I think "modeling the trajectory" is not necessarily what we are doing either. It's more likely we are using much simpler heuristics. If you are trying to catch a ball flying through the air, you can just look at the ball and modulate your running speed to keep your eyes at a fixed angle until you catch the ball. It's much more analogous to a PID controller than a model of the trajectory.

This is the thing that drives my nuts about LLM-generated code. I will see PRs that fix a bug and the entire bug fix is re-explained in 10 different places in a code comment.

The answer is that it depends? If I have $1B then yeah I would roll the dice and keep rolling as long as they let me. If I have $100? Maybe not because you can go very easily go broke even if each bet is positive EV.

This is not really true and the whole fore foot vs heal striker thing is a bit of a red herring. There are elite distance runners that are forefoot, mid-foot (probably the majority) and heal strikers. The main thing is that wherever on their foot hits first, the foot itself is under their center of gravity and not out in front of them.

The review of the Grand Canyon annoyed me the most:

``` Can you hike in the Grand Canyon? Yes, technically. You can walk along the rim, but the view won’t change; same damn canyon on one side, same damn parking lot on the other. There are trails that go down into the canyon, but they’re a trap ```

So you can't even hike there, except of course for the hike that you can do.

"They are featureless steep inclines formed into endless switchbacks, and when they finally end, there’s nothing to do except go back up"

That is what hiking is! Granted, usually you hike up and then back down. And I wouldn't call the hike down into the canyon "featureless". Honestly, it sounds like this person just doesn't really like hiking, which if fine it's not for everyone, but that is just what there is to do in most national parks.

This seems like a stretch. Mr Back is already a well-known wealthy person who (presumably) owns lots of crypto. I think it's a stretch to think this article significantly increase the danger to his life.

That said, clearly a lot of people really do seem to care who Satoshi is, so it doesn't seem like its out of the question for a newspaper to print an article claiming to answer that question.

> Do they just not care about the ethical implications?

Did Satoshi not care about the ethical implications of creating bitcoin? Mr Back may not be Satoshi, but he's also made a career driving the adoption of bitcoin and bitcoin itself has enabled many, many terrible crimes. It seems like special pleading to argue that Mr Back is not responsible for any of the consequence of bitcoin in the world, and also that the NY Times is morally responsible if someone harms Mr Back because they think he is Satoshi. Either we have an ethical responsibility to consider the consequences of our actions or we don't.

Sure, rationally I agree, but clearly a lot of people do care. It may not matter in any substantive way who Satoshi is but people still care.

> There is no artistic intent to interpret

Is that the case? Obviously there is no artistic intent as bitcoin is not art, but it's not clear to me why the intent of an artist is important but the intent of a technologist is not.

> It's like a C fanatic saying "No useful software can be made using Python", and then asking for a counterexample

At which point you could provide them many, many counterexamples?

I like AI coding assistants as much as the next red-blooded SWE and find them incredibly useful and a genuine productivity booster, but I think the claims of 10/100/1000x productivity boosts are unsupported by evidence AFAICT. And I certainly know I'm not 10x as productive nor do any of my teammates who have embraced AI seem to be 10x more productive.

Ok, so do you have a counterexample?