I don’t see that as a problem. Every possibility co-exists, and every reality is equally real. Every moment and decision forks the universe in infinite ways, but you get to choose the one where you go.

You can save a drowning person, or let them die, but in the big picture, it won’t matter. That person will drown infinitely many ways anyway, but there are also infinitely many universes where they get saved. Don’t worry about the big picture. What matters, is how you act and how the world acts on you in this universe.

I think the idea of parallel universes solves time travel paradoxes in a pretty clean way.

Machine learning always felt like a very wasteful way to utilize data. Even with ridiculous quantities of it, and the results are still kinda meh. So just dump in even more data, and you get something that can work.

Yeah. Gotta say, black holes are way cooler—in more than one way.

Today I realized the logo looks like a black hole. Pretty much on brand actually, because they both suck.

Ok, so it seems like the need to shorten messages is an English problem.

On the other hand, there are languages that use conjugations, prefixes and suffixes extensively, and that changes everything. Suddenly, you can just add a few letters to include the equivalent of a few words.

Haven’t seen a difference, but I also focus almost exclusively on the communities I’ve subscribed to. Checking the all or local feed has been annoying and useless since day one, so nothing has changed.

Sounds like the kind of thing that could get you a Darwin Award.

Please elaborate. What does the clean up process look like if you use no paper at all?

Something very similar is also true with humans. People just love to have answers even if they aren’t entirely reliable or even true. Having just some answer seems to be more appealing than not having any answers at all. Why do you think people had weird beliefs about stars, rainbows, thunder etc.

The way LLMs hallucinate is also a little weird. If you ask about quantum physics things, they actually can tell you that modern science doesn’t have a conclusive answer to your question. I guess that’s because other people have written articles about the very same question, and have pointed out that it’s still a topic of ongoing debate.

If you ask about robot waitresses used in a particular restaurant, it will happily give you the wrong answer. Obviously, there’s not much data about that restaurant, let alone any academic debate, so I guess that’s also reflected in the answer.

I prefer to think of vibe coding like the relationship some famous artists had with apprentices and assistants. The master artist tells the apprentice to take care of the simple and boring stuff, like background and less significant figures. Meanwhile the master artist would paint of all the parts that require actual skill and talent. Raphael and Rembrandt would be good examples of that sort of workflow.

No. Also some crazy things like project 2025 are entirely public, so those aren’t conspiracies either. When discussing scary things like that, you can just point to the facts and calmly explain what they mean.

Vibe coding works, but there are some serious caveats.

I’ve used LLMs for data visualization and found them helpful for simple tasks, but they will always make serious mistakes with more complex prompts. While they understand syntax and functions well, they usually produce errors that require manual debugging. Vibe coding with LLMs works best if you’re an expert in your project and could write all of the code yourself but just can’t be bothered. Prepare to spend some time fixing the bugs, but it should still be faster than writing all of it yourself.

If you’re not proficient in using a specific function the LLM generated, vibe coding becomes less effective because debugging can be time consuming. Relying on an LLM to troubleshoot its own code tends to lead to “fixes” that only spawn more errors. The key is to catch these situations early and avoid getting lured into any of the wild goose chases it offers.

Yeah, friction and convenience need to be balanced. Most people don’t even think about where they should draw the line. Sparking conversation about it can be useful, because once you’ve thought about it a little bit, you can make a conscious decision to sacrifice your data for convenience purposes… or slide down the rabbit hole and become a privacy hermit. Either way, making a conscious decision is better than going with the flow.

It’s a bit risky, for sure. You just need to express your point in a calm and professional manner. Appeal to common sense or ethics, stick with the facts, and you should be able to find common ground with most people. You’ll be fine as long as you don’t use aggressive language, or go into crazy conspiracies.

A common dice has 6 possible outcomes. Unless it’s a special D6, it’s impossible to get a zero or some other value outside the usual range of 1-6.

Normally, each side has a probability of 1/6. If it’s a loaded dice, one value will have a higher probability, while the other sides will have a lower probability.

Let’s say you have two dice, you roll them, and hope to get 6 on both of them. It’s possible to get that on the first try, but it’s much more plausible that you have to roll them many times before that happens.

It can also be a good conversation starter. Some people genuinely don’t know or care about the social media corporations spying on us. You can have some interesting conversations with them.

So, essentially they’ve been relying on rain water since day one.

If you look at the top 10 cities, all of them have a river, except Mexico City. That’s the real outlier. Large cities require lots of water, and that city is a really weird exception.

Maybe the ghost eventually turns into a faceless violent poltergeist that just wants to injure and murder everyone. Watching 200 years of history wreck your dreams can be hard to deal with.