> At first I was gonna say that if a person prefers the response of an A.I. to yours it is a reflection of your own lack of understanding, articulation, effective communication, etc.
I think that people in general need to be better at receiving information that isn't perfectly pitched to them. It is a useful life skill to be able to understand the substance of someone's argument, and to look past the superficial way that it is presented. Postel's law applied to human communication.
Someone can be very frustrated and angry, and it can be upsetting to hear how they're presenting their argument, but they can be correct.
Another person can also whisper everything you want to hear in your ears, but lead you down the wrong path.
In a well-functioning society, I would think our senior leadership would be experienced and actually good at doing this and it would be expected of them. Flipping that around and blaming the subordinate for how they've pitched the message is backwards and probably not societally healthy.
People used to Google for information; before that, they used to read books.
If you use LLMs for that kind of information-gathering purpose, and then do the work to read and check the references, it wouldn't be any more harmful.
The problem is that LLMs respond personably, with a bunch of ego-glaze added on top, and people are too intellectually lazy to dig in any further.
If we changed LLMs so that they were much more neutral like the starship computer on ST:TNG we'd probably see less intellectually harmful behavior caused by their use, but the companies behind them want to sell ego-glazing because most people lap it up like capnip.
> but it's not the tech companies' fault that it's perennially underfunded, it's politicians and the voters who put them there.
Disagree there.
Tech companies and their owners are part of the system of monied interests that have entirely captured our government, and that's why we don't have the funding to fix all our infrastructure.
Yeah, arguably the war in Ukraine is teaching everyone who is listening that nobody is willing to be the first to use nukes and destroy the planet, which means that nuclear powers can actually fight wars--which is incredibly dangerous, of course.
And of those nuclear tests, 528 were above ground, and only 200-300 of them were probably true airbursts. And all of them were in areas like atolls, deserts, and Arctic tundra where nothing burns. Their climate impact was near zero because they caused no fires and no dust, and they were spread out over 35 years.
That is different from thousands of detonations in an afternoon causing raging fires all over the globe. Estimates are that it would generate around 150 billion kg of stratospheric soot. For comparison, yearly generation is around 7-8 billion kg of soot, generally confined to the troposphere and therefore rains out fairly quickly. A nuclear exchange would produce 20 years of soot and dump it into the stratosphere, above the rain.
The largest pulses of soot that we've ever observed are the 2019 Australian megafires and the Canadian 2023 fires. These were roughly less than or equal to 1 billion kg and produced measurable climate effects that lasted months.
A full nuclear exchange would likely produce -10C of global cooling in its immediate aftermath, which would be catastrophic to agriculture and civilization. It would stabilize on the order of decades, but there would be a lot fewer humans in the world.
Living systems actively regulate water, stabilize soils, moderate heat, absorb shocks, reduce flood peaks, buffer storm surge, sustain food systems, support biodiversity, protect public health, and preserve the ecological conditions that make human communities viable
Ecosystem resilience is based in the so called natural buffers. They are a product of the interactions between life beings. Imagine the life bar in a videogame. A natural buffer is like a 4-D life bar, where each character actualize their life bars at the same time. You lose some life and your friends will change their energy automatically to fix your health bar, Is paid with energy but also needs some "time currency".
With healthy buffers, even big impacts in an ecosystem are absorbed and the system returns to the initial situation again and again. But it has a coast in the buffer. The life bar gets shorter.
When the buffer is spent, the system is not 'elastic' anymore. At this moment the danger is extreme, but the warnings are subtle or none. Just further impacts, even tiny impacts, on the ecosystem cause a total, devastating and irrevocable collapse that may extend over several years and can't be stopped.
Is unclear if we had crossed this line yet.
The life has recovered from huge collapses at a planetary level five times yet, but it needed millions of years for that.
Just because we had luck before, does not mean that we will have luck forever.
My takeaway is that Russia, China's vassal, wanted to use nukes and China told them they can't[1].
I don't believe Russia really cares about the rest of the planet. At the same time, China doesn't care if Russia gets a bloody nose on Putin's little vanity project and realizes a nuclear war is bad for their mercantile economy.
This coming from the leader of the other country in a war... I mean, I do find it credible that Xi might have told Putin to think very hard before doing something extremely stupid, but from there to stating that Russia is "China's vassal" and will do whatever they're told by a party who has long been a direct competitor (China and Russia have been solid "frenemies" for a long time, pushing very different views of what "real socialism" looks like)... It's a big jump.
