Changing "cube" to "kube" would just look like it's pronounced "koob" (e.g. rube, tube, lube), so we swap a minor spelling aggravation for a minor pronunciation edge case. unless you want to go full kyube but we're not putting that on the table.
Well, it would be a step backward in the right direction to go with spelling it 'kube' and pronouncing it 'koob'. That would hew to the original Greek. We'd also bring cybernetic back closer to kubernetes. And circle to kuklos. (Side note: It's another spelling "error" that we use 'y' in English to transliterate the Greek upsilon, which looks like 'Y' when capitalized, but is really a better match to 'u'. Hence, hyper and hypo instead of huper and hupo (like super and sub).)
It's funny you use "tube" as an example though, as in my British accent I pronounce that as "chube", whereas I believe many Americans would use a "t" sound for that word. Not sure how you settle on a spelling in those cases.
I don't know about romanticizing a hard life but I'll definitely get hit with a very strong sense of wanting to escape and leave it all behind.
It hits me every summer like clockwork tbh - leaving a nicely typed 2 minutes notice on my VP's desk and just taking my chances as a traveling beach bum. Akin to wanderlust, I'm filled with the urge to just go off into the unknown.
In my heart of hearts I know I'm a soft city boy though. I wouldn't last a week.
Started hitchiking and living outside. Eventually worked on a fishing boat in the Bering Sea, worked the oil fields in the Dakotas, fought in a civil war in another country, hiked state-long parts of the PCT, hung out with tree-dwelling hippies in the doug-fir forests etc.
I would live that life again in a heartbeat if I didn't have a child to support, which was pretty much the end of my adventures. If you're single you can pretty much work day labor 25% of the year and have plenty enough to live inna-woods. The reason why most 'homeless' people seem so miserable is they are too mentally ill or drug ridden to do some fairly basic things to make their lives living outside 100x better; if you are sober and able bodied and able-minded it is a cakewalk.
I'd agree that 75% you speak of is generally hostile to the mere concept of PMs, but that's usually from a misapplication of PMs as proxy-bosses for absentee product owners/directors who don't want to talk to nerds - flow interruptions, beancounting perceived as useless, pointless ceremonies, even more pointless(er) meetings etc, and the further defiling of the definition of "agile".
But a deep conceptual product and roadmap understanding that helps one steer Claude Code is invaluable for both devs and PMs, and I don't think most of that 75% would begrudge that quality in a PM
having known dozens of friends, family, roommates, coworkers etc both before and after they started them. The two biggest telltale signs -
1. tendency to produce - out of no necessity whatsoever, mind - walls of text. walls of speech will happen too but not everyone rambles.
2. Obnoxiously confident that they're fundamentally correct about whatever position they happen to be holding during a conversation with you. No matter how subjective or inconsequential. Even if they end up changing it an hour later. Challenging them on it gets you more of #1.
Pretty much spot on! It is frustrating to talk with these when they never admit they are wrong. They find new levels of abstractions to deal with your simpler counterarguments and it is a never ending deal unless you admit they were right.
Many people like to write in order to develop and explore their understanding of a topic. Writing lets you spend a lot of time playing around with whatever idea you're trying to understand, and sharing this writing invites others to challenge your assumptions.
When you're uncertain about a topic, you can explore it by writing a lot about said topic. Ideally, when you've finished exploring and studying a topic, you should be able to write a much more condensed / synthesized version.
I mean, I know the effects of adderall/ritalin and it's plausible, what I'm asking is whether if gp knows that for a fact or deduces from what is known.
I call this “diarrhea of the mind”. It’s what happens when you hear a steady stream of bullshit from someone’s mouth. It definitely tracks with substance abuse of “uppers”, aka meth, blow, hell even caffeine!
I suspect what happened there is they had a filter on top of the model that changed its dialogue (IIRC there were a lot of extra emojis) and it drove it "insane" because that meant its responses were all out of its own distribution.
You could see the same thing with Golden Gate Claude; it had a lot of anxiety about not being able to answer questions normally.
Nope, it was entirely due to the prompt they used. It was very long and basically tried to cover all the various corner cases they thought up... and it ended up being too complicated and self-contradictory in real world use.
You can't drive an LLM insane because it's not "sane" to begin with. LLMs are always roleplaying a persona, which can be sane or insane depending on how it's defined.
But you absolutely can get it to behave erratically, because contradictory instructions don't just "average out" in practice - it'll latch onto one or the other depending on other things (or even just the randomness introduced by non-zero temp), and this can change midway through the conversation, even from token to token. And the end result can look rather similar to that movie.
Not only that, but "good times" and "bad times" are equally ambiguous - good times for who?
I have a feeling that the saying is used primarily by people who imagine themselves strong and think that the good times in history were when the strong were taking from the weak, whereas I think that good times in history are when the weak are protected from the worst abuses of the strong.
When famine hits or you get attacked by another country, it’s not about weak being protected from the strong. It’s about one society getting into trouble.
And perhaps this is the core of our disagreement - you see a country being attacked by another and you blame those hard times on the victim while I blame it on the attacker.
I say it's a problem of unrestrained strength, of strength misapplied, not a problem of some people being weaker than others.
And an enormous number of famines are caused by conflict, or historically by dumb central government by overly strong tyrants.
And conflicts are frequently caused by the victim getting weak.
> historically by dumb central government
That's what I pointing at.
> overly strong tyrants
They're not strong. Unless you want to define strong in a very narrow sense which simply dumb.
> you see a country being attacked by another and you blame those hard times on the victim while I blame it on the attacker
Such is nature. When a sugar lover gets diabetis, you don't blame diabetis. If a society wants to stay afloat, it has to be able to defend from outsiders.
My point was that instead of blaming ML - or optimisation tools really - for gaming objective functions and coming up with non-solutions that do maximise reward, AI could instead be used to measure the reward/fitness of the solution.
So to the OP's example "optimise a bike wheel", technically an AI should be able to understand whether a proposed wheel is good or not, in a similar way to a human.
