I did get relatively good scores in reading speed back in primary/middle school when we took such tests, so maybe there's an explanation. At the same time, writing/speaking is a very resource-intensive task for me so I tend to be silent a lot (and then drop a pile of sentences on the unsuspecting people I'm with)

A person who has something to say often has trouble stopping writing. Outsourcing writing to AI then feels like the opposite, as if the author doesn't care but wants to just spew some content.

that's a bitrate of 1GB per 9-12h, and for cases when it's too much I just have cached music on my device (I'm lucky to have mostly empty storage on my 256gb phone)

we're all very grateful for cool toolchains and tools but I think people wouldn't even poke a stick at it if it doesn't pass a huge test suite (that is not vibe-coded, probably nodejs test suite if they have one?).

I really feel like humans argue too much about how computer programs think and at the same time too little about how humans think. The topic is criminally underresearched and the existing research is all over the place.

Though there are recent experiments showing that unconscious brain retains language processing abilities [1], so the two might be as well independent systems

[1]: https://www.nature.com/articles/s41586-026-10448-0

Is it really? LLMs don't have words inside, for the most part they operate by applying transformations to a vector that does not contain any words at all. Words that come out of an LLM are just what sampler gives us by looking at the vector that is the result of those transformations.

Does this vector contain a world model? Some form of thoughts or reasoning to arrive at the result? That's an open question really.

Sure, rerunning that whole process for each token might not be the best solution, although that's an open question too. But saying that LLMs operate on words first is too big of an oversimplification

What I find with any site is that without a good foundation you're bound to repeat same styles over and over, and with one you don't get any point with Tailwind.

Expression `select(User).where(User.id == user_id)` does look simpler and cleaner than `select(User).where(eq(User.id, user_id)))`.

Maybe there is an actual eq function of sorts that allows that, and it's not a life-or-death difference here, but as far as convenience goes, it works well. And typecheckers are good enough to be able to let you know what's the return type.

It's just a weird way to write CSS right in the classes. We have a tool for that, it's called "writing CSS", and it actually has classes that allow sharing style choices across various components (which somehow is marketed as feature of TW)

In other words, I don't see how Tailwind is just "I want to write my CSS in obscure way in the wrong place".

In general, when you get your hands on operator overloading you get a bunch of various quirky applications for each. Some dunder methods have strict runtime-level rules (e.g. __hash__ or __len__), some don't

If you would have zero knowledge about ICEs, how would you know?

I don't get it. We don't have a definition of consciousness or any criteria. People seriously argue that "it's obvious that X is not conscious" and cannot explain which criteria they used.

I think if we can get to some definition, then consciousness should be a property of a system, because consciousness of the whole (e.g. brain) does not mean consciousness of the parts (neurons or molecules of the brain). And the Chinese-room-esque thought experiments actually show that consciousness should indeed be a property of the system, not of its parts. Separate parts might not be conscious, might not "understand" (whatever understanding means is a point of another debate), but the whole can.

Then there's "simulation of consciousness is not consciousness" argument, which doesn't hold much. A perfect simulation means it fulfills all the criteria, so how is it different from actual consciousness?

A more interesting point of discussion: if a system contains conscious parts and those parts can interact with system i/o, would the system be conscious? Is Earth conscious? Is Internet? Is your bus to work?

Russian speakers broadly consider sky blue / turquoise / cyan a distinct color right between green and blue

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Blue%E2%80%93green_distinction...

Although the question "is the color distinct and basic or just a shade?" is very subjective. Is pink distinct or a shade of red/purple? Is purple distinct or a shade of red/blue? Is green distinct or a shade of blue? (it's well-known that in Japanese green separated from blue only relatively recently, with very bluish traffic lights and other quirks included)