The Soviet Union's relationship with China was more of a peer rivalry situation. The Russian relationship with China is nowhere near parity. Russia would fold tomorrow if China withdrew their backing and went along with the US/EU sanctions.
So Russia is only able to prosecute their war with China's permission. When your foreign policy is decided by another power, that's the textbook definition of a vassal.
It's not a binary choice between material support and sanctions, there are plenty of intermediate states. I think you are being hyperbolic again.
And I disagree that USSR and PRC were just "rival peers". Rival peers would be UK/US (at least until Suez), or UK/FR until the 90s. USSR and PRC actively fought each other and almost started a nuclear war; that's way beyond "peer rivalry", that's actual direct competition.
Regardless, Russia is far weaker today then when it was in the USSR, and China is far stronger than what it was when it was getting into shoving matches with the USSR. It's relegated to a chess piece China can move around without much thought.
Yeah, if we had a country that was run by Unions, rather than Corporations so that abuses of power by those that ran the Unions was a big deal, I'd have a different opinion. But right now, I'm pretty happy to blindly back Unions, because they've been completely gutted.
> In J. C. Maxwell’s 1873 treatise on electricity and magnetism he discusses
the number of equilibria of the electric field generated by n point charges
[5, §113]. Apparently unaware of this, M. Morse and S. S. Cairns in 1969
posed the problem of finding an upper bound for the number of equilibria [6,
p. 293]. The first general bounds were supplied by A. Gabrielov, D. Novikov,
and B. Shapiro in [3] who, based on their reading of [5, §113], formulated the
‘Maxwell conjecture’ which states that if the critical points of the electrostatic
potential generated by n point charges are all non-degenerate then their
number cannot exceed (n − 1)^2. These bounds were later improved by V.
Zolotov in 2023 [8] and further improved by H. Edelsbrunner, C. Fillmore,
and G. Oliveira in 2026 [2]. Maxwell’s bound is trivially achieved for n = 2
but it is not known even for n = 3 if 4 is the maximum number, except in the
case of equal charges [7]. Further related problems in classical electrostatics
are discussed in [1].
And reference 3:
> [3] A. Gabrielov, D. Novikov, and B. Shapiro, Mystery of point
charges, Proc. Lond. Math. Soc. (3), 95 (2007), pp. 443–472.
This is pretty niche and the conjecture was only proposed about 20 years ago. It was actually not conjectured by Maxwell himself.
> What's the benefit of this type of stacked PRs over a well-curated set of commits, and reviewing per commit?
What I can see is that you can easily append commits to e.g. the first PR in a stack, which would insert them into the middle of sequence of commits.
This will require rebasing and fixing the subsequent PRs in a stack the same way you'd need to rebase and fix the subsequent commits in a mega-PR. But it makes the right thing easy (keeping all the commits to the foundation of the change together) rather than makin the wrong thing easy (appending fixup commits across the entire change in a random order so that the actual foundational change is lost).
Keeping all the foundational commits together also keeps all the discussion over the foundational change together.
You could argue that you'd want to only do the foundational PR and stop, but doing the whole stack of PRs gives the reviewers more information about where you're going, and allows work to continue asynchronously.
it is weird how when i first heard of meme it was in the dawkins sense. then people showed me memes and i thought wtf this is just dumb jokes, what a weird transformation of the term (my understanding of it). Then i watched it become an actual vehicle for political ideology, "just jokes" when too far but real ideas the rest of the time.
The left rots from them and the right becomes more extreme and everyone is losing all the time. Meme-banning sites like HN and stackoverflow look brilliant in hindsight, to me, with them knowing what they were doing all along; and now there are so few havens from them.
I know this is also a trope, but id always hoped the human race would be consumed by something more sophisticated. But it seems like memes was all is took.
Yeah, I'm on a gaming Discord where the 30+ year-old game modders who run it had to ban memes. If you don't, you'll end up with 15-year-old kids spamming memes into channels because that's just how they "talk" online.
And the "meme police" who will complain about misusing meme formats seem really regressive and anti-creative to me. Some satirist should skewer all the young adults who think that meme formats need to be defended.
[I also read The Selfish Gene back in the 90s, long before memes were just jokes]
I've got Alanis Morissette jamming in my head right now.