Is it? Was it actually her choice? Or was she propagandized into being a fully-available consumer?

Was she fed a steady diet of anti-natalist/anti-family formation and pro-independence (pro-consume) media and government policies from the moment she was born?

Remember this line the next time immigration/H1b debates heat up. The same mathematics are at play.

I think sibling comments are taking issue with `learn multiplication tables` versus `memorize multiplication tables`. I find no value in the latter in kids but incredible value in the former.

What I'm teaching my homeschoolers is to instead be able to quickly derive the table from the "easy" ones. Everyone practices counting by twos, fives, and tens at an earlier stage of math. So when multiplication tables come around, if you can fill 2s,5s, and 10s out easily, then any other thing you need is (usually) just one simple addition or subtraction operation away.

I do it this way for the same reason I'm against learning "tricks" like FOIL ( first-outer-inner-last) for binomial multiplication. You end up learning the narrow-scoped trick or you end up learning the table, and not a framework by which to solve problems of a broad class.

---

I've seen entirely too many kids who memorize the table up to 10x10 and then are totally stunlocked at 11x11.

While I didn't do any additional looking into it -- this is often my biggest gripe. Is the _goal_ to have better exam scores and require less time studying or is the goal to be a better problem-solver holistically?

When faced with a novel problem that neither the problem-based learning group nor the traditional schooling group - which performed better and by what metrics?

---

It seems silly to say "This group who was instructed to rote memorize material could indeed perform better on a direct memory recall examination." and then close the door on problem-based learning.

Which will certainly be granted and thus Better Days *WILL* Come, at least in the localized "I'm taking practically no risk" sense.

If it was as easy to stress test/battery test/materials test/etc a bridge as it is to test code - then yes. I'd trust an engineer who vibe-engineered a bridge.

---

The problem with mapping digital problems into meat-space is that there is inherently a few orders of magnitude of cost automatically added to anything that happens in meat-space.

I can spin up an arbitrary number (10, 10k, 500k) docker instances, X with fuzzed inputs, Y with explicit edge cases, Z with tolerance testing, etc etc. And if that doesn't work - I can fix and push a button and it just happens again.

If a bridge engineer could do that with bridges - yes I'd expect them to be vibing just as hard as we are now.

"Generate the following JSON formatted object array representing the interruptions in my daily traffic. If no results, emit []. Send this at 8am every morning. {some schema}. Then run jsonreporter.py"

Then just let jsonreporter.py discriminate however it likes. Keep the LLMs doing what they are good at, and keep hard code doing what it's good at.

Black Mirror did it first https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hang_the_DJ

These are separate things. If he's interpreting it as an outright attack, he _is_ hearing it correctly. But incoherence would imply he's _not_ hearing the coded language in it's true meaning.

I hear this all the time, but to what end? If the input costs to produce most things ends up driving towards zero, then why would there be a need for UBI? Wouldn't UBI _be_ the performative economics mentioned?

We _still_ have a "smart person only internet" really, it's just now used mostly for drug and weapon sales ( Tor )

If it's the same in both cases, that's his point.

A _past_ calorie restriction is associated with a _current_ calorie surplus.

Obviously if the calorie restriction were being continued, one wouldn't be developing obesity.