skysight-inc/HackerNews huggingface dataset:
Ooh, please define "ordinary" as opposed to "smarter".

The article is about not artificially constraining your thoughts when considering a problem. Mathematics and by extension - mathematicians - are famous for looking kindly on a line of enquiry that subsequently turned out to be wrong.

To be fair to mathematicians: Anyone can trot out any sort of bollocks and call it maths, rather cheaply, by jotting down some vaguely plausible looking ramblings on paper. If you try to fiddle up, say: cold fusion, you have to at least persuade your readers on archive that you have found the open end of a test tube and work on from there!

There is a damn good reason why scientists, mathematicians and everyone else who works via publishing papers (for want of a better inclusive term) are rather dismissive of "dumb questions". Rather often the question ... is dumb. I hate that term and being British, I prefer: "stupid".

This is all about "thinking outside of the box", which is nice until you note how people get treated for doing exactly that. I suggest you keep your thoughts inside your head when you are thinking outside of it! Once you have your thoughts all lined up and you are not wearing your underwear on your head and have stopped dribbling, you might be in a good place to deliver your pontifications.

Your mother may well have given you the advice: "think before you speak" - she was a wise woman. She probably doesn't blog about it.
It's a practical acknowledgment of the reality that if the executive branch declines to execute a law, there isn't terribly much that can realistically be done.
Crazies say they validate and test their idea, but they actually suffer from severe confirmation bias where they summarily dismiss any counterexample or problem.
Implementing new bias initiatives makes the cycle never ending, for all time. We must focus on equality now to prevent preferential bias going forward.
Holy crap, this is maybe the scariest thing I’ve read in a week. You must have known the book really, really well. Glad you had an escape!
A program with borrow checking violations is incorrect the vast majority of the time. Not something to be "settled up" but something that is wrong.
This is very interesting. The claim does sound too good to be true. Am I understanding you correctly that you are saying including the vmap operation in the timing is wrong because it involves compilation time that could have been amortized over all the runs, and that the compilation time is considerable compared to the ode-solve itself?
Does 100fps mean I can provide a new input every 10 ms and get a new output every 10ms? Or do inputs need to be batched together to get that average throughput?
> My engineer brain wants to solve this by giving users more visibility into moderation decisions.

Politics are not an engineer’s job, nor is content moderation.
They also focus on attacking their moderate fellows over their ideological opponents, instead of forming a coalition with moderates.