This reads like some crypto or NFT commodity white paper, i.e. like an ad that says you need to use this now, and more, so that you'll figure out what it's good for.
A difference is that in those white papers they usually argue that their solution is more perfect in some sense than some more adopted alternative, here they instead claim that their commercial offering is "general purpose".
I get the ad-like vibe, but I think that's slightly unfair to the paper. "General purpose technology" is being used as an economics term here, not as a claim that ChatGPT is universally useful
"So I asked Claude to make me a video game — a command center where I do the port myself, step by step, watching the visible effects and the file tree evolve. It produced a UI where I click buttons to run the port step by step, with my old site and new site running side by side."
It's excruciating that this person is so close to reinventing moldable development and just keeps on skipping around it.
Yes, you should build tools that answer questions about your code, runtimes and systems. You should have tools that trivially allow you to incrementally and very immediately develop tools for inspection and getting clear answers. Going a roundabout way through some non-deterministic database to try and get there seems like a waste.
"The coroner wrote that Mitchell had drowned, likely due to an arrhythmia triggered by the combination of energy drinks and physical exercise. She noted that he had a blood-alcohol content of about 0.1%, slightly over the legal limit for driving."
That's a lot of alcohol. Where I live they'll for sure tear your license and sentence you to up to two years if you're caught behind the wheel at that level of intoxication.
As for so called energy drinks and alcohol, I'd bet taurine is much more important than caffeine.
Why do you expect pseudoephedrine to be less nasty on the cardiovascular system than caffeine?
Recommending going from caffeine to amphetamine comes across as rather weird to me. 'It seems you have trouble regulating intake of a weak stimulant most people have little issue with, how about you take one of the strong, seriously treacherous ones instead?'
> Why do you expect pseudoephedrine to be less nasty on the cardiovascular system than caffeine?
I'm not advocating for substituting pseudoephedrine for caffeine, but rather using pseudoephedrine as a one time proxy for amphetamine to see how well it works for you.
> Recommending going from caffeine to amphetamine comes across as rather weird to me.
With respect for the potential for abuse and addiction, that's a good point. My suggestion comes from a firsthand account of an adult with undiagnosed ADHD who self medicated with grossly excessive coffee drinking. Their doctor suggested getting assessed for ADHD and making the substitution out of fear for their cardiovascular health.
I assumed the parent commenter was overusing caffeine to self medicate for attention issues, but didn't think of the possibility that it was pure addictive behavior.
Pseudoephedrine is very different from amphetamine. If you must push caffeine users towards something else, go for nicotine. It is quite well tolerated, techniques for cessation are abundant, and like caffeine it is a cholinergic and would not be moreish unlike amphetamine.
For treatment of ADHD amphetamine is pretty much never the first reasonable option. It's reasonably among the last, way over there with meth, on the other side of reuptake inhibitors with a much nicer toxicological profile.
Amphetamine is no stronger or more treacherous than caffeine, when dosed properly. As someone with EXTENSIVE experience with both, I would say caffeine is probably substantially more treacherous.
I'll necro this even though I've been away for quite some time because this is such a motorheaded jaw clenched dum-dum of a position to take.
"When dosed properly" is basically a circular premise. When things are good, things are good. Great. Brilliant. This is the kind of solid ground we need for making judgements about psychoactives and health.
The thing is this, this ideal world does not exist. If you raise the dose or take an extra dose of caffeine, what happens? You'll probably feel sick and correct. What happens with amphetamine? In the best case you inch towards euphoria. At worst, if you really hit it on, you'll get a rush like little else and then euphoria.
Caffeine is very not sneaky, it clears the fog and you trivially find your equilibrium where you take roughly the same amount of a hundred millis per day. It carries very little risk for changes in personality and perception. Amphetamine is quite different. It affects confidence, behaviour and changes your perception so that the amphetamine starts to look like a solution to more and more problems. It does this in nefarious ways that usually aren't obvious to the newcomer. It's also way more potent than caffeine, therapeutic doses being in the few milligrams rather than hundreds a day.
Perhaps you've eaten more pills than I have, but I'm sure you didn't pay as much attention as I have. I like amphetamine as a very sporadic recreational drug, but that's on a hiatus because I have kids that depend on me. I'd never take it on a casual basis because I'm not disabled in a way that makes up for the risks. And there are risks, for one it's neurotoxic due to excitotoxicity. How much can't easily be predicted but chronic exposure is unlikely to be safe in the sense caffeine is. As far as I can tell this is more pronounced with dopaminergic than noradrenergic effects, i.e. if this is the case then dextroamphetamine is likely worse than the levo enantiomer.
Then there's the issue of mixing drugs. In many users amphetamine will not lessen or stop the consumption of caffeine.
Why is this a worthwhile measurement? Some cases can wait without having any negative medical implications, this measurement seems to gloss over this and to me it isn't obvious what the median ought to be. Is it obvious to you?
It's a US data pump, and the EU is a bunch of vassal states. That's the hurry, shutting down the data flow because the permissive legislation runs out is not allowed.
