> If you don't understand something

Ask, but if you advance weak ideas be prepared to be hit - and be glad about it, you are advised to revise the weak ideas.

That is really your interpretation only - and it directly clashes with the explicitly intended: "intellectually curious" (which will be, if not polymaths, at least open).

Of course an intellectual curiosity space hosted around the world of startup enterprises will attract membership of people with experience in engineering.

If you check the submissions, it should be immediately evident that there is no closure.

Can you expand? What works well, what may need more work, what is not there...

Well, how fortunate we are now, being able to do simplified coding through LLMs. AROS and Haiku and MenuetOS (etc.) could get a boost in software availability soon.

> Once you can formalize an idea computationally, the computer can run with it

> The more we can compute with things, the more we can use AI for things, the more weʼre able to really take things that are interesting in the world and mathematize them, so to speak, or computationalize them, and explore them in some more formal way - skill thatʼs super useful. If people come out of going through school and they know how to take some general thing thatʼs being discussed and in a sense formalize it computationally, mathematically, thatʼs something super important, particularly now, because the formalized version is so automatically executable - you suddenly have this kind of superpower: youʼve computationalized it and you can jump ahead because the computer can help you do something with what you computationalized. Itʼs giving you a way to kind of achieve much more than you could with your sort of pure mind, pure hands

> Those are things that are important for education: the sort of the the winners of the next round of things will surely be people who understand sort of how to computationalize different fields. Nowadays that also includes kind of applying AI to these things, but I think that the general category of being able to computationalize, being able to think about these fields in a way thatʼs sort of structured and formal enough to be able to feed them meaningfully to a computational system or an AI system, thatʼs really valuable

Comments URL: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=50115727

Points: 2

# Comments: 2

If there is one thing that, on the contrary, is instead a fundamental nutrient for the evolution of Humanity, is the presence of Intelligence (being exposed to expressions of Intelligence). We have to strive towards that.

And, meanwhile, uncontained empowered deficiency (from unfinished humans especially) - veeery agent in these times and age - should be more feared than direct weapons.

Which again raises the question: where are we going to get depth if humans so grossly evidently increasingly renounce it.

What have we studied AI for? To perfect intellectual endeavour. And in times of combined scarcity, the need for synthetic intelligence should be evident. I am shocked that the point is regularly missed in debate.

https://www.thamesandhudson.com/products/natures-palette

> [Julia Voss, Rainer Willmann -- The Art and Science of Ernst Haeckel. 45th Ed. (2020) (Explore Ernst Haeckel, the 19th-century artist-biologist who found beauty in the most unlikely creatures. This collection features 300 prints from his most important publications, including the majestic Kunstformen der Natur and his catalogues of marine life. These exquisite images are a scientific, artistic and environmental masterwork)]

https://www.taschen.com/en/books/classics/43949/the-art-and-...

--

Giving commercial links to monopolists, parent poster, is hardly a good idea.

Comments URL: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=50100103

Points: 1

# Comments: 0

Comments URL: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=50053487

Points: 268

# Comments: 47

Comments URL: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=50050367

Points: 32

# Comments: 2

Comments URL: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=50043309

Points: 6

# Comments: 0

Again: "if it were". Can't you feel it in French, that difference between indicative conditional and subjunctive conditional? Compare it with the bad-faith propaganda formulas, "Why are the people of Paluatu so fjitongan?". It suggests as factual something non-factual, or of dubious factuality.

If Asterix were real, we could have superstrenght. If Asterix is real - it is just a comic.

If a cat is conscient and with nociception, he gets unhappy about helping moving heavy furniture. If a physical book could judge its printed text, it would be often disappointed.

Are you acquainted with that expression of your cousins past the Alps, "If my grandmother had wheels she would be a bicycle"?

Before talking about the easy part of bicycle ethics, solve the more difficult, preposterous, absurd part about wanting to consider the grandmother a bicycle.

I would not be sure about that "everyone" - yes, clearly it should mean "reflective" (or similar, i.e. "improving visual conditions"), but it also may mean bistable or approaching that ("efficient"). (Paper has many different advantages.) Technologies to approach "better reading" features vary - in the tricks and in the gains. The term "electronic paper" is so slippery that in fact online news brodcasters can call their web distributed content (online news-/non/-papers and magazines) "epapers". All considered, avoidable term, unless we are clear about the point in the specific context we mention it.

> not just a marketing term

I meant, "so easily employable as a simplification for the customers".

"E-paper" means very little. It may mean "static" (and yet not necessarily "bistable", not even necessarily "efficient"), it may mean "reflective"... It is a marketing term.

So no, there is no real "agreed understanding" in it.

Is also "reflective" (natural) vs "emitting" (a compromise idea that worked but should not have you take it for granted - we do not "read fire" in nature).