so, I'm going to japan in a few weeks, to do this pilgrimage backpacking trip with a friend.
I'm very out of shape compared to the difficulty of the route (alltrails.com/explore/map/map-… : 4 days; average of 10 miles and 3200ft elevation gain)
So my plan is to train as much as I can between now and then. I've figured out this practice loop, starting from my house, that I'm going to try to work up to doing on both the 17th and 18th: alltrails.com/explore/map/kuma…
It takes a pretty cool path over the hills and down to the reservoir.
Anyone want to join for any of this? As you might guess I expect to be very slow and take lots of breaks (today I did only about half of this loop; 6-ish miles; and it took me like 4 hours)
like this
I tentatively think that rain jackets would work better if they were more like coats of feathers.
Usually rain jackets are either (a) totally waterproof, in which case you sweat and it condenses on the inside of the jacket, or (b) "breathable", in which case they fairly quickly "wet out" and the sweat actually still condenses on the inside.
Feathers work partly like a "breathable" rain jacket, in that they're porous and hydrophobic on the outermost layer, but they're also anisotropic: rain jacket material is the same in all directions, while feathers work kinda like roof shingles: The water rolls off, but there's space for air to pass underneath the feathers. This is fine because rain mostly comes from above, and anyway I bet you can make fairly complicated labyrinths of air passageways such that even splashing water is very unlikely to make it through the jacket.
like this
Daniel Ziegler likes this.
Ben Weinstein-Raun likes this.
Went on a photo walk today, mostly around Berkeley, and tested out some new camera settings. Most of the photos didn't turn out as well as I hoped, but I got a few that I like after a little postprocessing in Lightroom.
flickr.com/photos/spiritfox/54…
like this
Okay, what the heck is up with people doing deceptive things to prevent "panic"? What are the actual dangers of "panic?" I was just watching this new Veritasium video about an engineering firm discovering that their already-built Manhattan skyscraper has a 1 to 5% chance of collapsing per year, and deciding that they're not going to tell anyone about it while they spent months fixing it. The head engineer explicitly says in a recorded lecture that this was justified because people "don't need to be terrorized". Is that even plausible?
- YouTube
Enjoy the videos and music you love, upload original content, and share it all with friends, family, and the world on YouTube.www.youtube.com
like this
Ben Weinstein-Raun likes this.
like this
I tried out making an unboxing video:
I'm pleased with how it turned out, though the subject matter is objectively not very interesting.
JP Addison likes this.
like this
openAI finally added this capability to the API, which is why I am only now playing with it, because I am much happier paying 30¢ per image I actually generate than paying $20/mo regardless of how much I use
also if you want me to generate images for you I am very happy to do that
Ben Weinstein-Raun likes this.
like this
Jen Blight likes this.
Ben Weinstein-Raun likes this.
I've been getting really into pocket knives this week, and especially learning about knife steels. The biggest surprise has been that one of the several aspects of Atlas Shrugged that caused me to lose suspension of disbelief, has become much more believable in retrospect:
When I read it I felt like this whole part about the "guy invents a new metal that's just straightforwardly better than existing metals, and names it after himself" was just too farfetched.
But it turns out that actually this is just a thing that can happen. This guy Larrin Thomas basically straight-up did this with a knife steel alloy in 2021. The alloy is notably better than others for the purposes of pocket knives in almost every respect. Like, in any single dimension there are steels that do better, but this alloy is like the Hawaii of the knife steel Pareto frontier. He didn't name it after himself but I think he could have called it "Larrin Metal" if he had wanted to. He actually called it "Magnacut".
JP Addison likes this.
I guess my intuition is that alloys would be "smooth" in their properties. You add more chromium and certain properties increase. Maybe they stop increasing or start reversing after a while, but it's not hard to find the optional points for each property over time.
With that intuition it seems surprising that it's hard to find new alloys that haven't already been found.
Ben Weinstein-Raun likes this.
Have been wearing minimalist/"barefoot" sandals for the last couple days, and it feels somehow unhinged to say this, but I think they're making me feel noticeably happier?
Like, it reminds me of the thing where anosmia is linked to depression. It's like I regained a nontrivial part of my sense of "what's going on in the world".
JP Addison likes this.
AXRP Jason Gross
How do we figure out whether interpretability is doing its job? One way is to see if it helps us prove things about models that we care about knowing. In this episode, I speak with Jason Gross about his agenda to benchmark interpretability in this way, and his exploration of the intersection of proofs and modern machine learning.
Ben Weinstein-Raun likes this.
like this
On the way home from the coffee shop I encountered a bright blue bird as I walked past a bush, about half a foot from me, which stared at me for a second, quietly squawked, and flew away.
Then soon afterward, in a different bush, I encountered an ooze (pictured, made of bubbly foam) trying to stealth.
