not_kurt_godel
Joined 12 years ago
Karma
1,661
Submissions
661
Member since
Feb 4
Recent submissions
Comment · 11 hours ago
Comment · 7 days ago
I'm not as certain as you seem to be, but I agree it's at least suspicious. The keypress sounds are admitted to be fake in the comments. The way the camera shakes (or doesn't) in response to keypresses seems odd and physically inconsistent over time; same goes for his apparent manual adjustments of its position/angle. Also the way his eyes track when he looks at his notes doesn't seem to be consistent with the screen layout as shown - he looks noticeably far downward when the notes pane on the screen is horizontally level with vim.
Comment · 21 days ago
> But that's to misunderstand what science is for, which is to expand human knowledge
I agree ideologically and aspirationally but I don't believe it's the economic reality of how and why most science is actually funded (and I think you agree based on your comment about not making any money).
> But if you care about programming itself
I'm...not so sure I do any more? At least, not any more than I care about using Java over Python, or C++ over Java, or C over C++, or ASM over C, or machine code over ASM, or an abacus over machine code.
> nothing has changed, it never can
We now have programs that can write any program 100x faster and better than even the best humans and solve the hardest math problems known to humankind that have stumped the greatest minds the planet could produce for decades. That, to me, is a change with profound implications for understanding the nature of programming.
Comment · 21 days ago
> So there will be endless work for humans to go over machine proofs and turn it into something we understand
I'm not convinced humans will be better at this than LLMs. Frontier models are quite good at handling even deliberately lazy/ambiguous eli5 prompts on complex topics IME.
Comment · 21 days ago
In reply to https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=50146584:
Ok, I found a study estimating a net willingness to pay per citizen for this type of ecological restoration at ~$72.31/per person/year. If we assume 100,000 people derive this level of benefit over a 30-year time horizon (same as I used for the previous numbers) that yields $21,693,000 which brings the removal WITH immediate solar/wind/BESS replacement scenario on par or marginally better than keeping the dam as is.
But even then, I believe that is being overly generous to the dam removal because electricity demand has been rising steeply recently and is projected to continue doing so. Until we are meeting 100% of current and future demand with new renewable energy, every existing carbon-neutral source that gets removed is creating a gap in future demand that will be partially filled by new fossil fuel generation and therefore incurring many of the same associated negative societal costs.
Comment · 21 days ago
My napkin math disagrees. Small/medium hydro (<100 MW) appears to account for ~1.7% of annual US grid energy output. If we replace that with fossil fuel generation and account for the cost of dam decommissioning, account for estimated benefit of ecosystem restoration in terms of quantified dollars willing to pay by benefiting citizen, and net annual CO2 cost I come up with an annual cost to society of removal of small/medium hydro dams between $1.7B/year on the low and $41.7B/year on the high end. Happy to show detailed assumptions and calculations if desired. But tl;dr fossil fuel generation is very, very bad and replacing even comparatively small amounts of carbon-neutral generation with it results in a significant societal net negative.
Comment · 21 days ago
What do you calculate it as?
Comment · 21 days ago
I did some quick napkin math on the net economic benefit, including carbon pollution and local economic benefit, of 3 scenarios:
1. Keep dam: -$2M to -$10M
2. Dam removal with 5 MW capacity replaced/absorbed by natural gas plants (no solar/wind/BESS): -$28.3M to -$249.8M, depending on whether you use the EPA's $190/tCO2 cost of damage or $1000/tCO2 DAC remediation.
3. Dam removal with 5 MW solar/wind/BESS replacement: -$3.5 to -$25M
In other words, removing the dam without equivalent solar/wind/BESS immediately in place is a net negative for society (and even then, keeping the dam might be neutral or still better).
Comment · 22 days ago
No one who values democracy is complaining about Trump getting kicked off social media for inciting a mob to kill the vice president certifying the election in the Capitol building.
Comment · 22 days ago
We also shouldn't really be removing hydropower at this point in time from a net zero/global warming perspective. It is orders of magnitude less environmentally harmful than generating electricity with fossil fuels, and one of two carbon-neutral sources of significant amounts of baseload power at scale along with fission nuclear.
Comment · 27 days ago
https://www.nature.com/immersive/d41586-026-00088-9/index.ht...
> More than 7,800 research grants terminated or frozen. Some 25,000 scientists and personnel gone from agencies that oversee research. Proposed budget cuts of 35% — amounting to US$32 billion.
> These are just a few of the ways in which Donald Trump has downsized and disrupted US science since returning to the White House last January. As his administration seeks to reshape US research and development, it has substantially scaled back and restricted what science the country pursues and the workforce that runs the federal scientific enterprise.
Comment · 1 month ago
Your "point" is soundly refuted by the available evidence including the very evidence you cite.
Comment · 1 month ago
> Our meta-analysis finds that lockdowns in the spring of 2020 had a relatively small effect on COVID-19 mortality and is consistent with the view that voluntary changes in behavior, such as social distancing, played an important role in mitigating the pandemic
I find it strange you bemoan the public health establishment's credibility when your own source shows that people following its guidelines played a greater role in saving hundreds of thousands of lives than legal mandates.
Comment · 1 month ago
States and people that listened to the public health establishment saved hundreds of thousands of lives: https://batten.virginia.edu/research/how-state-policies-impa...:
> If all states had imposed restrictions similar to those used in the 10 most restrictive states, excess deaths would have been an estimated 10% to 21% lower than the 1.18 million that actually occurred during the 2-year analysis period; conversely, the estimates suggest counterfactual increases of 13% to 17% if all states had restrictions similar to those in the 10 least-restrictive states. The estimated strong vs weak state restriction difference was 271 000 to 447 000 deaths, with behavior changes associated with 49% to 79% of the overall disparity.
You say the same thing to your boss as if you were a lead or manager reporting on a project that your junior and mid-level devs are working on. "What" is the easy part to explain; "how" is the details that your manager doesn't need to hear about if you're doing your job properly.