hyper-capitalism would mean hyper-growth and not a nightmare, at least that is what the historical data would suggest for the effect of capitalism on human quality of life. if you’ve been told otherwise then you’ve been lied to.
Lied to by whom? My life experience? Growth for who? I’m myself capitalist, that doesn’t make me blind from externalities resulting from that system, and the way it is poised to degenerate if not regulated.
If you think capitalism means growth with no externalities you’re not ready to discuss that topic
non-capitalist systems have even worse externalities historically. democracy to introduce regulations is healthy. state participation is unhealthy and destructive. I fully understand and you can read my sibling reply for more context.
FWIW, I also think we should have sensible regulations, because the externalities are very real and damaging, etc.
That said, I find a concerning and increasing number of people are fully focused on the negative externalities, and blind to the benefits. Ironically, most of those people are very wealthy beneficiaries of capitalism, from a global and historical perspective. I doubt that the billions of people who have been lifted out of abject poverty in the last few decades would fail to see that capitalism is a net benefit to humanity. But I suspect this comment will be heavily downvoted by those rich folks here on HN just because I mentioned something positive about capitalism, and that's gauche now. It's pretty perplexing, are people really so blind about the incredibly privileged place in history we occupy? It seems so.
Now, if we exterminate ourselves with AI or climate change ends up putting humanity as a whole in a worse position than we were in pre-Industrial Revolution (both of which I doubt tbh), I'd change my view on whether capitalism is a net benefit.
East Germany emitted 10x West Germany’s SO2 per km2, USSR drained the Aral Sea for cotton quotas and Mao wrecked forests and harvests. central planning hid the costs but capitalism generates the wealth. with democracy the public forces that wealth into cleaner air and water. That pairing, not central planning is what works in history. The anti-capitalist comments on HN reflect deep failure of the education systems experienced by those with such views. Capitalism is the single greatest force for good in human history. Don’t confuse oligarchy and cronyism for capitalism, those are just different failure states of The State which is the greatest force of evil in human history, most death most destruction most suffering originated from governments. capitalists make lives better, by definition, it’s why you part with your money voluntarily and pay them!
2-3 times per week shower and lather fully with persimmon extract soap. Plus wash clothes with a “sport”/“activewear” laundry detergent on extra heavy cycle, like Persil Activewear. And yes the soaps and detergents that are effective on nonenal are more expensive.
Yes with that soap. The soap is expensive but also it does dry skin and hair come, I find washing scalp helps for scalp health, and face, but requires moisturizer and conditioner use.
Article claims it doesn’t help but I think that is wrong and many others agree.
I interpret that question as "what can I do to stop smelling it, because she is old, stubborn, and is never going to change anything she does and will smell like this 'til the day she dies?"
I have a mother that is a Type-2 diabetic because for decades she refused to eat right or exercise like the doctors told her. She has tracked down every medication known to man to treat the symptoms just so that she doesn't have to give up junk food. And she will never change.
She is on GLPs, still only eats junk food. She is cognitively more alert, but it did nothing for her eating habits or weight.
The problem is, if when you go shopping you only pick up junk food, when you get home you are only going to find junk food. To eat healthy would require a complete overhaul on her life, and she has never been willing to do it.
Human sacrifice and cannibalism seem to reoccur independently though history across cultures. It’s obvious extremely disturbing but important to know about.
Orion browser hopefully can run the Firefox extension on iOS.
Then joining the mobile device to tailscale network where Hister is hosted on a server on a host in the network … probably this will work at least that is my plan to try.
Thank you for an amazing project. I’m a heavy msgvault user and adding Hister to my browsing will be hugely complementary.
Fable is almost unusable for anything but super boring mainstream stuff. I was getting safeguard flagged so often I’ve significantly reduced my usage out of fear they will blacklist/ban me.
Some of the topics it’s flagged have been hard for me to understand what it seeing that can be remotely concerning in my requests.
I cancelled my Claude max subscription. Somehow every query I sent was flagged as bio or chem, even pure mathematics questions. Not going to waste money paying for a “max” subscription that won’t ever let me use the top tier model…
Sol is great and has never blocked a request, and generally gives great answers. Happily switched over to it now.
I've gotten flagged for asking questions about tokens and tensors. That makes me believe it's not about safety, it's about protecting their turf. I cancelled my subscription - same fear about getting flagged too much leading to a ban.
They said they also block usage of Claude models to build ML models.
