adverbly

Im so hyped to see how this goes!

Power to the people man!

I'm really excited for this to be successful and stay in place.

It's going to end up being something quite unique perhaps in a ways similar to Switzerland's unique democracy.

Surely that would assume low/predictable volatility thought right?

If the probability changes over time that the price might go up and back down for a 6 month period which is bounded inside of a single auction-able period, then the auction would not have ever captured it correctly... Low frequency auctions assumes perfect risk prediction which isn't realistic and comes with large insurance and analysis overheads.

No - it would have exactly the opposite effect.

Many georgists propose LVT + citizens dividend which is in effect a better version of a wealth tax with UBI - meaning it would be highly re-distributive from the asset-rich class to the asset-poor, and therefore very positive for inequality.

Let's be real here: People probably should have never done this in the first place.

If your Bitcoin is on someone else's computer, it is not your Bitcoin.

Maybe.

Depends on what counts as a different way I guess.

And on if you're applying some kind of discrete physical model of the world or not...

Wrong. There are infinite ways of doing both.

> superpolynomial

I've got some reading to do it seems...

> In our view, these manuscripts are best understood as a form of raw research data.

Much better!

> For the computer science collaboration, the group has decided to make the natural language proof and Lean formalization public immediately, and we are publishing them directly to our GitHub repository. For the physics collaboration, the group has decided to hold off on releasing the AI-produced artifacts and instead work on writing it up themselves.

> All of these approaches involve tradeoffs. On the one hand, the collaborations empower experts to foster unpacking the results and contextualizing them in the broader academic community. On the other hand, choosing initial shepherds necessarily shapes who gets involved first and creates asymmetry of information. We welcome feedback on how to broaden participation and make this process more useful.

Very good!

I was highly critical of their approach with the earlier mathematical publications, but this is much improved.

Most importantly, they aren't releasing slop papers that would never have been published in any self-respecting journal or made it past a deep round of peer review questioning.

> We are committed to ensuring funding for researchers to independently examine, explain, and build on the results above.

> We continue to invite feedback on the best way to disclose results and engage with scientists to accelerate discovery.

Well done!

Now you need to actually LISTEN to the community and the feedback, so you aren't done yet, but this is a much better start than last time. Keep it up!

Reminds me of that recent post saying "we should be more ambitious with software" on the front page.

This certainly checks that box!

Don't confuse grid solar with on-prem

On-prem has a problem of distributed labour costs.

On-prem might eventually become cheaper, but my guess is that won't happen any time soon.

For the time being, centralized and at-scale installation is where you can get much, much lower labour per watt costs.

Really? I'd have thought that would be obvious to 99% of the population...

Here is another take: Speaking is closer to thought that writing! Can I write a blog post now?

Not a great look they they can't correctly generate a PDF that renders without text overflowing and overlapping.

This seems very arbitrary.

That might be what pediatricians say to YOU, or what they would give as generic aspirational goals, but frankly I think generic aspirational goals are silly.

Wouldn't no screens ever be safer at all ages if you're worried about screens? Its not like teens don't have problems with social media...

I think its important to separate recommendations from ideals.

For one, an ideal is not pragmatic and is only true "all other things being equal". It ignores trade-offs.

Second, an ideal for one is an ideal for all, but a recommendation for one is not a recommendation for all.

Do you also eat only vegetables, never smoke or drink, and go on a run for 30 minutes every day (of course same for kids as well)? Do you practice gratitude and volunteer weekly?

My point is simply that less screens is probably directionaly correct, but pushing consistent standards or recommendations is silly. Everyone is at a different level and should have different goals. We should all work on using less screens in whatever way we can, and understand how far we are from an ideal, and what damage is caused by that mismatch, but we shouldn't act like one arbitrary standard is actually magically correct and should be a global requirement.