gobdovan

Italy has a pretty rich history of controversial PMs. Pre-WW2 Crispi, literally Musolini, recents Berlusconi, Andreotti, Craxi. Don't think I know any other foreign country by how controversial so many of their leaders were.

Did Italy ever had a PM that was not controversial?

I'd say that's about right. The way people usually code in Python, mro is quite stable and most lookups would be cache hits. You can still get more weird invalidation in Python cuz they let you change stuff like `__bases__`, or you get some weird `__getattribute__` change in some place that would force you to invalidate more than you'd initially think should be necessary.

Hegel might see the demand of justification from AI as a form of alienation that could make us more deliberate in our choices, particularly in a time where we give up more control away without examining it properly. Unconstrained optionality is not the same as freedom and sometimes putting up your own constrains can increase rather than diminish self-determination, especially when you're aware of the barriers.

Yes, it does beat -O3 C sometimes. I took code from diverse 'language speed' benchmarks from the internet and had to rearrange them to get -O3 to beat equivalent-looking JS (Node 25.8.1 w\ V8 14.1 and clang 21 on MBP3).

> What was that code?

literally:

``` function numericKernel(a, b, out, n) {

    for (let i = 0; i < n; i += 4) {

        out[i]     = a[i]     * b[i]     + 0.25;
        out[i + 1] = a[i + 1] * b[i + 1] + 0.25;
        out[i + 2] = a[i + 2] * b[i + 2] + 0.25;
        out[i + 3] = a[i + 3] * b[i + 3] + 0.25;

    }

} ```

Have you considered exposing these optimisations through a library so programmers can request optimisation passes and have the compiler check the preconditions?

Asking cuz I'm preparing an article on how fast JS can get and found the same thing, you can get in 10% of optimised C-code with basically any code if you torture V8 enough (excepting SIMD where there seems to be a bug in V8 where it doesn't optimise to SIMD even when beyond obvious). Figured out I could extract it in a lib and do it more streamlined but not sure how well manual transforms generalise.

Also, when working on the roc-deflate, did you find recurring transformations that could fit that model or were most improvements specific to compression?

Depends really. I tried some experiments towards a pretty uniform relational language for expressing ordinary logic, temporal logic, requirements etc. It does work, but there's some unexpected obstacles.

You'd think performance would be easy to achieve because you'd just write clear, high-level declarative facts and LLM + good optimiser + proof certification system will get you there in terms of performance. But you'll be surprised that relational/declarative specification gives you so much behaviour 'for free' that choosing what to actually compute from those relations is a very deliberate choice. It starts to look like finding an imperative-like path of demand through the relations. It seems that you get exactly the same problems but one level up.

Does the thought experiment help us to identify a solution for these problems?

Well, everyone being tabula rasa has a point tho. Technically there's no unique physical cause that make development unfold the same for all organisms, or even all humans (see Waddington's epigenetic landscape). It just happens that we develop along very similar trajectories and can draw equivalences between how I think vs how you think. So, from an ontological perspective, if you squint a bit, we all are tabula rasa. But from a phenotypic perspective, of course it's bonkers, you can't teach a frog linear algebra.

In before: Goomba fallacy. But I can't notice how there's claims that: LLMs are nondeterministic and cannot be relied upon to produce the same thing AND they produce the same texts, same UIs, in the same styles. It frustrates me too, but what a solution for both problems would look like?

Also, if all LLMs would write in the style from the article, in how much time that would be the recognised LLM style people would get sick of? I suppose longer? But even the current style of LLMs was palatable when they first came out.

I'm not defining education as passing tests. A test is just a measuring instrument.

In fact, your claim is strong and quite easy to test. If watching the series gives people a better fundamental understanding which makes subsequent learning more efficient, take matched novices, randomise them to watch the series or not, then teach both groups some later lin alg materials and measure learning gains on novel problems.

That's the kind of test I mean, not 'can you grind through the course exam'.

If your claimed deeper understanding neither improves what someone can do afterwards nor how efficiently they learn related material, I'm not sure what observable content the claim has.