I have to agree. It's off-putting to me too. I'm impressed by the performance of their models on this take-home but I'm not impressed at their (perhaps unintentional) derision of human programmers.
It's not silly when you consider what longnow stands for. They look at "now" on a 20,000 year scale so the extra zero is just emphasizing that 01931 is still the "long now".
It’s so arbitrary. We have at least a few hundred million years before Earth is entirely uninhabitable. Why not use 000001931, then? Not ambitious enough, I guess.
Our written history already goes back over 6,000 years. We can actually understand what people back then wrote. We don’t need unbroken year numbering, or leading zeros, to understand that. The calendar has been reset and changed multiple times. It seems like a mis-focus on something that doesn’t really matter.
I don't see it as a serious attempt to create a better way to write down the year. To me, it's a whimsical attempt to give the reader a little pause to think about long time periods, which is what this project is all about. That makes me smile and remember that I'm just a small spec of dust, not to be taken too seriously in the grand scheme of things. I like it.
There's honestly not much you can do to prevent the "oily cubes" problem, especially if you keep the laptop docked often. You'll just have to clean the screen more often.
I've seen some people place a keyboard-sized microfibre cloth in between the keyboard and display but I'm not sure how well that actually works in practice. It might cause other issues.
> I've seen some people place a keyboard-sized microfibre cloth in between the keyboard and display but I'm not sure how well that actually works in practice. It might cause other issues.
The tolerance is tight enough here that folks used to damage their displays this way. You need an extremely thin layer here if you are going to do this.
Absolutely. I honestly wouldn't ever recommend doing this. Imo, you should just spent a little extra time cleaning your display over taking dubious preventative measures.
Being serious, I'm always wearing nitrile gloves if whatever I have to clean is dirty - plus it's also a protection against detergents.
A spare Samsung phone I've got mid-pandemic I had to purify with isopropyl because young guy who was selling it clearly didn't care much about all the gunk.
There are "ungodly geniuses" within mathematics but no one is saying every mathematician is an "ungodly genius". The quality of results you get from an LLM can vary greatly depending on the environment you place it in and the context you provide it. This isn't to say it's your fault Claude Code can't fix whatever issue you're having.
Not disagreeing with you, but I don't think Tao is blowing this out of proportion either. I think it's a pretty reasonable way of saying, "Hey, AI is now capable of something it wasn't able to do before".
I think at this point it's not easy to accurately detect whether or not something is AI written. A real person can definitely write like this. In fact, that's probably where the LLMs got their writing style from.
Refactoring does always cost something and I doubt LLMs will ever change that. The more interesting question is whether the cost to refactor or "rewrite" the software will ever become negligible. Until it isn't, it's short-sighted to write code in the manner you're describing. If software does become that cheap, then you can't meaningfully maintain a business on selling software anyway.
No. They’re only installed if you git clone react and npm install inside your clone.
They are only installed for the topmost package (the one you are working on), npm does not recurse through all your dependencies and install their devDependencies.
I also like to think that Einstein would be smart enough to explain things from a common point of understanding if you did drop him 2000 years in the past (assuming he also possesses the scientific knowledge humanity accrued in that 2000 year gap). So, your analogy doesn't really make a lot of sense here. I also doubt he'd be able to prove his theories with the technology of the past but that's a different matter.
If we did have AGI models, they would be able to solve our hardest problems (assuming a generous definition of AGI) even if we didn't immediately understand exactly how they got there. We already have a lot of complex systems that most people don't fully understand but can certainly verify the quality of. The whole "too smart for people to understand that they're too smart" is just a tired trope.
Reading is usually more passive than coding. I'm often never sleepy if I'm actively coding something late at night but reading a book (no matter how engaging) or watching a tv show can very easily make me sleepy. That said, everyone's brains work very differently.
This is just so weird. In general coding won't let me fall asleep but a book 100% will never let me sleep until I finish.
I also find the idea of "forcing" yourself to read rather peculiar, but we're all different people. I wonder if there's genuinely something different in how the brain reacts.
