cheesecakegood

I like how Matt Levine at Bloomberg put it - crypto is just “speedrunning the history of [traditional] finance”.

I think a lot of people seem to believe that the current setup of banks, currency, and regulation (writ large) is arbitrary and unique, but a lot of the basic building blocks are actually quite natural consequences of evergreen problems handling money.

Please keep this kind of AI-written comment out of the forum. If you have something worth saying, say it yourself!

Stupidly expensive from one perspective, but if you look at clothing and fashion it’s actually more surprising to me that the market effectively tops out where it does. Billionaires have more or less the exact same phone options as we do, and from base model to top model is only a bit more than 2x differential.

I think bigger efforts won’t work when smaller ones have been so haphazard. For example, “e.g.” I feel should become just “eg” in writing purely for convenience’s sake (plus almost everyone likely understands what you mean)

I just call it “pi but for curves”

…but that ended up being Ukraine

I think Anthropic are sincere but nutcases. Despite this, I’m glad they are around, because diversity of thought is good in the current environment.

At least in theory (TypeSafe has been pretty close-lipped about the details so this might just be hot air, and I think the evidence is a bit spotty) this is false, since they use a different reinforcement training method.

If the word “calibration” in probability doesn’t mean anything to you, the difference isn’t very apparent, but that doesn’t mean it doesn’t exist.

For those sick of “Pareto frontier” talk, just shorthand it as “it’s the best at some very particular thing”. Obviously that one thing/tradeoff it’s good at may not necessarily be compelling, but it is either a loose sign of quality, or a sign that they’ve chased some tiny edge into the ground.

I’ll be curious to see which it becomes in the next year - nba “very narrow record”, or a sign you can hang with the big boys.

Most Mormons are not Christian nationalists and in fact tend to oppose such, especially in comparison to most red states and evangelicals.

Right, and part of that is nurturing student interest and buy-in, because it can increase. Traditionally smart teaching and the right structure could result in some percentage of reluctant learners being drawn into good habits and better retention. I think the subtle part of the AI in education crisis is how it basically has smothered that "nurturing" in the cradle, right from the get-go, so it's a bit of a cold-start situation in many classes.

Flipped classrooms are like, the quintessential siren song for teachers. EVERY teacher dreams of a day when they can focus on what they're best at (teaching deep topics, getting 'aha' moments, making connections, asking questions, and so on) and do less of what they dislike. But sadly this is just not how things work.

Flipped classrooms have incredibly weak causal evidence. However they are popular in spite of this - perhaps because of this if you're cynical - as the educational research field is pretty questionable in its standards and the profit motive is a strong thing lurking in the background. Wikipedia has a big warning on the article for a reason, but even then it has serious issues.

"Active learning" is a thing (insofar as it has meaning rather than be a useless buzzword catch-all) that does work. But the "flip" specifically does not, or rather, sometimes a mix of extra effort on behalf of the teacher and other loosely related effects occasionally can make a modest impact that makes up for its failings.

Most of the people pushing flipped classrooms are the same people who think that students learn best when they "discover" concepts on their own, maybe with a bit of guidance. This is the other, more serious, lie in education right now, akin to the whole idea that you didn't need to teach phonics to kids when they learn to read.