However, since the article is about "men" and "suicide". There is substantial evidence that suggest women (especially young girls) attempt suicide more than men... while men are are more likely to die from a suicide [1]

Does gender have a role in suicide? Maybe. But I would hesitate to generalize too much.

[1] I asked chatgpt to back up my claims. Please correct me if I'm wrong.

The target audience of the essay seems to be pressuring OpenAI. I don't know if OpenAI will listen.

[1] https://darioamodei.com/post/we-must-pace-the-frontier

1. Someone whose life choices can either defeat every poverty or bring the downfall of humankind - Main characters

2. Someone whose actions are in a loop - NPC

3. Someone whose actions are in a loop but we choose to - NPC-by-choice

Is this terminology better? Correct me if I'm wrong!

That's exactly what current mathematicians are using AI for [1].

However, the same mathematicians also believe that pursuing a beautiful proof (even if none exists) is worth it.

[1] https://spectrum.ieee.org/ai-in-mathematics

Would definitely take a look!

As a working adult, we hardly get this kind of ego boost unless we somehow know our colleagues salary. Even so, there are many other factors outside of knowledge storage that determine one's salary (e.g. feedback from teammates, number of closed sales etc)

[1] Actually, it's not 100% speed but 1 step back and 2 steps forward. Because the initial time and motivation cost is non-trivial.

I feel ya. I memorised definitions for my algorithms course as well and also experienced diminishing rewards of using SRS flashcards (especially when the conceptual questions get more novel).

Like what you say, we have to practice using the factual knowledge enough by writing proofs.

The next generation of flashcards would probably use AI to generate concise questions on writing proofs.

[1] A Little Randomness May Not Be Enough - https://www.scotthyoung.com/blog/2014/11/07/srs-for-concepts...

Thank you for sharing your experiences!

I'm interested in understanding how others use Anki for conceptual subjects like pure math or physics. I believe many fundamental rules in Spaced Repetition (e.g. like keeping cards concise) are thrown out the window for conceptual subjects.

This video explains in detail: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=YX40hbAHx3s

In short, P means Polynomial time (i.e. markets can solve computation problems efficiently) and NP means Non-Deterministic Polynomial time (i.e. markets can verify solutions of computation problems efficiently but solutions are found by luck).

If P != NP, it means luck CANNOT be engineered and markets are competitive.

Do you believe there's a fundamental tradeoff between structural constraints (i.e. the 'democratic' model, where dispersed shareholders and markets have a voice) vs. insulated leadership (i.e. the 'benevolent dictator' model, where competent leaders are shielded from short-term shareholder pressure)?

Also, thank you for your quick replies.

Somewhat related: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Benevolent_dictatorship

However, I wonder if this workshop is still relevant in the age of LLMs...?

Moreover, there exist fathers who are non-committal (e.g. cheat) and thus, disproving this.

[1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sarah_Blaffer_Hrdy#Mothers_and...

The headline is borderline clickbaity. Specifically the word "Ruthless" made me think of something unethical like Delve's business.

[1]: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=47634690

> “These bears have become synonymous with gentrification in San Francisco,” he told fnnch, “and the displacement of the artists that come from here.”

I have mixed feelings (i.e. I understand your boredom) of his honeybear art from a pure aesthetic pov. However, (as any modern viral influencer knows), any successful artist will invite haters. This article reinforces the notion that fnnch is very successful...

Imo, your suggestions are more for intermediate/advanced active listeners that need to interact with folks in their job (e.g. bartenders, reporters, middle managers...).

Still, I feel being repetitive (e.g. 'It sounds like XYZ...is that right?') is better than nothing. Sometimes, training wheels aren't bad when learning how to ride a bike.

The poem suggested many many many possible when. Here's one: "unless it comes out of / your soul like a rocket,".

Unfortunately (or fortunately), in life, there is no methodology to prove that a given search problem is futile (e.g. NP-complete)... so we have to take our chances and choose. I believe that's the beauty of life: choice.

The examples are good but every reader must not have the takeaway that every effortful code is bad (e.g. haskell is extremely hard to read at first but every developer swears it has very high intrinsic cognitive load)

I read the page https://www.succeedsocially.com/morefun. Here's my initial impressions. Pros: it identified several important painpoints and give several decent examples. Cons: Being a truly fun person is all about reaction reaction reaction. Fun people react authentically (while censoring their ahole side because you don't want to be fun but unlikable), ridiculously (while reading the room), and intelligently (playing to the top of the crowd's intelligence).

RedHat's style guide is far more detailed and closer to a reference/explanation (i.e. going by Diátaxis definition).

Google's technical writing is shorter and closer to tutorial/how-to guide.

I recommend the Google's technical writing if you're a coder or a beginner. RedHat is for folks who already know they need this on first look.