Domenic_S

nah they're right, legit teardowns with microscopes & CTs & chip identification are interesting; most 'teardowns' are little more than destruction porn. jerryrig at least gives some info (scratch test) but even he quickly devolves into uninteresting destruction.

It's nothing new - is will it blend still a thing? - but man it seems like they're everywhere now

This useless and obnoxious criticism actually ties into TFA a bit: when GP was writing for this audience, they wrote in a way that wasn't overly precise, but specific enough that we'd understand their point.

> or even provide terrorist strikes.

I'm sorry, Lloyd's will _what_??

Yes it is!

I've been down the mmWave rabbit hole for the last 6 months, making sensors to put around the house to control automations for lights and so forth. They're pretty great.

For my use case the advantage over PIR is they do presence detection, so no more lights shutting off when you're sitting on the toilet.

Pretty amazing you can pick up basic mmWave sensors for a few bucks on amazon, and mate them to an esp32 board which is another couple bucks. It's so much fun as a hobby!

You're full of awful takes, aren't you.

Yale's E360 Digest is not a buddy mentioning a topic in passing.

Have some standards.

It's a playground, some grass, a parking lot (a "parking space" is for one car), a basketball court, a baseball diamond, and what looks like a decent paved, tree-lined trail that goes all the way past the animal shelter to a neighborhood.

Seems.... fine?

> 1) it's not hard to do your own research. If you're here, I assume you know how.

What an awful take. The point of news shouldn't be "assume I'm right and the readership takes my word for it". It should help the reader come to a conclusion, because it's news and not opinion. If you have to go do your own research not to dig deeper but because the article failed to even cover the basic arguments, it has utterly and completely failed.

But you just said "The benefit is to people watching the prices" -- but if the odds haven't properly converged what information does watching the prices get you before-the-fact?

Maybe I'm just not getting it, could you lay out a scenario?

Hmm, not following. The insider trade in this case was small enough to not change the lines meaningfully, no? D4vd's chances of being #1 went from <1% to >99% nearly overnight, was a huge upset.

Polymarket might be different, but conventional Vegas-style lines change with the amount of $$ bet, if the pool is $50M and an insider bets $10k on the long shot, the line isn't moving -- I don't see how insider information can be surfaced in this scenario except after the fact (and only maybe then).

In other words, if the line changes enough to signal insider info, it's not really insider info anymore.

> I fail to make sense of the claim that there is such an “explanatory gap.” It regards what we would understand if we were to understand something that we currently do not understand. Forgive the muddled question, but: How can we know now what we would understand if we were to understand something we do not currently understand?

Rhetorical nonsense. If I'm a student about to take geometry for the first time, I can certainly have a sense of what I'll understand when I "understand something [I] do not currently understand".

The explanatory gap, IIUC, is rather simple: we can't explain why neurons firing results in us feeling/experiencing the world. This doesn't seem controversial to me.

> a bit of experience with LLMs make it obvious that’s not what’s going on here

I feel like that overstates the point quite a bit. There's a lot that's similar: neurotransmitter release is stochastic at the vesicle level, ion channels open and close probabilistically, post-synaptic responses have noise. A given neuron receiving identical input twice doesn't produce identical output. Neither brains nor LLMs have a central decider that forms intent and then implements it. In both, decisions emerges from network dynamics, they're a description of what the system did, not a separate cause (see Libet's experiments).

Now pretty clearly there's a lot that's different, and of course we don't understand brains enough to say just how similar they are to LLMs, but that's the point: it's an interesting thought experiment and shutting it down with a virtual eyeroll is sad.

> Cyber: Of, relating to, or involving computers or computer networks (such as the Internet)

You left out the part of speech for that entry, which is "adjective"; as in "the cyber marketplace", not "the cyber".

> Trusted Access for Cyber program

Using "cyber" as a noun there seems language coded for government. DC has a love of "the cyber" but do technologists use the term that way when not pointing at government?