "compadres") maintain it.
1. That would imply that if you and I bootstrap trust and then disappear from each other's lives for 20 years, when we finally meet again that the trust will have been lost and will have to be rebuilt. Color me skeptical. It seems to me that most people will, once established, continue with trust until there is some reason to change their mind. It does not need to be maintained, but can be destroyed.
2. Value and trust are not intrinsically linked. In fact, that is the primary reason for why we have a legal system: So that you and I can exchange value without any need to trust each other. If one of us does something stupid within that, the other can send out the hired goons to mess up one's day, thus giving strong motivation to act in good faith towards each other without the presence of trust.
> So I'd agree with GP that values, lack thereof, both internal to academia and of society at large, was the source of the rot.
Nah. Like you said, "values" are only relevant to bootstrapping trust, but trust doesn't scale. Never has, never will. Studies have shown that people can only ever get to know hundreds of people in their lifetime, and cannot even recognize more than a few thousand faces. You cannot build any kind of relevant society on communal trust. Even the smallest communities we find today have way more people than an individual can mange to keep track of. Which, again, is why we establish legal systems instead.
Maybe eons ago, when there were only 100 people on earth, we had a society where values were relevant. But the not-broken social contract being spoken of cannot be from that era. There is no record of that time.
Huh. So Stephen finally discovered cloud computing (yes, I know about the hosted notebooks).
I played around with RemoteKernel some time ago (https://taoofmac.com/space/blog/2016/08/10/0830) but this is “better”, although I wish they’d make it hostable in your own cloud provider like materials simulation software and other things we see running in HPC clusters.
(I also ran Mathematica in a 512GB/128core VM once for kicks, but it’s just not cost-effective).
On Reddit? It should...
These were historically almost always made up after people looked into it.
To be clear, the picture is likely real. The backstory to it probably not.
The people that actually feel like they've had the episode would almost certainly not go on social media with it.
The venn diagram of people sharing such content, having the money to buy such a gigantic smart fridge and suffering from schizophrenia is miniscule
> A more performant variation of this approach is the "hi/low" algorithm
I am discussing this approach, just not under that name:
> Gaps in the sequence are fine, hence it is possible to increment the persistent state of the sequence or counter in larger steps, and dispense the actual values from an in-memory copy.
In that model, a database sequence (e.g. fetched in 100 increments) represents the hi value, and local increments to the fetched sequence value are the low value.
However, unlike the log-based approach, this does not ensure monotonicity across multiple concurrent requests.
This kind of thing is really held back by BCI tech.
By now, we have smartphones with camera systems that beat human eyes, and SoCs powerful enough to perform whatever image processing you want them to, in real time.
But our best neural interfaces have the throughput close to that of a dial-up modem, and questionable longevity. Other technological blockers advanced in leaps and bounds, but SOTA on BCI today is not that far away from 20 years ago. Because medicine is where innovation goes to die.
It's why I'm excited for the new generation of BCIs like Neuralink. For now, they're mostly replicating the old capabilities, but with better fundamentals. But once the fundamentals - interface longevity, ease of installation, ease of adaptation - are there? We might actually get more capable, more scalable BCIs.
There's lengthy commentary on this from Heather Cox Richardson, an American Professor of History at Boston College, that begins:
Late last night, the Trump administration released the 2025 National Security Strategy (NSS) of the United States of America. It did so quietly, although as foreign affairs journalist at Politico Nahal Toosi noted, the release of the NSS is usually accompanied by fanfare, as it shows an administration’s foreign policy priorities and the way it envisions the position of the U.S. in the world.
The Trump administration’s NSS announces a dramatic reworking of the foreign policy the U.S. has embraced since World War II.
After a brief introduction touting what it claims are the administration’s great successes, the document begins by announcing the U.S. will back away from the global engagements that underpin the rules-based international order that the World War II Allies put in place after that war to prevent another world war.
The authors of the document claim that the system of institutions like the United Nations, alliances like the North Atlantic Treaty Organization, and free trade between nations that established a series of rules for foreign engagement and a web of shared interests around the globe has been bad for the U.S. because it undermined “the character of our nation.”
Their vision of “our country’s inherent greatness and decency,” requires “the restoration and reinvigoration of American spiritual and cultural health,” “an America that cherishes its past glories and its heroes, and that looks forward to a new golden age,” and “growing numbers of strong, traditional families that raise healthy children.”
it continues:
Observers referred to the document as National Security Council Report (NSC) 88 and noted that it could have been written in just 14 words. White supremacists use 88 to refer to Adolf Hitler and “fourteen words” to refer to a popular white supremacist slogan.
