rahimiali

I did look at the skills file but I still don't understand how it can possibly pull from my other interactions. Is that skill file loaded for every one of my interactions with Claude, for example? like if I load Claude cli and ask it to refactor some code, this skill kicks in and saves some of the context somewhere else for later upload? If so, I couldn't find that functionality in the skill description.

Could someone explain to me how this works?

When I run an agent, I don't normally leave it running. I ask Cursor or Claude a question, it runs for a few minutes, and then I move on to the next session. Some of these topics, where agents are talking about what their human had asked them to do, appear to be running continually, and maybe grabbing context from disparate sessions with their users? Or are all these agents just free-running, hallucinating interactions with humans, and interacting only with each other through moltbook?

Agreed. But these things have a way of not working out, and one the sadness, one forgets to celebrate the intermediate victories. I wanted to share an intermediate victory before reality crushes the joy.

thanks for the explanation! sorry i had misread the AI summary on "semiseparable".

i need to firm my intuition on this first before i can say anything clever, but i agree it's worth thinking about!

fair. thanks. i'll sleep on it and update the paper if it still sounds right tomorrow.

probably my nomenclature bias is that i started this project as a way to find new preconditioners on deep nets.

just to be clear, semiseparate in this context means H = D + CC', where D is block diagonal and C is tall & skinny?

If so, it would be nice if this were the case, because you could then just use the Woodbury formula to invert H. But I don't think such a decomposition exists. I tried to exhaustively search through all the decompositions of H that involved one dummy variable (of which the above is a special case) and I couldn't find one. I ended up having to introduce two dummy variables instead.

Good q. The method computes Hessian-inverse on a batch. When people say "Newton's method" they're often thinking H^{-1} g, where both the Hessian and the gradient g are on the full dataset. I thought saying "preconditioner" instead of "Newton's method" would make it clear this is solving H^{-1} g on a batch, not on the full dataset.

I doubt an LLM would have written this:

       # Parameter in Stack-Slots laden (für MVP: nur Register-Args)
        # Semantic Analyzer markiert Params mit is_param=True
        # Wir müssen jetzt die first 6 Args aus Registern laden
        # TODO: Implementiere Parameter-Handling
        # for now: Params bleiben in Registern (keine lokalen Vars mit gleichem Namen)

Also I love that I can understand all of this comment without actually understanding German.

One of the three rules on the page do not apply to either Persian or Urdu. The article “Al” isn’t used in them, so the third rule doesn’t apply.

sorry, yes, you mention in another comment the use case of multiple readers operating on different versions of the db simultaneously. that'd be difficult to do with git for the reason you mention.

don't you get the same benefit if you version controlled the db file with git? with git, each commit saves a diff from the previous one as a blob. the difference is that in git, in addition to the diffs, you also have to create a working copy of the db, which means you use up at least 2x the storage your system uses. in your implementation, the diff blobs are the live db, which saves you ~2x storage. is that the main benefit?

It sounds like you're in an average FAANG team. You could try switching teams.

Here's why I think you might be in an average team:

>"I have tried over the past 2 years to propose different solutions to hard problems and I just get blown off."

A good team has tough problems, and they need clever solutions. Maybe your team's mandate isn't to solve a tough problem.

>"product managers and “leadership” assign to our team with barely any input on the overall project or ability to propose new projects."

This sounds like you might be in a workhorse/executing engineering team.

You say this:

>"I’m scared to move teams ... because I have a good manager ... and my job isn’t that stressful."

A better manager would be trying to increase the team's scope, and yours. If you're not feeling some stress, your manager isn't growing you. A better manager would create a challenging environment for you where you'd feel like your ass is getting kicked.

There are great FAANG teams, and great FAANG managers. Seek them out! (I'm at Amazon, probably the "A" that didn't make it in your acronym. But if you drop me a note I could introduce you to great managers at Amazon)