lagrangian
4d ago
Ah, in that case, I suggest turning the computer right side up to make it run faster.
lagrangian
4d ago
Hurrah! Go team!
Pedantry: I'd describe it more as dynamic programming, with memoization being a detail, and memoisation being a dirty British spelling.
lagrangian
15d ago
Needs more paragraph breaks.
lagrangian
29d ago
61 dates since mid 2023 is ~3/month. So "attractive" is a reasonable theory, but that's not that crazy. I read the 3-4/week part and didn't realize that was a brief peak, not an average. Now that's a big number.
I went on two dozen first dates last year, all from apps (mostly Hinge), and if you subtract out three months of various compelling reasons to not go on first dates, that's a similar rate. (OP is probably also doing that, so I'm cheating with that math, but still.)
And I am...optimistically middle of the bell curve attractive. My job and such I'm sure offset that some, but you really shouldn't underestimate how effective it is to follow a strategy of "don't be super fat, and do send a lot of messages to women who are not wildly out of your league."
I also think NYC is a culturally distinct place for dating. Lots of dating, not a lot of commitment. Too expensive to live in a nice home, too crowded to hike, so just date and fuck and go to restaurants I guess. I haven't lived there, but I have heard from people who have. It sounds interesting, but terrible.
lagrangian
1mo ago
I don't know about the slab headaches, but crawlspaces definitely have them. Rodents may be hard to keep out since it needs to "breathe" (or at least mine, built in the 70s, does). They love to eat wiring and insulation and can find their way in to the house proper.
Slabs are less creaky and stronger, so if you want a gym/giant fish tank/to invite yo momma over, they may be a better choice.
lagrangian
1mo ago
I personally generally agree with that categorization. If the alternative categories are stimulant, depressant, deliriant, pain killer, etc - then psychedelic fits best to me. Mild compared to a typical dose of more classic psychedelics, sure, but I think the comparison of strong pot to low (but not micro) dose shrooms (~.5g) is particularly good.
lagrangian
1mo ago
lagrangian
1mo ago
Brutal, sorry man. I'd be tempted to use the dark net at that point, or have a friend with good insurance in a country with shorter waits ship it...
lagrangian
1mo ago
I agree completely.
LLMs are a junior engineer who cannot learn.
I see you've met my coworker.
I did not in fact ask that this poster not post. I asked their thoughts about posting outside of CWR.
This is...very much not the same as my intentionally ban-worthy douchebaggery from a bit ago.
Edit: hm, my "I'd personally appreciate" is closer to asking they not, but still better than than the consensus building antagonism I rightfully ate a ban for.
I think this is also essentially (or entirely? I don't care enough to read too much of their user history) single issue posting, which is against the rules. Iirc copy pasting in a whole substack is also frowned upon, and it's adjacent to that. So, I'll report - but I think discussing with someone about their posting is more direct and productive than just clicking report.
And, OP has -12.
On the one hand, wow, that's very, very impressive.
On the other hand, skepticism and my prior of "nothing ever happens and especially not with LLMs" makes me ask: was that literally the question? Do you have a source? I am very much not a biologist, but that is surprisingly/impressively broad.
lagrangian
1mo ago
To me, this is impressive, but not that impressive: sure it answered the question, but it didn't pose the question. In the same way, LLMs are decent at writing code, but have ~no ability to decide what to write. You can't just point them at your codebase and a bunch of email threads from PMs and hope it writes the right thing.
I don't know how many plausible hypotheses there are for the question it solved, or how hard it is to generate them, but it's surely much easier than looking at the state of the field as a whole and coming up with a new idea for which to generate hypothesis.
AI is a junior engineer.
lagrangian
1mo ago
I'd personally appreciate it if you removed them from CWR one way or another (but feel free to put them elsewhere, like I said). To me, they're too long and single purpose for the amount of visibility in the CWR thread. But, you get engagement, so it's not at all obvious to me that others would agree.
lagrangian
1mo ago
What would you think of posting these in their own mega submission, instead of the CWR? Or separate individual submissions even.
lagrangian
1mo ago
Not hard to learn, just don't wanna. (And, I've, uh, learned a number of recipes over the years, just because I move etc.)
