It is unlikely you are accurately perceiving some limitation that Karpathy does not.

And sometimes, the extant magical belief that "government" is different & immune lets those same human factors be ignored until they feed bigger, slower disasters that everyone is afraid to admit, because (ostensibly) "we all did this together".

Sure, that works – like having one (rare, expensive) savant engineer apply & review everything in a linear canonical order. But that's not as competitive & scalable as flows more tolerant of many independent coders/agents.

It'll fire on merge issues that aren't code problems under a smarter merge, while also missing all the things that merge OK but introduce deeper issues.

Post-merge syntax checks are better for that purpose.

And imminently: agent-based sanity-checks of preserved intent – operating on a logically-whole result file, without merge-tool cruft. Perhaps at higher intensity when line-overlaps – or even more-meaningful hints of cross-purposes – are present.

Can't achieve subject-verb agreement in 1st sentence of their English abstract.

Advances made through No Language Left Behind (NLLB) have demonstrated that high-quality machine translation (MT) scale to 200 languages.

https://somethingaboutmaps.wordpress.com/2011/03/08/remember...

Comments URL: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=46964337

Points: 1

# Comments: 0

– 'SLOW TUESDAY NIGHT', a 2600 word sci-fi short story about life in an incredibly accelerated world, by R.A. Lafferty in 1965

https://www.baen.com/Chapters/9781618249203/9781618249203___...

Signal and other messaging apps offer a 'search' bar across all sessions & history, so I doubt I'm the only one.

It's hard for me to imagine being so present-focused such a history wouldn't be personally useful.

Or, so worried about "someone [using] it against [me] in court" that I'd need more than the occasional auto-expiration, and specifically my messenger "protecting" me with intermittently-enforced loss-of-histories (on just theft/loss/hard-failure of primary device).

Anecdotes that sometimes those problems don't occur are nearly worthless. Of course that's true - the original anecdotal complaint already implicitly relies on, & grants, the idea that there's some default, "hoped for" ideal from which their experience has fallen short.

To chime in, "never had your problems" thus adds no info. Yes, people lucky enough not to hit those Signal limits that cause others to lose data exist, of course. But how does that testimony help those with problems? Should their frustration be considered less important or credible, because of your luck?

The as-if portrayal is one way your anecdote will be perceived, even if that wasn't your intent.

I was born in 1970; per your reference, there've been a bunch of state & federal legislators (or recently-former legislators) killed for political (or pseudo-political deranged) motives "in my lifetime" – and far more in the 1970s than in the last 10 years.

In my lifetime, one sitting President was shot at & missed (Ford in 1976), and one was shot at & hit by a ricochet (Reagan in 1981) – again, more in the past than the shots that grazed candidate Trump in 2024.

The Wikipedia-listed murders of other officeholders, like mayors or judges, are also more frequent in the past than recently – especially going before either of our lifetimes.

So trend impressions are very subject to frames of reference & familiarity with history.

I suspect if people in general had a deeper & broader sense of how common political violence has been, both in US history & worldwide, they'd be, on the one hand, less prone to panic over recent events & rhetoric (even though it is concerning), but also on the other hand more appreciative of the relative peace of recent decades (even with the last few years' events).

I don't believe this is true with regard to ending angles after addition steps between vectors of varying magnitudes.

Imagine just in 2D: vector A at 90° & magnitude 1.0, vector B at 0° & magnitude 0.5, and vector B' at 0° but normalized to magnitude 1.0.

The vectors (A+B) and (A+B') will be at both different magnitudes and different directions.

Thus, cossim(A,(A+B')) will be notably less than cossim(A,(A+B)), and more generally, if imagining the whole unit circles as filled with candidate nearest-neighbors, (A+B) and (A+B') may have notably different ranked lists of cosine-similarity nearest-neighbors.