Why not all of them, you know?

I've got a PhD in Physics and I have to say that the quality of most "self published" physics is very low, which probably explains why people would not accept a self-declared PhD.

Honestly, the best thing about LLMs is that they can write the fucking Python code for me. Dismal language, 0/10.

You know we live in a fallen world because R4RS existed when JS was invented. Can you imagine a world where the browser was scripted in Scheme?

Presumably because even if galaxies are just big things, there are probably things in them that do philosophy, play pianos (roughly speaking) and shit post.

This response seems disingenuous. It was never implied it was ok to have exploits in the compiled software, only that the blast radius is smaller if the compiled code is also sandboxed.

Smaller maybe. But it’s still an unacceptable risk. I refer you back to my example of compiled code being used by customers.

Arguing that compromised code is safer when sandboxed really misses the real problem: that you’re running compromised code in the first place. Hence my analogy of closing the barn door after the horse has already bolted.

What we need is to ensure we have stronger safeguards in place to prevent bad code from reaching build pipelines. If it’s in the build pipelines then we’ve already lost.

I get why people argue about sandboxing, it’s an easier problem to solve. But you still end up with a compromised artefact which you cannot ship. So the benefit is negligible.

Give me an example.

It's not possible, everything can be explained by science sooner or later.

We have plenty examples of this throughout history: lunar eclipse as "omens", plague as "divine wrath", rainbow as a "sign of flood", etc.

“What can be asserted without evidence can also be dismissed without evidence." - Christopher Hitchens

"It's not possible, everything can be explained by science sooner or later."

I'm not sure there is a good philosophical reason to believe this. I think something like it is certainly true, but its not entirely clear what an explanation even means, for one thing. And then there is the possibility that certain physical outcomes do not actually supervene upon the physical systems which constitute them.

I do not believe in mystical experiences as being informative about the true nature of the universe, and I generally think "science" is a useful set of tools for (at least) predicting the future and designing machines and perhaps even for constructing ontologies, but I don't think "everything" can be explained by science. I can see no powerful reason to think everything has an explanation.

> It had nothing to do with motivation, but making exercise a part of my day like brushing my teeth.

So it isn't about discipline either, it's about habits?

I'm like you. Routine exercise for the last 25 years or so. I feel neither particularly disciplined nor particularly motivated. It is either just a habit I've formed or I happen to have the correct physiological temperament for exercise to be easy.

You could say that. Discipline is how the habit is created and kept. The first thing I tell people is that exercise isn't easy. It's not supposed to be. Outside of all the health benefits, one of the biggest benefits of exercise is the mental growth of learning to accept being uncomfortable.

EDIT

I'll also add that most people who are disciplined don't really think about it that way. They just do what they need to do.

> one of the biggest benefits of exercise is the mental growth of learning to accept being uncomfortable.

I claim the same about hunger (within bounds of moderation etc etc). It's simply uncomfortable, but it's a discomfort that you can adapt to and live with. My general view is that both hunger and exercise work as ways to moderate weight but they rely on the exact same capacity for discomfort (and enduring that requires either necessity or motivation/discipline etc)

... And motivation is what lets you stay disciplined when random life things try to get in the way.

Out of interest, how long did it take for you to form the habit for regular exercise?

I took a solid 6 months of forcing myself to ignore my mind's constant excuses to not work out, to the point of my mind realizing that the excuses just weren't going to work and stop.

I don't know. It happened in college when I got involved in an organized, highly athletic, sport. Never stopped. I guess six months wouldn't be a bad number to put on it.

Exercise feels good to me. I think it felt good immediately when I started? I like the feeling of pushing myself and I kind of like discomfort/pain I can control.

I don't like running, but I continue to run a 10km course a few times a week. Some years ago I felt the transition from someone who just runs for exercise to being a runner. And runners run. So I run.

Large orbitals like this approach the classical limit, I believe.

I cannot believe the markdown guy is this deranged.

I think you mean progressive pricing in disguise. The problem is that they are also a psychological attack.

I believe that we should, generally, as a society, discourage communication in bad faith, and ads very, very easily fall into that category. So perhaps in a local sense it is worth it for the reasons you suggest, but I think the mass dependence of our society on advertising makes our lives worse.