To continue overextending the metaphor, I actually have the same preference with food: I'm good at cooking a range of recipes, but mostly eat Soylent and put a small number of things in the air fryer.
lagrangian
1mo ago
Weren't harems typically exclusive to a man?
Yeah. As mentioned in another thread, I got my whorecabulary a bit mixed up.
If I could do it over, I'd s/harem/bunch 'o fuckbuddies/
lagrangian
1mo ago
Interesting. Do you think it helps his legal case to post the video, or that he's just so clearly legally safe that it's worth optimizing for his job?
Or that the lawyer was just doing damage control by telling him how to do the video? Lawyers will (although not always) advise you on how to do the stupid thing you want to do the least stupidly if you tell them to.
lagrangian
1mo ago
Uh, do you know what a concubine was?
Well, now I do. I suppose if I'd thought about it harder, I could have defined harem/concubine/brothel correctly, but mea culpa.
I still don't want one.
Most cultures, unless they suppress this tendency, will develop some form of this over time
Well said, and a decent metaphor for fighting reality on a number of fronts I suspect.
lagrangian
1mo ago
Perhaps the fundamental difference then in our viewpoints is I think the mental effort that goes into fucking someone is actually a lot of the fun. Knowing how to press each other's buttons in bed, the comfort of familiar company. So by the time you've removed that from the hypothetical, I no longer consider the activity really all that worth doing. Don't get me wrong, if it were the only thing on offer, I would take it with a big old smile on my face. But it's hot dogs when I'd rather slow cook ribs.
lagrangian
1mo ago
I see, any chance that you from 10 years ago would say something drastically different?
Hm, maybe a little different, but not drastically. Even in college, when I was sleeping with a few people, I always had a favorite/tended to break things off with all but one/want something serious. It's not that I was low libido, and while it's probably lower now I wouldn't at all say low/below average (for mid 30s). I think I'm just wired more monogamously than you.
lagrangian
1mo ago
In general, sure, but that wasn't my impression of how the word was being used, which was more like "brothel." I suppose in the hypothetical where it's my exclusive use harem, but I still don't have to interact with them, there's no STD concern. And while we're at it, let's stipulate that they each have a dozen IUDs.
I would still not want them, given the alternative of something monogamous. They sound exhausting. I like the feeling of winning on my own merits that comes with sleeping with someone I "earned" rather than bought.
Given all of the stipulations here, we've moved so far from "men want to cheat/have lots of casual partners" that I think it's pretty irrelevant. And, so implausible as to be even more irrelevant, in the same way as "if science could perfectly grow new bodies and move over minds, and adjust for the lack of growing up as that gender, and retcon others' memories, then surely you'd agree trans women are women."
lagrangian
1mo ago
Yes. Mid 30s.
lagrangian
1mo ago
I'd rather not even talk to the cashier. I definitely don't want to fuck the hypothetical harem (given the alternative option of a ~zero-effort monogamous casual arrangement, or, even better, a high-effort monogamous serious one).
freely fuck but not otherwise have to interact with in any meaningful way
But "fuck" is a whole lot of interacting with a stranger. (don't) Fuck that.
lagrangian
1mo ago
it wasn't just legal trouble it was to protect his image which had been tarnished
Legal trouble is way more important than your image! I'd rather lose my job than end up in jail because I said the wrong thing on youtube.
I'm big picture with you on the skepticisim, but this actually sounds like a huge upgrade. I can be mean to an AI, feel no guilt, and expect it to actually work out well for me. Oppositely for a person. Nothing irritates me quite as much as bad call center customer service, since I know it's not their fault really, but it's SO BAD.
More options
Context Copy link