leonvoss

I think it's a dishonest essay:

>The first step is to decide what to work on. The work you choose needs to have three qualities: it has to be something you have a natural aptitude for, that you have a deep interest in, and that offers scope to do great work.

>In practice you don't have to worry much about the third criterion. Ambitious people are if anything already too conservative about it. So all you need to do is find something you have an aptitude for and great interest in.

Bull-shit. The set of all things you enjoy and have aptitude for is much larger than the set of things you can make money on. There's a reason why Paul Graham chased coding and making an e-store in the 90s and not becoming a great philosopher, which he seems to have natural interest in (and he probably thinks he has quite a bit of aptitude for it).

That reason is $$$. I've found in my time that the number one rule of making $$$ is that you must chase $$$. It doesn't knock at your door, it doesn't come when you least expect it. $$$ is degrading in that you must submit yourself to it. If the $$$ is in code then you code and there's no room for individuality beyond that. It's genuflect or be poor. That's why all these rich people narrowly chase code or similar cash cows. The number two and three rules is chase it a lot and chase it efficiently. If you chase something else a lot and efficiently you will still be poor.

Charitably maybe the concept of chasing $$$ is so ingrained in these people that it's not a conscious decision to them. That seems to be what he says anyway. You could call that greed and I think a lot of brilliant people don't have it to the same degree that most billionaires do so failing to acknowledge it even by accident leads to gatekeeping money.

>brilliant

I don't think it offers any. I got tired of switching between Codex and Claude plus I wanted to start using glm and kimi so I switch to pi. Then I got tired of VSCode eating up battery and RAM so I moved to Neovim which has barely any efficiency downside anymore since most code is not written by hand and if you know how to use it well it was only maybe 10% less efficient than VSCode to begin with. I am not sure why a heavy desktop application would be better than nvim + pi in terminal which are both super extensible via vibecoding and very light on resources.

How will you stop 15 year olds from getting non-kids hardware?

This would require hardware manufacturing. Seems expensive. Locking down hardware is also something I don't want the government getting into. What about poor young suzie who got hit on by a creepy 30 year old briefly after booting linux on an old laptop? Now we have to make everything secure at the firmware level for the "children" etc

Because this is for stupid people, it will be done in a stupid way. They aren't interested in cash bought anonymous auth tokens that require you to be over 18 to the store clerk or whatever. In part this is stupidity, in part this panic is also about "pedophilia" so they want to make sure whoever is talking to their daughter who is using a parent authenticated tiktok account gets arrested promptly because he showed his passport as opposed to being there with an untraceable anonymous auth token he bought for $1.99 at a random convenience store.

>Ah, OK, so you admit a problem exists. That's step one...

Okay but for your position to be tenable you have to then go to step 2, which is some parents are incompetent at doing this, and step 3, which is that, nevertheless, their children, who are randomized copies of them genetically, still somehow need and benefit from the filters that their parents can't or won't apply. Then you get to step 4, which is that all of the competent people must suffer so those children can get it from a heavy handed government solution. I don't see how you jointly accept all these steps; it means you want to have a tyranny of the incompetent over the competent. You must jointly assert that they are dumb while placing them up and over the not dumb. That's full on crab-bucket, dysgenics by force ideology.

Raising almost all children in these government socialist barracks is so dystopian. What you call "worse" conflict resolution and social skills I call superior confidence and autonomy. People today are oversocialized.

He has a master's degree in physics from Oxford. Also there is a toggle to normal notation. Well, CS notation. I'm not a fan of transpose marks everywhere. I like an even more mathematics notation.

I agree 100%. This field is not amenable to progress from people with a pen sitting in a corner proving theorems. The math is mostly uncertain vibes and to test it you need millions of dollars of compute. Smart loners just can't.

It's all vibes.

This is always going to happen with these types of laws, because they can be broken with very little effort from anywhere. That directly causes it to be easy to frame people for breaking them, by accident or on purpose. If the crime is purely the transmission of the incorrect byte pattern, the evidence is always logs, server and local. Eventually a bug will lead them to people who did not transmit the wrong bytes, but they will just assume they wiped the evidence from their local storage. There is no other evidence to be had because the crimes in this category to not require any physical evidence whatsoever. Many of the laws in this category involve byte patterns with a sexual theme, but not all of them. Others include the laws against using the wrong REST API in the wrong way (unauthorized access) or speech restrictions including laws against empty, impossible, never acted on threats or improper ideas (popular outside the US).

> Published in 2004-05. By 2007 that was being used for in-vivo MRI reconstruction with substantially undersampled data

I have argued exact claim before and from what I recall, Tao maybe contributed 1% to MRI improvements in the last 20 to 30 years. You are way over exaggerating the importance of what he did.

Quantitative scientists are also mathematicians. I'm not attacking mathematics, just probably-useless subfields. Is there any good quantitative evidence that actually estimates what percent of math work today will be useful? Because to me it seems like <1% and I feel like we could easily make that number a lot higher. Particularly I want to see massive improvements in quantitative social science; physics already gets a lot of attention so it wouldn't be able to see as much improvement to getting more resources but it could probably still get more.