aanet

100% this.

Tech leaders have lost touch with people. And the top leaders — take your pick — have normalized shitty behavior.

I used to think Proton was good.

Not so, anymore.

I’m not supporting their products anymore. Cancelling my subscription

This is so pretty. Thanks for sharing.

Heard some rumblings of "foundation models for CAD" at the Long Horizons summit a couple of weeks ago...

Now confirmed.

I agree with the author, and I like how his (human) voice comes through loud and clear in this post.

I also find LLM-voices extremely jarring, boring, and dense. And very, umm, mechanical, if you will.

But I want to make an observation.

Folks are not-Ok reading the LLM’s output for prose.

But folks are completely Ok, even downright blind, to accepting LLM-output of code.

I see that dichotomy everywhere.

LLM-driven code: great, valuable, all-ok LLM-driven prose: not ok

Understood completely that the audience for consumption is two completely different entities (machines vs humans) but something about this doesn’t sit right with me.

More particularly: if we don’t prefer LLM-prose, why should we prefer LLM-code ??

Anybody else feels that ??

The reason for existence of a $23K Mac is...

...that it makes the $5K Mac look more palatable

I am one of those people who finds the universe more beautiful because of its underlying mathematics.

I truly love it when I see fractal broccoli (so pretty I dont want to eat it, lest I disturb the beautiful pattern), the golden spirals in sunflowers and aloe plants (one of my fav!!), the arrangement of ferns, the hexagonal cloud storms on Jupiter, the musical notes that are euphonious, the geometric structures of snowflakes (so many different kinds!!), and on and on...

Marcus du Satoy is a wonderful writer and science communicator. I've loved his _Music of the Primes_. Highly recommended!

> New court documents make clearer than ever that Meta has been working hard to control the scientific narrative on their products

...

> The resulting documents reveal:

    > Explicit plans by Meta to discredit psychologist Jonathan Haidt, who has been raising alarms about social media and youth mental health. 

    > Frustration by internal researchers because Meta lawyers were stopping them from researching youth mental health and their platforms. (Why would lawyers stop these studies? Because they risk finding something. The researchers respond by asking "“if the study only included questions about social support/positive outcomes would legal approve?”)

    > Explicit plans to work with the National Academies of Sciences on social media and youth mental health with goals to “get credit” for proposing the assessment and “greatly shape the nature of the questions they will explore.”

    > Alternative plans to work with another group if they cannot adequately influence NAS research, and “ensure product feature evaluations are excluded” (i.e., their product features that might be causing harm)

    > Discussions of which study questions are most likely to yield benefits for the company

This is such a d*ck move. I feel cheated. Not sure why I trusted them. I have opted out of "use my data for training purposes"... and this is exactly that.

WTF

Makes one appreciate the human body