There is a bit more to the story. There was interbreeding, which we can make up explanations for but none have any evidence to support them. Neanderthals were also under a lot of environmental stress. They were very inbred well before Homo Sapiens shared their range. We have no evidence they hunted from range (no arrow heads, for example, and their shoulder joints are not adapted to throwing) but relied on close range attacks. This would have become increasing more difficult in the Ice Age, due to the nature of the terrain and the increasing size of the megafauna.
There is a good case to be made that Homo Sapiens were just lucky to be based in the milder climate of Africa, and by chance being more adapted to hunting megafauna due to our body structure. Homo Sapiens are also very inbred. IIRC there are two main genetic bottlenecks that have been detected in our DNA. We almost didn't make it.
The paper I linked shows that we were in and out of Neanderthal territories (or vice versa) a bunch.
Punctuated equilibrium (is that still in fashion?) suggests that the inbreeding / limited population eras of humanity are when we got a lot of our special capabilities!
Nice concept. I caught European Sleeper last week, my first time on a night train. It was ok but I'd like something better if I was using it regularly.
It's a tough time to do something about climate change. Short-termism is very attractive right now.
As for condescension, I'll kindly note that it was you who was instructing me how to engage people and how I should be writing. When someone is writing a statement that directly contradicts even the news of the past few days, I have to ask if they are sure. I'm not sure if I can be much more deferential than that.
> I recommend not starting with the old classics because they were in part made to be frustrating and difficult and played over a long time. Instead, look at modern text adventures that follow more recent advances in game design.
A timely comment for me. I tried the linked Planetfall game, and gave up after a little bit of wandering around and nothing happening. Apparently I was supposed to just putter about for longer until the game really started with the emergency event, which got me thinking about game design in these early games.
Some of these games really liked to give you a combinatorial search problem dressed up as a game. In Colossal Cave Adventure, one of the first puzzles is to get a bird into a cage, so you can use the bird to scare away a snake. The bird is scared of a rod you find earlier, so you have to drop the rod in a different room before you get the bird (and then go back and get the rod). Now none of this makes any sense. The expectation is that you have nothing better to do then just try different combinations until you find what works. In a way it's asking you to play a meta-game, rather than the game.
This reminds me of Sword of the Samurai [1], a Fighting Fantasy book I had the misfortune to read when I was a lot younger. It was fiendishly difficult if you actually played by the rules. Partly this is because the combat was really hard (see the linked review) but also because there were just so many choices where the book gives no hints what is a good choice to make. For example, right at the end there is fight between you and your buddies versus four baddies. Each one of your buddies can take out a specific baddy, but there is no indication which is which. So the book is really designed with the expectation that you're constantly going to cheat. This meta-game of bookmarking each decision point and exploring the decision tree before committing is the actual game that the book is written for, and it has a lot of content to explore if you realise this is the game you should play.
This rhetoric (and it is rhetoric, in that it is designed to persuade) too often lacks nuance. Generating a 3 minute stand alone video is impressive, but it is a different task from generating code that must be consistent with an existing mountain of code. Generating code that implements a straightforward feature within an existing system is different to generating code that must make architectural decisions in novel domain or with a novel architecture. The Navier-Stokes result is impressive but 1) they spent a bajillion tokens / currency units to achieve it and 2) AFAIK all the recent mathematics results have been counterexamples, which are a different beast to proofs.
My own experience, pootling around with Claude like a peasant, is that it is simultaneously amazing at some tasks and an absolute moron at others. The more abstract the reasoning required, the worse it is.
What you're described is 'the jagged frontier,' a term coined by Mollick in 2023 (along with fellow authors Fabrizio Dell'Acqua, Edward McFowland III, Hila Lifshitz-Assaf, Katherine Kellogg, Saran Rajendran, Thierry Laurent, Edouard Cudre-Mauroux, François Candelon, and Karim R. Lakhani).
If you'd read his rhetoric earlier you would have encountered the concept years ago and perhaps it would have raised his estimation in your eyes.
Yeah, I work on secure networking libraries and AI does things that compile but void the security whenever I give it free rein. But it seems that for boring management shit, stuff that I, an autistic recluse, really prefer to avoid, it’s great.
I think it does when you don't see the same level of rage when its exactly the same thing. Its called polorization. If you accepted it the first time you've all ready approved it universally.
I think if you are a partisan you're always going to find differences in the two scenarios which are meaningful enough to explain to yourself and others why your outrage (or lack of it) is warranted.
