I mean, this was my first question as well. If you say “I don’t trust that guy with my kids,” then you also should not be leaving that person alone with your kids. If you do leave him alone with your kids, people aren’t wrong to say that you very much are trusting him with them.

So I think it’s legitimate to ask whether they mean they “don’t trust Chinese and US firms with their data” in the sense that they do not provide their data to them, or just in the sense that they do give them a bunch of data, and then feel misgivings about it.

Which, y’know, it’s something you have a limited degree of control over, certainly, and we don’t want to fall too much into blaming the victims. But as someone who didn’t manage to actually get off Facebook until last year, I definitely felt for a long while before that like I was complicit in my own exploitation, and contributing to a societal problem. I think even the people still there know that cancelling it is the low-hanging fruit in terms of reducing the amount of data in the hands of dubious firms.

I dunno if that’s always the case. I still love The Phantom Tollbooth.

On the other hand, I remember being really frustrated by a phrase from another book. (I think it was “Kneeknock Rise”? I remember exactly nothing else about this book, though, so it might not be that.) It was a description of a scene, and it said the dog was asleep, “arms and legs akimbo.” Now, I was in… maybe third or fourth grade, so I had never encountered the word “akimbo” before, and asked my parents what it meant. They explained that “arms akimbo” was basically the only phrase in which it’s used, and it means having your arms out to your sides with your elbows bent and your hands on your hips. But this just confused me further, because the book said “arms and legs akimbo.” I had no idea what it was trying to describe, and could not picture it. I tried to draw a picture of what it seemed to be describing, and continued to find it baffling. My parents agreed that was odd, and suggested I talk to my teacher about it. The teacher was very dismissive, though, saying “well, obviously you’ve never had a dog, or you’d know exactly what they’re talking about.” Which…what? Why would you even say that to a curious kid? Couldn’t you at least draw a doodle of what it looks like?

So yeah, being forced to stick with a book you don’t like does leave a very strong negative impression.

The song of my people.

That would be the short story Harrison Bergeron by Kurt Vonnegut.

Yeah, this is what I was going to call out. Calling it “100% solvable by humans” and saying “if human scores were included, they would be at 100%” when 20-60% of humans solved each task seems kinda misleading. The AI scores are so low that I don’t think this kind of hyperbole is necessary; I assume there are some humans that scored 100%, but I would find it a lot more useful if they said something like “the worst-performing human in our sample was able to solve 45% of the tasks” or whatever. Given that the AIs are still scoring below 1%, that’s still pretty dark.

username checks out

Yeah, agreed. I must have misunderstood your original comment.

I’m not sure I totally understand your comment, so bear with me if I’m agreeing with you and just not understanding that.

“let me prioritize PRs raised by humans” … but why? Why do that in the first place? If bots/LLMs/agents/GenAI genuinely worked they would not care if it was made or not by humans, it would just be quality submission to share.

Before LLMs, there was a kind of symmetry about pull requests. You could tell at a glance how much effort someone had put into creating the PR. High effort didn’t guarantee that the PR was high quality, but you could be sure you wouldn’t have to review a huge number of worthless PRs simply because the work required to make something that even looked plausibly decent was too much for it to be worth doing unless you were serious about the project.

Now, however, that’s changed. Anyone can create something that looks, at first glance, like it might be an actual bug fix, feature implementation, etc. just by having the LLM spit something out. It’s like the old adage about arguing online–the effort required to refute bullshit is exponentially higher than the effort required to generate it. So now you don’t need to be serious about advancing a project to create a plausible-looking PR. And that means that you can get PRs coming from people who are just trolls, people who have no interest in the project but just want to improve their ranking on github so they look better to potential employers, people who build competing closed-source projects and want to waste the time of the developers of open-source alternatives, people who want to sneak subtle backdoors into various projects (this was always a risk but used to require an unusual degree of resources, and now anyone can spam attempts to a bunch of projects), etc. And there’s no obvious way to tell all these things apart; you just have to do a code review, and that’s extremely labor-intensive.

So yeah, even if the LLMs were good enough to produce terrific code when well-guided, you wouldn’t be able to discern exactly what they’d been instructed to make the code do, and it could still be a big problem.

But then you’ve got a space that’s 5’ 7 3/8" and you need a clearance of 7/32" on each end, so your piece should be…uh… 5’ 6 15/16" long. So much easier than metric, right?

In metric it would be 1711mm (or 1.711m) and you’d need to take 5.5mm off each end, so it’s 1700mm. (For the record, I picked random numbers in imperial and only did the metric conversion afterwards, I just lucked into the nice round number here.)

I dunno. You need how many sig figs you need in whichever system, but switching between a factor of 12 for the feet, base 10 for the inches, and the equivalent of binary decimals for the partial inches sure does take getting used to. I’ve finally gotten used to it enough that I can do it in my head, but I prefer to work on metric for most things.

I acknowledge that machinists just use thousandths of an inch, which does greatly improve working with that system, but it also introduces a third kind of measurement that can’t easily be interconverted with the other two. I dunno. It just feels like we’re doing way too much work propping up this archaic system when literally everyone else in the world is using something simpler and we could just be on the same system.

I’ve heard “If you want snow, drive to it,” which is pretty related.

I think “ct” on this receipt is short for “count” rather than “cent.”

The image looks rather a lot like the “Buddy Christ” from Dogma. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:Buddy_christ.jpg

(For math people: this can be modeled as a hypergeometric distribution with N=48, K=13, n=8, k=0.)

I suspect most people haven’t heard these terms. But they should have studied basic combinatorics in high school, and that’s all it really is. You had a pool of 48 people from whom to choose 8, but you happened to choose them from the specific pool of 35 not up for reelection. So the likelihood of that happening randomly is just 35 choose 8 / 48 choose 8, which is indeed 6.2%.

Same. Uggh. It was a bit like a fever, but so much worse. I was absolutely freezing and couldn’t stop shaking and sweating, but I also couldn’t really manage to distract myself with anything because my brain didn’t work, so I just had to lay there and wait. There was also this overwhelming, crushing ringing sound and a feeling like old analog TV static, along with a splitting headache. Thankfully my family were around, of whom I was dimly aware, so I could tell that time was probably passing, and I could kind of gauge that I probably wasn’t getting worse, or they’d take me to a hospital or something. That’s about the limit of what I was aware of, though. It just felt like it went on a really long time. I suspect in reality it didn’t last more than a few hours. I should ask; I’m sure one of them has a clearer memory of that aspect than I do.