abeppu

I don't at all understand Wikipedia's notability criteria. I see pages for individual public transit stops in SF. I switched it to look near my work, and it shows me defunct restaurants, an office building, the dead mall. Do these all deserve their own pages?

> Men demonstrated higher rates of elevated FAI-Score than women (52.8% vs. 25.8%, p=0.016; ≥90th percentile: 26.4% vs. 3.2%, p=0.007).

I am not saying this is good or interesting science (IIUC this should make us believe that fewer people with coronary inflammation go on to develop heart disease than we would have otherwise thought?) but their score is at least correlated with sex.

You know how some engineering teams have a really difficult time prioritizing? Maybe in planning there's a big long list of project ideas some of which really need more discovery to define scope. There can be stuff that seems really important to a long-term vision but is also hard to estimate and higher risk of scope creep etc. And there's stuff that's cheap/fast/low-risk but doesn't solve the larger important problems? And even in the context of a company that is still burning through investor money, you fix _some_ of the smaller things even while you're still figuring out the bigger things, b/c otherwise you'd likely _never_ do the smaller things?

I'm not saying legislators are doing their best in a good faith effort to serve their constituents. But even if they were, you would sometimes see things like this, right?

I see we've downgraded to no bread and virtual circuses.

which, if true, the low volume in that week says that there aren't a sizable fraction of changes that Anthropic believes can be merged based on the judgement of agents -- humans are still approving almost all changes, right?

In particular, where cost is the x axis, a well-funded company with a good but not best model can discount their new model until it reaches the frontier. In some sense this is as much a statement about the efficiency of markets in the presence of public measurement-based comparison and public list pricing as it is about research pace.

So on the one hand it's nice to see when a cool algorithm or framework is used IRL.

On the other hand, actually applying a 'stable marriage algorithm' to people makes a bunch of assumptions which are worth interrogating:

- Do people actually know what they want even in the short term?

- Do people's preference change meaningfully over longer periods of time?

- Does your preference _upon reading people's profiles_ have any strong relationship to your preference after spending any amount of time with them?

The property that right after being matched, no one could have matched with someone whose profile they preferred more does not mean that this will create stable relationships.

Ok so not that many months ago, the consensus seemed to be that the smart take on openclaw was "don't trust it; don't give it write or delete access to anything you care about; don't give it read access to anything sensitive; expect that it may go off the rails and delete your inbox and send checks to that prince in your spam folder at any time. If you still have tasks that it can do within those restrictions, have fun."

Today the models are better, but they don't seem trustworthy or reliable enough that I want to give them them a lot of access or freedom. My coding agents sometimes still go off in the wrong direction, or say they did something other than what they did, or say they will do something and then immediately stop without doing anything.

The always-running (so almost never supervised) agent that is meant to do the same work as a person (and therefore needs _access_ like a person) seems like a notorious footgun from earlier this year was just made more powerful, and the companies that are supposed to know the most are telling you to connect it to everything.

I think the way they're connected to the real world doesn't have to be as free-form as we're doing now.

If you think AI can help design new drugs, great! Let's pick some restricted DSL for describing molecules, preparation instructions, hook it up to the right set of lab robots that can pipette and centrifuge and whatever, _restrict its output to that DSL_, and let it iterate. The 'let an AI design drugs' process doesn't require that the agent can also, say, hack a niche German wiki.

For every area where we think these AIs can be _so valuable_ because they'll find solutions that humans wouldn't (or find them faster), then doesn't that value also imply it would be worth it for some humans to do some advanced setup of their specific domain-specific tools so it can be run in a sandbox equipped with only what it needs and not more?

But the business didn't move. Meta not moving to FL, and Prop 40 doesn't give any reason to move it; it's a tax on the resident, not the business.

From what I can tell the residency change for a billionaire is about how often you fly to your various homes. Zuckerberg I think hasn't gotten rid of his Palo Alto or Lake Tahoe property, he just added a FL house and will have a cap on how many days per year he's in CA right? This isn't like a normal person with 1 house relocating.

I think the author may be right about multiple points but I think it doesn't matter? This is one of those, don't let the perfect be the enemy of the good situations. A state-level, one-time wealth tax _is_ something that billionaires can run away from. And this law seeking to apply to people who lived in the state _before its passing_ seems structurally sketchy. This article has some fair concerns.

But we have a one-time billionaire's tax proposal on the upcoming ballot, and we don't have an LVT proposal on the ballot. Saying that the Billionaire's tax will be less effective than promoters say maybe true -- but we're definitely going to get exactly $0 from a statewide LVT for 2026. If the Center for Land Economics gets an LVT on the ballot in a future year, I would strongly consider voting for it -- but that's not on its own a reason to not do the Billionaire Tax this year.

What _would_ be a convincing piece of info, and which no one knows, is what the long-term impacts of a one-time wealth tax are. E.g. Zuckerberg is moving his residence to FL but Meta isn't going to stop employing Californians. And if the state is _credible_ in saying it's a one-time tax, will the billionaires who fled come back after it's done?

> The land value tax can’t be dodged by leaving nor can it be passed on to renters.

In what sense can't it be passed to renters? Esp if all landlords in the market were faced with a new land tax that they had not previously planned for, why would it not be passed on?

Maybe I'm misunderstanding this but when would you ever use it this way? If you're already willing to call Opus/Fable, then isn't the obvious comparison whether Opus/Fable can choose among sampled solutions better or worse than their fast model? If you're willing to pay many seconds for many code samples from a slow model, it's contrived to imagine you care about picking between them in ms.

How about the reducing the F, which for a decent portion of its route down Market is directly above the underground KLM lines? The F is slower and lower capacity per car and stops at lights (and stops traffic when it needs to turn) in addition to apparently being more costly to run. I am clearly not a transit planner or traffic engineer, but it seems perfectly reasonable to run the F only from the Ferry Building to Fishermen's Wharf.

- People who want to go up market can transfer to the KLM at Embarcadero and if they're going to Castro (or maybe Church?) they may also get there faster.

- If tourists want to see an old-timey street car, they could ride one perhaps half the distance, only along the water with views Coit tower, and the eastern end of the line would be right by the Railway Museum anyway. And we could run perhaps half as many cars.