I had to try this gem, it's my new benchmark! o4-mini-high also fails spectacularly, even after repeated feedback. However, 4.5 (the impractibly large demo model) gets it right:
It’s a nonsense twist on the classic lateral thinking puzzle:
The original puzzle goes: “A father and son are in a car accident. The father dies, and the son is rushed to the ER. The surgeon says, ‘I can’t operate on him—he’s my son.’” The intended answer to that puzzle challenges the listener to recognize the surgeon is the child’s mother, confronting implicit gender biases.
Your version humorously mangles it by swapping roles (“son and his man”) and objectifying the victims as cars, creating a logical absurdity. The sentence “I can’t operate on this car, he’s my surgeon!” doesn’t parse logically, indicating it’s a playful distortion rather than a coherent scenario
Yes, skip would be good, but I'd also advocate an option like "I reject the premise of the question".
In legal contexts yes-or-no answers can work because the case can in theory be boiled down to guilty or not. If there is any flaw with the case, the answer should be not guilty.
But let's take the "do I have a moral duty to..." questions used as examples here for contrast. I'd argue you never had a moral duty to attend your sibling's wedding to begin with. But because the question was asked with a weird modifier like "even if it's their 3rd wedding", any answer you give will be inadequate and will just serve to reinforce the flawed premise. Skipping is not enough in my opinion, because even if communicated to the question asker, it doesn't make it clear whether there as an issue on the answerer's side ("I don't know" / "don't feel qualified") or with the question itself.
What you're describing sounds like the curvature or topology of space would be non-flat. AFAIK this hasn't been completely ruled out, but so far every piece of evidence suggests the universe is flat over vast distances.
Intuitively I'd say if there was curvature or topological irregularities at the furthest distances we can observe, there wouldn't be a consistent redshift observed on far objects because some of them would be coming towards us instead of pulling away.
Or even simpler: if cells are just machines, then there is no reason why a computer couldn't perform the same operations. I'm not a philosopher, but I believe this comes down to materialism vs a belief in the supernatural.
Having read about Penrose's positions before, this is indeed what is he proposing in a roundabout way: that there is an origin to "consciousness" that is for all intents and purposes metaphysical. In the past he pushed the belief that micro-tubules in the brain (which are a structural component of cells) act like antennas that receive cosmic consciousness from the surrounding field.
In my opinion this is also Penrose's greatest sin: using his status as a scientist to promote spiritual opinions that are indistinguishable from quantum woo disguised as scientific fact.
You have a view and it informs your rhetoric. I hope it's not a disservice to you to suggest this is standpoint where essentially 'we' know all about the universe and everything in it. Details? We'll flesh those out as we go along but basically the game is over - in the grand scheme of things. Put another way, the view here is that Hoyle's Black Cloud (the story where a vast mass of gases has condensed into a thinking being totally eclipsing human mental capabilities) is just like us but has just gone much further than we have gone on a well-beaten philosophical path. This is not the place for further discourse but I don't buy it.
> I hope it's not a disservice to you to suggest this is standpoint where essentially 'we' know all about the universe and everything in it
Like I said I have no business talking about philosophy or spiritualism. However, since you asked: that's not at all what I meant. In fact, it's the opposite way around. I'm of the opinion just because we don't know something, this shouldn't give people a license to invent things from whole cloth and assert them as facts (which is exactly what Penrose does).
We're still waiting on proof of anything supernatural, and explaining things with materialism has served us super well. It's not unreasonable to assume it's going to continue to be a good tool for understanding the world.
I believe Penrose's core argument fits the description of a rhetorical device called argument from incredulity. He is incredulous how "consciousness" could ever arise from mere molecules interacting with each other. To me, everything he built up on top of this is tantamount to intellectual dishonesty, but I acknowledge that this is born out of a certain bias on my end.
> You're happy to not use it. I'm happy whether you use it or not.
I think you misunderstood the OP. The criticism was about the landing page, not the project.
And fwiw, it's not unwarranted. Putting the words "terminal emulator" somewhere on the page would make less people bounce off. You may be fine with them bouncing off, but still, I think it was meant as constructive criticism.
> You may check out Rumble.com as a video player alternative.
Although I'm not familiar with the Rumble player, I assume your advice implies that they'd have to host their videos on Rumble as well. The main issue described in the article is about controlling what gets published on their site and what the user experience is going to be. Hosting their videos on a competitor's service is not the answer to that, as it would simply make them dependent yet on another company.
Media outlets that are large enough to need that kind of control but not large enough to host their own data are in a tough spot there.
SEEKING WORK | Germany, remote or in-house (willing to travel)
I'm an older generalist programmer. I prefer to work on your custom codebases and I enjoy optimization work.
Server-side web programming with PHP, Node JS, C++; Games programming: Pixi.js, Three.js, HTML/Canvas, Godot, custom code/engines using OpenGL or Vulcan; General programming: Python, C, C++, JavaScript, Pascal, Go, Lua, Swift
- proofs of concept and MVPs
- getting projects ready for demo day
- turning MVPs into fully fleshed-out products
- code reviews
- hot spot optimization and scalability
- developing/maintaining in-house tooling
- project rescues in the face of looming deadlines
- proofs of concept and MVPs
- getting projects ready for demo day
- turning MVPs into fully fleshed-out products
- code reviews
- hot spot optimization and scalability
- developing/maintaining in-house tooling
- project rescues in the face of looming deadlines
- proofs of concept and MVPs
- getting projects ready for demo day
- turning MVPs into fully fleshed-out products
- code reviews
- hot spot optimization and scalability
- developing/maintaining in-house tooling
- project rescues in the face of looming deadlines
It’s a nonsense twist on the classic lateral thinking puzzle:
The original puzzle goes: “A father and son are in a car accident. The father dies, and the son is rushed to the ER. The surgeon says, ‘I can’t operate on him—he’s my son.’” The intended answer to that puzzle challenges the listener to recognize the surgeon is the child’s mother, confronting implicit gender biases.
Your version humorously mangles it by swapping roles (“son and his man”) and objectifying the victims as cars, creating a logical absurdity. The sentence “I can’t operate on this car, he’s my surgeon!” doesn’t parse logically, indicating it’s a playful distortion rather than a coherent scenario