woolion

If we look at breeds or volume, wool breeds accounted for roughly a third. If you look at meat breeds that account for the majority of sheep, the majority has medium quality wool. For such breeds, shearing is a necessity. So that carries the weight that it is a free by-product, in general.

>Those that produce the best wool are not used for their meat

You can eat delicious merinos. If anything, you could see their meat as a free by-product. Same caveat applies, meat processing is not cheap.

I think the erroneous view is just how things work unless you look at luxury/high grade market, which obey fundamentally different economics.

It's all processing. Wool is a free by-product, sheep have to be sheared. More than 20 years ago, it was a pretty lump sum for someone who would shear 10K sheep a year. Still not much compared to the shearing price, but that helps sheep get more meat, reduce disease problems, and also reduce their size to the feeding stations. So a win for everybody.

Then, everything closed and the only thing left was to send it to China. Priced dropped entirely, to the point where it would mostly be considered a net negative. You have to store it before you can send a batch, and that takes a lot space. Not only that, but it has to stay dry. Then, consider you want to have a basic sort already done, because you don't want the whole batch to be paid little because it would be considered the lowest grade. So Bags should be consistent; they also have to be dense enough to avoid taking too much space (typical bags are around 1 cubic meter / 100kg). Most of these operation require quite a lot of very tiring human labor, which also require some skills, a problem pervasive with the sheep industry.

So yes, in the end it's too cheap to produce but too expensive to buy.

So, there are two main reasons people avoid trying to self-host email, plus a third you only find once you start digging:

1. Deliverability: "the email mafia will flag your emails as spam"

2. Complexity: "configuring and maintaining a mail stack is a technical nightmare".

3. Network blocks: VPS providers and residential ISPs frequently block outbound mail ports (like port 25) entirely or in their terms of use.

I decided we should try self-hosting because some issues with their reliability cost us very expensive problems. The experience was frustrating anyway, as the weird restrictions on providers caused our setup to be quite bad on some regards -- most notably being forced to use the provider UI to manage some things, which took time and is a non-transferable useless skill, not having users for things that should have had one, etc.

MailCow made the technical setup trivial, blowing objection #2 out. For #3, we could not rely on stable electricity/internet, so we just spun it up on a reliable VPS provider after a small research. As for the biggest fear, the IP reputation and deliverability mafia (#1), it is easily solved by routing outbound mail through a simple SMTP relay like SMTP2GO. You pay based purely on sending volume rather than a flat service fee, and their free tier completely covers small setups. And how much time did it take? Less than half a day, before AI could do everything for you.

Most paid services charge absurd per-user or per-domain fees for basic features that do not cost them anything. After 2 years of bad service on paid providers followed by 2 years of flawless self-hosting, there is absolutely no going back.

The idea of the reverse rug-pull is fantastic, I hope it will work out! The ways people abuse open-source is appalling, yet the risible funding that goes to open-source makes thing really difficult for everyone.

The whole write-up is quite interesting so I'll definitely try it out.

Pangram says 50% human. That seems to check out, heavily edited yet the LLM aha sentences and cadence are still definitely there, but not overbearing.

I read some Dostoevsky recently and I found my speech to be substantially altered for a while, so it makes sense that LLM writing would have an influence.

I wholly empathize with the posts. Recently my writing process has become much longer as asking for LLM polish leads to spending more time rewriting to clean up the LLM smell, so I'm unsure of what the future LLM-as-editor will be.

The big problem with the linked poll by Cynthia Dunlop is that it's all self-reported. The fact that the sample is not representative of the general population rather but might be closer of 'early adopter'/'power users' is interesting. But the idea that "I prefer authenticity to polished crowd-pleasing content" is something that people love to believe about themselves, but is hardly ever supported by facts.

As someone who spends a lot of time painting (maybe more time thinking about it than doing it, but still), it is quite evident that this is a fable. AI content is now everywhere in the streets -- just yesterday I went to a fair and food stands were divided into 2, the ones that hadn't updated their menu in 10 years or more, and the one that had generated it with ChatGPT. Museums are shameless at using AI images for their signs, and way too often even for their content. People do not prefer crappy human art, and those who self-report they do fail very hard at 'image Turing tests'.

I think the general point is true, but it does not give any timescale of when the dark age might end, when the tools will adapt etc.

The dream in itself has been destroyed. The idea that you could just have a machine enumerate all valid theorems in a theory is part of it, but it's only a question of form. The point was that it was to prove "all theorems of Mathematic", not "theorems into a given axiomatic system that is useful in some contexts, e.g. ZFC".

You could even argue that it's the fundamental basis for post-modernism, since mathematics have destroyed the notion of absolute truth in any advanced domain. It's back to a form of "all models are wrong but some are useful" similar to what we have in physics. Sayonara, Plato.

