4) General Methods for Solving Physics Problems by B.S.Belikov - https://mirtitles.org/2015/12/07/general-methods-for-solving... This is a great book which teaches you by walking through the solutions of various physics problems using a general methodological framework.
How do I get it to spend fable tokens on “curiosity” then switch to cheaper models? Preferably based on its own judgment of what model is truly needed.
> I think they are exploiting an accounting loophole...
With all due respect, you haven't articulated what that accounting loophole is. I've explained why the examples/comparisons you've made aren't equivalent according to GAAP.
From everything I've read and seen disclosed, CoreWeave pays full price for its Nvidia chips. Nvidia is not financing the sale. CoreWeave has taken on large amounts of debt financing from unrelated third parties. It's highly like that the Nvidia backstop helped CoreWeave get better financing terms, but Nvidia isn't actually providing the financing.
If CoreWeave is paying cash and taking title to the asset, and Nvidia has no obligation or right to take the asset back, it is GAAP 101 that the transaction would be booked as a sale because...that's what it is.
"Instead, we’re switching to this wrong-headed mindset that coding agents are like compilers. That mindset gives us permission to ship terribly written code. Agents aren’t compilers - they’re more like freshly onboarded interns."
I feel this statement these days during code reviews. I know some amazing engineers whose output lately just isn't the same.
If what people here say is right, and AI usage online is growing and accelerating, then by the end of the year, the vast, vast majority articles posted to the internet (and linked by HN readers) are going to be AI slop, at which point it is not going to matter. "This article is AI" is going to add about as much insight to the conversation as "The author used a spell checker."
Personally, for any kind of serious reading, I have to go to a place/room with zero opportunities for distraction. No noise, no surrounding commotion, even slightly dimming lights helps. My retention rate drops significantly if there are any distractions.
For lighter reading or docs, I’ve got to take almost diagrammatic-like notes. whiteboard, paper/pen, or ipad work best for me - typed notes don’t work well. I may not even revisit the notes later, but actually writing them helps retention.
If I’m out of luck and must read in a non conducive environment, just resolving that I’ll have to re-read once or twice is the only way. Not aware of any magic solution unfortunately.
I would consider things like these the equivalent of a test to see if a study is viable, not a study.
Sort of like, okay, if I have a hundred water balloons and I dropped fifty of those water balloons off the top of my house growing up, and fifty off the top of the Empire State building, would the latter always be that much worse? Just a few off the first and I can guess the outcome, and let's call that a control group, but the second, who knows... sure you might get lucky and knock one or two people out (or get a couple of good people showing results or seeming connections you want in a study) but you probably need more than a few to prove it isn't just a fluke. ;) Okay, messing around with the water balloons. Not with the study thing.
Out of curiosity I looked through your post history to find an example of a time you got downvoted for calling out AI comments. The first one I could find was 3 months ago (https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=47493096), where you got downvoted for calling out an AI comment...to a comment that had zero common signs of AI writing.
The OP then replied:
> Not AI. Not sure how I feel getting my writing style called out like that though :D
A more accurate title might be "Average University Students Can't Identify Czech AI Poetry". The random-chance performance seen here is reminiscent of the 50-50 nonexpert performance measured in "People who frequently use ChatGPT for writing tasks are accurate and robust detectors of AI-generated text".
I would have been really interested to see someone explore whether greater exposure to non-poetry AI text generalizes to greater ability to sniff out AI poetry as well, but sadly this was not that sort of study.
A sizable percentage of autoimmune cases of well accepted autoimmune diseases (rheumatoid arthritis, celiac, etc etc etc ) are completely seronegative despite glaringly obvious clinical signs: eg peeing skin, deformed joints etc etc - all blood work perfectly normal. Happens all the time.
I think the complaints attenuated in the last in the last 10-15 years because javascript itself became a much better language. Things really started to change with ES5. The introduction of let / const, modules, async, .?, template strings, etc. transformed it from an ugly kludge to a really capable language.
Of course, if you use old syntax you still deal with weird scoping and casting, but you don't have to any more.
I'd be curious if you'd read https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=48887149 and let me know (once I've finished editing the damn thing) how this changes, or doesn't change, your response.
The voting system could be enough if downvoting was added.
AI writing is not the problem - low effort is the problem. Low effort AI articles are full of tics which are obvious, if you've done a lot of AI writing. To write well with AI you need to spend a good deal of time editing.
If you submit something that's low effort but has a clickbait headline that appeals to HN, you may well make the front page even if the article is lightweight (it does happen!) This is true both for AI and for human written articles.
On the flip side, somebody could spend an enormous amount of effort creating a masterpiece with AI. Penalizing that because of the tool that was used is arbitrary.
I've been helping people achieve their reading goals by hosting workshops at libraries and helping adults become more intentional about their reading goals and how to achieve them.
There is an interesting episode of This American Life about how everyone, everyone, has weird gaps in their knowledge that eventually get filled in sometimes fun or humiliating ways. You have these too.
1) Physics for Entertainment by Yakov Perelman (2 vols) - https://mirtitles.org/?s=physics+for+entertainment Great to motivate oneself and learn to think in physics terms.
2) Fundamentals of Physics by B.N.Ivanov - https://mirtitles.org/2018/04/21/fundamentals-of-physics-iva... Nice overview which approaches physics "from atoms to matter".
3) Physics for Everyone by Landau and Kitaigorodsky (4 vols) - https://mirtitles.org/?s=Physics+for+Everyone A nice overview of all the major domains in physics.
4) General Methods for Solving Physics Problems by B.S.Belikov - https://mirtitles.org/2015/12/07/general-methods-for-solving... This is a great book which teaches you by walking through the solutions of various physics problems using a general methodological framework.