> going harder into the hard stuff and knowing when they can back off and rest.
Why is going harder in the hard stuff and easier in the easy stuff more efficient or faster than vice versa? I imagine arguments either way:
Going harder when it's easy gives you higher ROI. Or maybe going easier when it's hard is just too slow. And maybe that is too simplistic: Maybe it depends on how hard; that is, maybe there is a threshold.
A fun little effect is that average speed is time-averaged not distance-averaged. So when you go slower, you lose doubly - lower speed to average and over a longer time (higher weight). Hence one of the reasons why putting more energy into the harder bits is actually optimal.
Wind drag goes up with v squared, so power required goes up with v cubed.
If you run at 105% speed downhill,that requires almost 16% more power to overcome wind drag. You might be better off running at 100% speed downhill (and "saving" that 16% power), and pushing harder to run as close as you can to 100% speed on the uphill stretches that would otherwise have you running slower than 100%. The power used to increase your potential energy going uphill is "zero sum" because you get it back when you go back downhill -n there no pesky v squared or v cubed non linearity there (assuming the race starts and finishes at the same elevation).
The Pleistocene lasts from 2.58 million years ago, maybe the first time our ancestors figured out tools, to 11,000 years ago, when we Homo sapiens had been around for ~200,000 years. Isn't that too wide a range of humans and ancestors to characterize in one group?
Are you skeptical about 11 kya ancestors doing similar things? Why?
Isn't that too wide a range of humans and ancestors to characterize in one group?
Yes, that's one reason why I have high standards for arguments from ethnographic analogy.
Are you skeptical about 11 kya ancestors doing similar things? Why?
Because modern forager groups have survived for centuries on the margins of colonial states. The environment they inhabit is very different from late pleistocene humans and we should default to skepticism in the absence of other evidence.
What is the use case for keyboard shortcuts on handheld devices?
On desktops/laptops, keyboard shortcuts save reaching for a mouse, aiming (on the relativley large screen), and clicking. On handhelds, I don't think it's faster to use a shortcut than to simply tap something an inch away.
Also, on handhelds, the keyboard blocks a significant part of the screen. And keyboard shortcuts typically use accelerator keys, which are hard to use on handhelds.
I use an Android tablet with detachable keyboard and works great also with Samsung DEX if you want something more for basic multitasking and there i want the shortcuts, I actually used it a lot, before firefox switched to Fenix base, for navigating tabs, opening closing them really really smooth but then....
If I allow it, is the data from my meeting sent offsite at any stage, for example to an LLM service (e.g., Anthropic, OpenAI, etc.)? Or do the LLM vendors (or any others) have access to the internal data at any stage?
Which is your right, every patient can ask the provider to not use it.
> is the data from my meeting sent offsite at any stage
Yes, no one stores medical records on-prem any more. EMR systems are not like Quickbooks running on an 8 year old terminal server.
> for example to an LLM service
Yes, that's literally what an AI transcriber is, an LLM.
> (e.g., Anthropic, OpenAI, etc.)?
No. The recording goes (in realtime) to our vendor's infra where it is live transcribed, then summarized and returned. When complete only the finished note is saved, never the recording or transcript.
> Or do the LLM vendors (or any others) have access to the internal data at any stage?
Obviously, you can't pricess data you can't access, but the contractual and regulatory environment means that data can't be used for additional training without lots of consents. We do not participate in training activities at all. I won't allow it.
Most of your responses are uncharitable readings of the questions - as if you are looking for targets for your contempt, which shows up in all but one answer. If you are contemptuous of questions and questioners, it looks like you don't take these issues seriously. I didn't think that before your response but I do now.
I have no idea what you're talking about, I found your questions to be excellent and worthy of answering at every level of detail. I have no contempt at all, I assure you. I'm genuinely confused by your reply here.
> looking to remove old drivers due to the surge of AI/LLM bug reports
I wonder how OpenBSD's careful code quality and hygiene (maybe there's a better word) has affected its vulnerability to LLM bug finding. Did their approach pay off in this case?
Is that true for evolution? If that math works, it seems that any one bacterium's mutation must become universal across the globe? Evolution works but not for every instance of a beneficial mutation. I wonder what the odds are for bacteria.
I'm not sure why you think "any one bacterium's mutation must become universal across the globe". That's a pretty strange takeaway in the presence of a mutation that is so advantageous it lets you become a predator and hunt other bacteria or run away from predators and gain a painfully obvious survivability benefit.
The takeaway should be "mutations that confer massive benefits can become universal across the globe even if they only happen once, no matter how unlikely they are", which is obvious and intuitive.
It's more the probabilities, I think[1] - even in one generation, (say) 26 trillion[0] bacterium are going to experience a lot of mutations.
[0] Which is an extremely low ball number for worldwide bacterium, even billions of years ago, I think, given your average human has around 30 trillion inside them.
[1] Like "anomalies in Minecraft" series - given how many seeds there are, how many people play it, and how big the worlds are, eventually even the rarest things generate naturally.
> Tolkien was a devout catholic and a conservative.
Tolkien was a serious Catholic, but not at all of the same politics and perspective as the people using the names he created in his books. For one thing, in Tolkien's stories power corrupts and is the greatest threat to good people. Also, didn't some of the current businesspeople say they favored Sauron?
> Palantir already has the blessings of the Tolkien estate.
Do you know a source that says that? I've wondered about it but never heard anything, and I just did a very quick look and found nothing that explains how and why that is handled.
Also, if the Tolkien estate is still in JRR's decendants' hands, I think it's the third generation at least (counting JRR as the first).
Why is going harder in the hard stuff and easier in the easy stuff more efficient or faster than vice versa? I imagine arguments either way:
Going harder when it's easy gives you higher ROI. Or maybe going easier when it's hard is just too slow. And maybe that is too simplistic: Maybe it depends on how hard; that is, maybe there is a threshold.
reply