My first experience with a GUI was the HP-40G calculators. By their nature, they only have arrows and accept/cancel buttons. It featured very advanced symbolic computation features (CAS that would step you through intermediary results), but the magical thing was how equations, rather than being a series of characters, that you piece up into meaningful chunks through parentheses, where actually displayed like mathematicians would write them. Then, to select and edit a specific part of the equation, you have a natural 'box'; numerator/denominator, etc, then you can drill down into the recusirve structure of the mathematical expression. It also means that regular edits are 'correct' by default: delete a parenthesis and your expression is syntactically invalid, whereas "replace the numerator f(x)^2 by 6a" keep you in the space of syntactically valid expressions. In other words, this is the holy trinity of UI: semantic - accessible - efficient

The experience is unparalleled to this day, although writing it down I realize more why it was never really reproduced. For a browser, I would imagine having blocks like:

A. meta (browser itself) / B. page (DOM) A1. page controls (bookmark, ...) / A2. Navigation experience (font size, dark mode, ...)

One can dream :-)

Why are you bothering with all that effort if you prefer the quick easy store-bought thing?

>My biggest issue is that it’s impossible to engage with and give feedback on an AI written document, because it’s impossible to know whether misconceptions or gaps are because the author doesn’t understand the material deeply enough or the author does but the AI doesn’t and the author’s not proofreading carefully enough.

FWIW, same problem with PRs or PoC that I have to work on; now my first question is, "did you know about his behaviour?". The first step, getting a decent spec, is delayed to after a first draft implementation is already pushed...

FWIW, the only time I ever had emergency brakes kick in are in spurious situations, like tight maneuvers or there is something ahead with plenty of headway to decide whether you should brake or not. A cyclist moved close to the traffic light fast and the car completely stopped. This one was a bit more dangerous because had there been someone behind, that driver would not have expected such an abrupt stop.

>so I would get random brake slams which would panic me more

Every time it happens, it hurts as I'm not prepared for it.

Lane assist is also particularly bad as it handles some slight curves incorrectly, so it resists your driving. As a result with such cars I have my arms muscles tense up in anticipation of some turns.

Apparently my definition of tutor is so demanding that it should not be expected at all from a tutor (even if provided with information on the tutees weaknesses, tutors don't use the information effectively). However, the point of these studies are to gauge large scale effects rather than high variance small sample size effects. There's a lot more that is very interesting.

To me, what makes a game a game is that you can learn how it works simply by interacting with it; you don't need to open a separate wiki. That is not entirely true, as for examples fighting games have been infamous for needing to go online to learn how combos work, but this is widely considered to be a major factor of why the genre is unpopular, and recent games have tried to at least give proper tools (in training mode). Right now, it feels a bit like a series of exercises with the guiding text replaced by dungeon fluff; it's pretty neat, yet you could as much say 'just give me the tutorial'.

In a game format I would for instance expect not to have to type the "proof [...] qed" part for example; its purpose is to be a bounding box, but interacting through text is cumbersome -- it isn't really for a developer who sees the benefit of plain text, but it is for a most users who might bang their head against the syntactic impedance mismatch.

To put that into perspective though, I remember Brett Victor's "Alligator Eggs", and the idea is very compelling; games are self-motivating, so if you can learn some real skills then you solved everything. Combinatory logic, sequent calculi etc naturally lend themselves pretty well to the puzzle formats, yet I don't think there's anyone who really succeeded at any real implementation of it.

I'm mostly rambling my own view on the subject here, it's certainly an interesting experiment :-)

The role of a tutor is to find your weakest point (or points) and give you personalized advice on how to improve on them. It is important that you can put trust on the tutor, as your weak point is likely due to a blind spot. When given criticism, it can be viewed as objective or subjective, i.e. a "question of taste", and thus the criticism would be viewed as invalid and not acted upon. As to whether the tutor should point your weakest point or some combination of weak point, it should depend on what helps you learn the most efficiently; it might be to focus on one aspect, or work in a more integrated fashion. Last (although that may be first), they should consider what are really your learning objectives to tailor that advice.

1. The standard of compromise makes no sense because there "the video-game industry" is not a company with a representative. Any compromise you could find would be dismissed on the basis that it's one lobby groups among others anyway.

2. The statements made by somewhat representative groups like the ESA showed any compromise was impossible since their whole premise is "if you don't let us kill games (which we aren't doing) then it's going to kill the industry"; the typical propaganda of "our enemies are insignificant and stupid yet the greatest threat to humanity"

3. The ESA statements were disavowed by some developers, and SKG made a point to have longer videos with developers agreeing and debunking the lies in the ESA statements already. If that's not enough, refer to point 1.

>rights of its citizen workers/producers

The whole point is that the basis of commerce is that you can't sell something and destroy it just afterwards. Sure you can have limited time subscriptions but that's not how video-games are sold. They are changing the definition based on context so they can do the most unethical things as they see fit, and as a result they are entirely destroying the industry by breaking consumer trust.