Which is definitely protecting their turf, but also probably a little bit hiding their “RSI” abilities for competitive reasons. My theory is that a lot of “safety blocking” is actually WIP training of new business directions. Anthropic has started hiring biologists and has opened a preview of a “Claude code for bioinformatics”. I’m guessing they’re tweaking their bioinformatics market play, and block “bio safety” requests so competitors can’t learn about their training.
What's the distinction between "protecting their turf" and "competitive reasons"? I see them as the same, but I could be missing something.
That's an interesting thought on the current "safety blocking" being a trial run for the topics that scare people (bio). You're more charitable about their motives than I am, but you might be right.
My differentiation for this comment, was “preventing someone from using your product to build a competitor” vs “letting a competitor see your strengths/weakness to benchmark against you”.
Competition is competition and it’s two sides of the same coin.
I agree. It’s flagged me on discussing fast GEMM implementations for large regressions, a discussion on theoretical physics math, a discussion on designing a type of
RAG system. I’m super baffled as to what the safety instructions actually are other than “advanced anything” and even then their definition of advanced is a joke, I’m an idiot and my questions are almost laughable.
Same here - my questions were sophomore level. I think it's notable that when I edited my question to say it was about Gemma 4, it answered without blocking. A cynic like myself would interpret that as evidence they don't care about sharing information if it involves their competitors.
SAT solvers are programs designed such that their execution corresponds to the reasoning process of satisfying some given constraints. But they do not contain the reasoning process, rather they embody it.
LLMs are different in that they operate on semantic features of program state. Embedding vectors assign semantic features to syntactical structures of the vector space. Operations on these syntactical structures allow the LLM to engage with semantic features of program state directly. Here the reasoning process is contained within as an object of manipulation. An LLM sensitive to the semantic features of the input sequence and that examines the logically permissible moves to derive a new sequence closer to the intended sequence (some statement to prove) just is engaging in reasoning.
I think you are missing the point of that statement
It is a claim that swimming is a word that defines a context. It is an explicit statement that the question of whether a submarine can swim has nothing to do with the capability of the submarine.
If you are asking which pigeon hole we are putting something into, the answer is "The one we put it into". This is what make the question uninteresting.
If you are asking what is it about this pigeon hole that people value and does that align with the criteria that people use to decide categorisation. That very much is an interesting and complicated question.
The statement takes meaning-as-use as a given, sure, but I think the point of the statement is that people are arguing over an uninteresting question / taking meaningless positions about a meaningless issue, rather than "hey, words are moves in a language game!". I referenced two EWDs, which provide the original statements in context (though I can't find the widely-quoted wording anywhere: I thought I remembered it being in EWD1035, but apparently not). If you think my understanding of what Dijkstra meant was wrong, could you explain further, please?
I take your point that this seems to be the implication of what Dijkstra was getting at. But the term itself is not evocative for that reason. It resonates because people clearly don't think it is a meaningful question as to whether or not submarines swim because the term swim itself implies the categorisation I mentioned in my post above.
I do not know whether Dijkstra understood this distinction and was using it to disingenuously imply that the limitation was on the target and not the categorisation. He may have just felt it resonate with himself and failed to explore why.
Dijkstra immediately before using the term throws shade on serious thinkers engaging in a topic seriously. He personally seemed to want to dismiss the issue out of hand. As such I don't think there is any real value in his opinion on the matter. A recognition of how people did take it seriously and a considered rebuttal would be worthwhile. Declaring it uninteresting and failing to engage in the arguments is simply opting out of the debate.
Here is Yuji Tachikawa from Japan (Mathematical Physics, String Theory, QFT) on recent progress in his own work using Fable 5 :
"I've been trying out Claude Fable recently, and last night, on a whim, I showed it my research notes about a collaborative project that's seen no progress in the past six months or so and asked for its thoughts. To my surprise, it made a non-trivial observation and essentially solved it."
"I was also surprised that it was using sympy to automatically write code and verify his own predictions."
"Fable probably seems like it properly understands string theory and has intuition too—that's my impression"
I currently just use a Mac Mini M4 with cursor. I had 30 years programming before this (in my mid 40s now) so I am not a great person to give vibe coding advice because I have so much actual coding m. I’m pretty sure I couldn’t have done it without knowing how to code because there were some times even the best models would get stuck and I’d have to figure it out myself.
If I had to give advice I’d say to just do it. Work on some project that interests you and go for it
reply