I'm concerned that someone has changed the genre of my RPG, in a worrying direction. Will be avoiding taverns.
like this
Men's Dang Soft Boxer Briefs | Duluth Trading Company
Softness from above for down below? You bet! Duluth Trading’s new Dang Soft® Boxer Briefs’ fabric is so silky-smooth, all you’ll feel is sky-high comfort!www.duluthtrading.com
like this
kip likes this.
Advertising, and especially targeted advertising, is widely hated. Something pretty interesting to me: insofar as I'm a rational agent, the amount a given advertiser should pay to show me their ad is positively correlated with how much I want to see that ad. On paper this sounds like an amazing situation, with positive sum trades all around.
But it's easy to observe that most ads are annoying and bad, and that people hate them. wtf is up with this? I don't have time to think about it today, but maybe someone here already knows. @Jeff Kaufman maybe? Or @Daniel Filan ?
like this
I would be pretty happy if ads were better. I regularly come across e.g. toddler products that I want to buy, and am very willing to spend money to save time/stress. But these things are almost never advertised to me.
I see *lots* of ads for things I already have, and lots of ads for things that are appropriate for parents of much younger or much older children. I can't actually think of the last time I bought something from an ad, which is shocking considering that I'm in a bunch of baby-related Facebook groups and often get products that people recommend there.
Ben Weinstein-Raun likes this.
Advertisers understand that humans are very manipulatable, and are very down to use dark-arts manipulation tactics. I don't suspect the correlation of values to actually be very high at all. (Intentionally annoying ads can be very effective.)
I hate having to be constantly on guard from all these attempts to hijack my attention and influence my beliefs/desires. I opt out of targeted marketing whenever I can because I don't want advertising systems to have *even stronger* memetic hooks to grab me with.
like this
GitHub - benwr/gwipt: Automatically commit all edits to a wip branch with GPT-3 commit messages
Automatically commit all edits to a wip branch with GPT-3 commit messages - benwr/gwiptGitHub
like this
like this
I wrote a plugin to sync flashcards from Logseq (open-source notes app, like a local Roam Research or a list-shaped Obsidian) to Mochi (closed-source spaced repetition app, like a remote / pretty Anki). Works quite well / has a lot of features for a two-weekend side project, though it took more effort than I hoped it would.
github.com/benwr/logseq-mochi-…
GitHub - benwr/logseq-mochi-sync: One-way synchronization of flashcards from Logseq to Mochi
One-way synchronization of flashcards from Logseq to Mochi - benwr/logseq-mochi-syncGitHub
Etymology joke
First you need to know about the fish with the scientific name of _Boops boops_, which is real. This means ‘cow face cow face’ and is not a joke. If you like you can pronounce it ‘bow-ops’ to emphasise the etymology, as in ‘coöperation’. The ‘ops’ part is the bit that means ‘face’ in Ancient Greek.
The joke is this: that the etymology of _oops_ is ‘egg face’ — from the phrase “there is egg on my face” — and is pronounced oöps. (The Ancient Greek word for egg is ‘oon’ which gives us ‘oomancy’, ‘divination by eggs’.)
like this
like this
Man, given that LLMs are "dream machines" / "all they can really do is hallucinate", it's wild how much they correctly remember.
Like, Claude 3.7 correctly knows a lot about the API used to write Logseq plugins. Logseq isn't exactly obscure, but it is definitely pretty niche, and the API is based on a relatively obscure database query language and a schema designed specifically for the app.
like this
Ben Weinstein-Raun likes this.
Run-time type checking is way more useful than I expected. I've been using it in Julia for 4 years now, and I expected it to provide ~25% of the value of the value of static type checking, but it's actually been closer to 90%.
I guess it's because when I'm developing, I'm constantly running code anyway, either through a notebook or tests. And the change -> run loop in Julia is not noticeably slower than the change -> compile loop in Scala.
The big exception is when I have code that can only reasonably be run on a remote machine and takes 5+ minutes to set up/execute. Then I'd really like more static analysis.
Ben Weinstein-Raun likes this.
like this
Human information throughput is allegedly only about 10-50 bits per second. This implies an interesting upper bound, in that the information throughput of biological humanity as a whole can't be higher than around 50 * 10^10 = 500Gbit/s. I.e., if all distinguishable actions made by humans were perfectly independent, biological humanity as a whole only has 500Gbit/s of "steering power".
I need to think more about the idea of "steering power" (e.g. some obvious rough edges around amplifying your steering power using external information processing / decision systems), but I have some intuition that one might actually be able to come up with a not-totally-useless concept that lets us say something like "humanity can't stay in 'meaningful control' if we have an unaligned artificial agent with more steering power than humanity, expressed in bits/s".
JP Addison
in reply to Ben Weinstein-Raun • •Yo that's really cool. I wish I was in the bay to practice with you.
Consider wearing a backpack on the trek if you aren't.
Ben Weinstein-Raun likes this.