Yes it’ll eventually get built into the harness/model/interface; just like how “work it out step by step” became thinking, but if you have work to do today, it can be worth trying to improve it.
It's awesome in both senses! How readable has it become for you over time? Because on first glance and without syntax highlighting it's a head-scratcher.
With syntax highlighting I instantly know what it is :) But to be honest it's just for when I find myself toggling something a lot during development.. but still am too lazy to make a variable.
"Estimation" as a skill in US education, primary school on, is pervasively about point estimates - single numbers. Bounding, a range of safe/reasonable/likely/possible numbers, is very rare. In Fermi questions/problems also.
Even in such goodness as Sanjoy Mahajan's Art of Insight and Street-Fighting[1]... the only only "bound" mentioned is "Printed and bound in [USA]", and there is no "round".[2]
In contrast, IIUC, China is pervasively about "Da Gu" and "Xiao Gu", "round up" and "round down". Point estimates are secondary. Lower and upper bounds are apparently even a cultural concept: an individual's degree vs capability/fate; policy equity vs excellence; economic targets.
In education, my understanding is point estimates have much poorer conversational/collaborative dynamics than range estimates. Bounding lends itself to incremental collaboration. "Can anyone suggest another low or high bound?". Discussions around point estimates seem usually merely about the collection of individual estimates.
> NGSS
Ah, NGSS isn't bad particularly. I meant that discussion/mention of NGSS appears so very much in English training data, that AI chat on topics related to NGSS seem to draw regurgitations of NGSS. AI "slop" in the sense that "ignore NGSS, just reason from a superset of its underlying concepts"... isn't an LLM strength.
ERRATA: Those google book links now do have hits for "bound" and "round". Also "range" and "interval". The searches really didn't before, thus the reference links. Perhaps the absence should have failed sanity check, but given that one hit... partial failure of Google Books search wasn't something I recall noting previously. Oops.
Yes, and that brings in a shit load of slop to the problem space from the creationists.
Like how the word life will have a strong correlation with death, the word animate, while it also means alive will have a much less strong correlation with death.
They bulk replaced one string (a name) with another one across many archived pages, and added malicious code to all archive pages that would rapidly send requests to gyrovague.com in an attempt to DDOS them.
Just out of curiosity, how do we know that what is in the Wikipedia comments is accurate? I have no skin in the game. I was just wondering. Anybody can post anything on Wikipedia comments. I find it odd that Ars Technica would use that as a source. Maybe it's fine for gossip and speculation but it shouldn't be in Ars Technica then.
And you obviously have no reason to believe me, but I was following this when it was happening at the start of this year and can confirm that the DDoS script and archive text replacements really did happen.
I want to stress this isn't something I measured. There are just these noticeable lags before the sigmoidal animation starts when, e.g. opening a folder.
It's on top of the latency inherent to the animations of sliding, wiggling, wobbling, jiggling, etc. that are throughout the interface. ~100ms on top of a ~600ms input-blocking sigmoid probably just looks like a 700ms sigmoid to people.
Agreed, except for "just". To me a KVM is a physical switch for 2 computers to share the same wired peripherals. It took me 4 different tries to find a page which explained what this one is.
> the part you see will not parse as a complete program so you need to guess
Presumably this could also be a useful trait when live highlighting of files when editing, as in-progress typing is likely to be unparseable sometimes.
reply