And here's the thing, I'm sure there are meaningful differences. But then again there's also loads of similarities. A similar thing on the geopolitical stage is the status of Kosovo. The moment it was accepted as a separate entity you opened a floodgate. President of Croatia had a very nice clip about it a while ago, basically accepting both things to be true at once: Kosovo is a state that we need to accept but we also need to admit it was illegally taken from Serbia. This sort of duality (what Nader called being able to walk and chew gum at the same time, although for a completely different situation, I forget what the topic was) is very rare.
On HN i made the mistake of defending, for lack of a better word, a certain tech oligarch who shall not be named where I eventually made a similar point to yours and got downvoted to oblivion.
I could understand the framing being: all censorship is bad (even though I suppose this view would be called childish by some). I could also understand the framing that there is too much concentration of power in the hands of these corporations (and then the inevitable cries to break them up or nationalize them). But, for example, just pointing out that nobody was against these same practices when they were aimed at the other end of the political spectrum (SF billionaires were the darlings of the Democrat and not Republican establishment) causes such outrage from what I would guess are generally well meaning and intelligent people, that it boggles the mind.
It really seems to be something in our species that turns us into crusaders for certain topics. I can very well imagine that this same biological(?) impulses, where you are incredibly convinced in your own morality, must have led to the spread of early christianity (and then to the same or even larger degree, Islam). And it has to come from a place of conviction because otherwise u cant explain the zeal. And anybody who isn't as convinced (maybe partially agreeing) gets dealt with viciously. I'm making Tom Hollands point (in a very erratic manner), that what we consider modern universalism (aka wokeness) is a natural continuation of christianity. I would just go further and say that I think there is something in us all (to varying degrees) that we want to spread a certain gospel of what it is to be a moral person. And if someone disagrees they are not moral.
It is clear that we do not see all communication. Governments become increasingly deceitful and secretive - the US government is the best example, but the same applies to other governments (just look at the garbage produced by the russian government, they almost outperform the current US administration with total crap, like what Lavrov recently babbled about - what pile of nonsense). And companies - they are alo secretive. So which conspiracy exactly is meant here? It's not that I disagree with your prior statement, but I want to know which conspiracy you assume to be here to exist, or to NOT exist. Because what you wrote is very unspecific - you insinuate that there may not be a conspiracy. How do you conclude that?
I concur with Levitz's statement too, with regards to conspiracy or "inventing" one - so, which specific conspiracy was meant?
Using an LLM for any large project shows how useful it is to have data and functions that aren't siloed. That's why CLI apps have had a resurgence: because the LLM can interface with them. Yet the reaction from so many who are deep into LLM development is to build their own little silo: an app.
We really need a better model. One alternative is to have an everything-app: a general purpose tool in which (almost) everything lives. The terminal is one of them. The text editor / word processor is another. (I use Emacs for everything.) In a business context the spreadsheet is probably the best choice.
I use Niri and love it. I think manually managing windows is a waste of time, and when I watch normal users they usually struggle with this and their desktop is a disaster zone. I never want to go back to that. Tiling window managers are slightly better, but they still require you do window management.
I dunno about this. Haven’t used Niri but it looks like a scroll from 2000 years ago.
And that brings me to books, which haven’t changed all that much in 700 years.
And the desktop metaphor hasn’t changed much either, probably because it’s metaphor for how we do things in the real world: on a desktop with documents and pencils, organized how we want them.
I don’t want my desktop to change in fact all the attempts have largely failed because they don’t model how we as humans work in real life, with a bit of friction and a dash of chaos.
EDIT: the few places I welcomed changes are: (1) snapping windows; (2) well integrated search. Where we can improve I think is multi modalities. For example, “open my taxes document, please” and an AI opens it for me, then I presume to place it myself.
So, my thought is that the paradigm holds and will stand the test of time. Where it will change is: imagine you’re a business exec from the 1950’s and you have workers fetching documents for you, organizing things, and bringing the important parts back. For those important parts, we’ll use the traditional metaphor or some derivation thereof.
So, it will graduate from “desktop” to “office space”. AI agents will occupy their own cubicles. And you’ll be the boss in the corner office with a good view.
It’s not empty! At least in my instance, it’s a slightly-rewritten version of the “Core Truths” section from OpenClaw’s default SOUL.md https://docs.openclaw.ai/reference/templates/SOUL
you can view it in the app
There is a good case to be made that Homo Sapiens were just lucky to be based in the milder climate of Africa, and by chance being more adapted to hunting megafauna due to our body structure. Homo Sapiens are also very inbred. IIRC there are two main genetic bottlenecks that have been detected in our DNA. We almost didn't make it.
reply