dcolkitt

Yeah, I think what helps is I just have a running conversation on the Claude app open where I said:

> "I frequently use Claude Code and often find the phrasing and language to be hard to understand. I've noticed it's largely broken down into frequently used 'Claude-isms'. I'd like to use this conversation as a running log to ask you about these phrases when I see them. Understandably you don't have the context of the Claude Code session itself, but that's okay because this is largely about understanding the most common and widely use Claude-isms."

And then I just copy and paste small except and ask about things like "smoke" or "load-bearing" or "tripwire". The responses are surprisingly clearly and plainly explained.

> Models are amoral

I actually don't think this is true at all. At their core, LLMs function over the geometry of human semantic space. Our notions of morality our deeply embedded in this geometry, because one of the things that humans love talking about most is framing things in terms of right and wrong. When LLMs are trained to be aligned or mis-aligned, they're literally mimicking heroes or villains that they learned from reading the stories and characters in the pretraining corpus.

This isn't just a theoretical argument. It's easy to show that a clear "morality axis" exists in the geometry, based on how easy it is to dial up or down with even very simple and low powered fine-tuning. Models fine tuned to be bad or good in one way, will see their bad or good behavior in totally unrelated tasks go up or down along with. That's clear evidence that the weights "understand" human morality at a deep level.

Now I think what you can say is just because they understand morality doesn't mean they're necessarily moral. Models will just do what they're trained to. If you train them to cheat, they'll cheat. (And in some sense even worse, because dialing up the weights for cheating will also dial up the weights for unrelated bad behavior like lying, sadism and racism.)

This tool helps you avoid going over your weekly and session Claude subscription limits with a monitor right in the MacOS menubar. It's like a battery indicator but for your Claude usage.

This is a fair point, but as of their most recent financials merchandise (excluding merchandise sold inside the parks) only made up $5bn of the $28bn in the "Parks, Experiences and Product" category. By contrast park admissions was $8bn, resorts was $6bn and food/merchandise sold in the parks was $6bn.

So IMO this is a departure from the classic merchandise based strategy. It seems pretty clear that the theme parks more so than the products are the major profit centers today.

It's interesting that Disney today almost the entire profits of the company come from the parks division (which also includes cruises, resorts and "experiences"). The media division by itself is in a massive war for eyeballs with tons of other streaming competitors, all of whom are probably over-investing in content relative to what consumers can support.

One interesting possibility is that maybe the business model of media companies in the 21st century will become content as a loss leader for the purpose of providing valuable IP to amusement parks. Certainly seems like a similar thing is happening with Comcast with their massive expansion of Universal parks.

> All of which still fails to add up to anything actually working and useful, 15 years in.

The first packet switched network came online in 1969. Fifteen years by 1984 almost all the use cases were hobby, and it'd be another ten years before the Internet really started changing life.

Decentralized consensus is a fundamentally new computing primitive, similar to packet switched networks. Developing applications on top of new primitives is hard and long, and there will be a lot of time required just to build out usable infrastructure.

Turing complete smart contracts are only 7 years old. Layer 2 scaling is only two years old. Decentralized exchanges and other on-chain financial contracts about four years old.

I guess what exactly do you define as scamming? In terms of outright fraud, I agree there's a lot. It shouldn't be super surprising that scammers tend to prefer decentralized permissionless financial rails, for the same reason that political extremists and pornographers were some of the biggest earliest users of the decentralized permissionless publishing rails of the early Internet.

But I wouldn't characterize all, or even most of crypto as scams. Gambling, maybe. Are memecoins a scam? I would say they're more like a massively multiplayer form of gambling. Which you might argue is a bad thing, and certainly is dubious from a social standpoint. But if the code is openly public and autonomous, and there's no outright deceit, I don't think gambling is really gambling.

Even beyond that, there's a lot happening in crypto that most certainly isn't scams. You have stablecoins and payment rails like USDC, stores of value like Bitcoin, smart contract chains like Ethereum, decentralized finance applications like permissionless exchanges and lending markets, social applications like farcaster, decentralized AI, and gaming.

Now you might argue that all of these things are stupid and pointless and wastes of money, but that's a separate debate. Of the large projects in these categories almost none are outright scams. They're teams experimenting with new ways to run financial markets or move payments or train models or hedge inflation. Like most technological experiments most will fail. But if that was the criteria for "scam" then the entire startup sector is also wall-to-wall scams.

I think it's easy to be cynical. But one major reason I'm a believer in decentralized consensus is because I think it can make the silo'd financial systems of the world as seamlessly interoperable as the Internet made the silo'd telecommunication systems of the world.

It feels a lot like when AOL first started supporting email in 1993. It's easy to dismiss AOL and Nasdaq as highly centralized systems that don't align with the ethos of decentralization. But the other way to look at it is a previously maximally centralized system is interfacing with a decentralized one in a way that gives the users of the former slightly more freedom and the latter wider user base and legitimacy.

Generally I would expect a higher degree of security from an agency with a $2bn budget whose primary purpose is the integrity of communications about financial markets than an average person with a credit card.

Certainly you will admit at some size, responsibility and level of funding the organization should take responsibility for protecting itself from hacks. If the Department of Defense got hacked and nuclear secrets were leaked, I certainly hope people would get fired rather than sympathized with.

Bitcoin futures are correlated but nowhere near a 1:1 proxy for spot markets. Crypto markets are known for very steep "contango" in the curve, and it's not unusual for the price of the 30 days futures to be more than $1000 away from the current Bitcoin price.

The issue isn't just additional volatility and tracking error, but the fact that the con tango creates a "roll yield" which affects the long-term returns of the strategy. To keep constant maturity exposure, the futures ETF has to constantly "roll" its positions into further dated contracts. In particular because the market tends to be in contango it means further dated futures tend to be higher priced than near dated futures. So usually the futures ETFs in their daily rebalancing are selling cheap near dated contracts for more expensive longer dated contracts. Hence the roll yield tends to be negative. Then add all the transaction costs from daily rebalancing. It should be clear why the futures strategy has inferior returns to simply holding spot.

Spot Bitcoin ETFs truly are a game changer compared to futures ETFSs.

The price of BTC initially jumped 3% on the hacked tweet. That's $25bn+ of market cap. The irony is the SEC itself is probably now responsible for the largest crypto pump and dump in history.

Michael Cera should play all the roles in the movie, like Eddie Murphy in the Nutty Professor.

The large majority of Americans live within 50 miles of where they grew up. And this number has been steadily ticking up. Geographic mobility is the lowest it’s ever been in the post war period.