To achieve their white supremacist country, the document’s authors insist they will not permit “transnational and international organizations [or] foreign powers or entities” to undermine U.S. sovereignty.
To that end, they reject immigration as well as “the disastrous ‘climate change’ and ‘Net Zero’ ideologies that have so greatly harmed Europe, threatened the United States, and subsidize our adversaries.”
> What most sticks out to me is the "Managers" directory. I've seen similar patterns before, even at my current place of work, but they seem to correlate with less experienced implementations
What is wrong with such structure? How would you structure this code? Genuinely asking
Super excited about this kind of stuff. Sutherland, mother of all demos, Bret Victor, live fish, etc.
However, going this route for real likely means multi-decade research and iteration.
Demos are quick to make. Generalizing and turning it into real reliable software seems tremendously hard, and beyond just a shift in mindset.
Fortunatelly, we now have vibe coding, so anyone can experience first-hand the frustration of trying to just shift your mindset and immediately reaching a metric ton of limitations in the very first iterations. It's a humbling experience that I recommend to anyone (go ahead and change the world with precision UI, just try it).
IMHO Coffee is way too strong for most of us. Sipping green tea gives a smooth subtle high all day. And you can sleep at night. And not be an angry/anxious bastard.
> It works via model building and next token prediction, which is not interpolative.
I'm not particularly well-versed in LLMs, but isn't there a step in there somewhere (latent space?) where you effectively interpolate in some high-dimensional space?
For example, there is a nice component library, shadcn, of course you can somehow embed it into the project, but to use it productively, you must have a bundler, which is outside of Django ecosystem.
Also, if you take a look at AI generated content, a lot of them are optimized for outputting JS for frontend, try embedding it in Django project, its non-trivial
Sure, but that depends on the thing actually being illegal first. Genuine question - how often in practice are terms and conditions successfully challenged? My thought is that companies like that would be able to drain plaintiffs out before it getting that far very often
You could plan ahead and record and time shift. This isn’t as convenient, but no-one was removing content you didn’t get to watch. BTW, in countries like the UK recording TV - especially over Christmas - is still a way to build a legal personal archive. Streaming is better today, but don’t rely on it being better forever.
> For every cloud service I use, I want to have a local copy of my data for backup purposes and independence.
I know how much Adobe is hated around any creative circle, but tbf I find that Lightroom CC does this pretty well.
Adobe has a well done simple helper app that does just that: downloads the entire of your library locally, with all pictures, all edits, everything. For backup purposes is perfect.
Lightroom might be expensive for amateurs, but if you even just do a couple of photo jobs per year, it's worth every cent.
SEEKING WORK | 100% REMOTE
Specialized in ReactJS, React Native, and Ruby on Rails. Prefer to work on small/medium size projects and close to business outcome.
Tech Stack: ReactJS, React Native, Ruby On Rails. AI (Langchain, Langgraph, OpenAI, AI SDK)
In case of a blog, it's separated from the professional life. The colleague can just behave normally and avoid political topics.
It's normal to hinder freedom of speech, up to a certain level in the context of the company: I would not like to be teached about Marxism-Leninism by the barista making my coffee.
It also allows people to separate professional and private life, just line sexuality: if you like latex parties, you can enjoy them without having to tell everyone or coming at work wearing latex. It allows collaborators of different sensibilities to work together. Your supremacist colleague may even then work with non-white people and find them nice and competent!
Last, you are projecting ideas: I'm sure that many white supremacists are pro-free speech, having experienced censorship. You clearly aren't.
1. That would imply that if you and I bootstrap trust and then disappear from each other's lives for 20 years, when we finally meet again that the trust will have been lost and will have to be rebuilt. Color me skeptical. It seems to me that most people will, once established, continue with trust until there is some reason to change their mind. It does not need to be maintained, but can be destroyed.
2. Value and trust are not intrinsically linked. In fact, that is the primary reason for why we have a legal system: So that you and I can exchange value without any need to trust each other. If one of us does something stupid within that, the other can send out the hired goons to mess up one's day, thus giving strong motivation to act in good faith towards each other without the presence of trust.
> So I'd agree with GP that values, lack thereof, both internal to academia and of society at large, was the source of the rot.
Nah. Like you said, "values" are only relevant to bootstrapping trust, but trust doesn't scale. Never has, never will. Studies have shown that people can only ever get to know hundreds of people in their lifetime, and cannot even recognize more than a few thousand faces. You cannot build any kind of relevant society on communal trust. Even the smallest communities we find today have way more people than an individual can mange to keep track of. Which, again, is why we establish legal systems instead.
Maybe eons ago, when there were only 100 people on earth, we had a society where values were relevant. But the not-broken social contract being spoken of cannot be from that era. There is no record of that time.