I think that's a little naive. This sort of legislation is much more useful in terms of managing the local population and what they are allowed to talk about than it is in terms of profit—except, I suppose, in the sense that holding companies liable for what is said with their software is unprofitable.
Designing this machine vision system is insurmountable. It will never be actually good at its stated purpose, because how much you can look through some window or glance back at your kids is decided by the outside environment and it will be impossible to fit accurate judgement of it in the computers in the car.
Also, lane assist fucking sucks. It places all cars in the same place on the road, i.e. all wear is in the same place as well, and in relation to the marked edges of the road, which often isn't the natural placing in curves and so on. As a consequence roads likely need maintenance more often, and as a proficient driver that does not let the car have opinions about placement on the road one commonly has much smaller margins when placing the car in the nice trajectory through a curve due to the sunken lanes from the assisted cars.
I have news for you: those systems already exist and they work. The "insurmountable" development work has already been done. How long you can safely look away from the road is determined mostly by physics and has hard bounds. More than ~5 seconds is never OK while the vehicle is on a public road. At speed, a single second can be a second too long. The problem isn't that the road looks clear now. The problem is that this can change instantly, without warning and in the most surprising ways at any moment. A kid running into the road from behind a car, an object falling onto the road, an animal jumping onto the road from the brush/ditch/tree-line... the list goes on. Forcing the driver to pay attention is good. There is no massive situational leeway.
No it hasn't. There's some approximation of supposed assistance for particular situations.
I don't think cars should whine about what I do or don't, because they suck at being drivers. As I understand it, this kind of crap comes from the US, which is a society that tries to force people to spend as much time as possible in the car regardless of whether they should be there or not, even allowing people to drive when rather drunk at 0.08% BAC. It's not something I welcome the spread of.
"Philosophy was the first and will be the last academic subject."
Hard no. Theology was first, and will forever be.
Where was Plato's Akademia? In a chapel of Athena, goddess of wisdom. In Aristotle you'll often find that philosophy is actually a method of theology, it's a way to figure out the divine, and what is most or least divine.
I mean, theology and philosophy could be argued endlessly to be interchangeable, go ask Wittgenstein. He just argues that things that are 'truly argued' with language are philosophy, while things that are bullshit is more or less theology.
I usually stick to the analytical stuff, the continental stuff was pretty traumatizing honestly, reading through Being-and-Time in a couple days on Adderall fried some brain cells and my perception of reality permanently.
Infamously analytical philosophy quickly turned out to be a dead end and led them to metaphysics to try and salvage their community.
Being and Time has a lot of interesting material but it is ill advised to approach it without having spent quite some time studying the philosophical tradition from Plato up until Heidegger himself, including Nietzsche. The old nazi presupposes a firm grasp of this history of ideas and makes an attempt at a 'reboot', which unsurprisingly turns out rather inscrutable without this background.
As for traumatising, in my experience Heidegger just lays down some groundwork for Derrida and Baudrillard. They're seriously efficient at questioning the foundations of language, thinking and society. Though I'd sooner recommend Merleu-Ponty, whose phenomenological achievements are more accessible and more easily applied in everyday life.
One could make the claim that some knowledge and experience does not fit into language and writing, the primary vehicles of philosophy. Here theology is a long tradition of approaches to such knowing and experience, which tends to be more foundational than the problem domains of philosophy.
I like the notion that religions prescribe a philosophy of life. That’s really all they are, with 1+ deities to justify the basis for it. Or, you know, you pick a philosophy that makes sense without the fear of god(s).
Religious traditions tend to hold that certain claims or parts of their canon are infallible, whereas academic philosophy is more welcoming of the critical and argumentative process.
I would think they're on opposite ends: philosophy teaches you autonomous experiential thinking, religion asks you to follow some third party authority.
this is a modernist misconception. ancient religions are philosophical frameworks and the texts are internally coherent arguments for those frameworks. They are just expressed in language that modern audiences without formal training don't understand.
I use "religion" to mean organized forms of spirituality, governed by "truths" you are supposed to "believe" in as member of the religion. Any such belief is a "third party truth": You do not know whether it is true or not. One may argue that this violates what "true" spirituality entails, which is experiental and not organized. For such spirituality, you can obviously read spiritual literature from whatever religion you please, like other philosophical works, but you read between the lines and don't follow some other person's interpretation (= third party authority).
How would you know? Are you an expert in the language and culture that its texts were originally written in? Even an expert would qualify their interpretation by saying that it is only an educated guess. Look at how easy it is for humans to misunderstand each other, even in direct verbal communication, then extend that to the level of misunderstanding in email and text messages. Now tell me how well you think modern people actually understand the meaning of something written thousands of years ago.
This kind of crime means you develop a network around you that won't stop having expectations of you just because you think you have enough for your eventual retirement.
They'll basically be your friends, partners and coworkers. Making a sudden change in how you associate with each other can have rather negative consequences, ranging from anxiety to them trying to murder you.
A difference is that in those white papers they usually argue that their solution is more perfect in some sense than some more adopted alternative, here they instead claim that their commercial offering is "general purpose".