I think the phrase 'believe in science' is weird; it's nearly as problematic as "I have faith in science".
It can be, but generally the concept of 'belief' isn't attributed to ground truths; it's just 'the truth', you rarely hear the phrase "I believe 2 and 2 is 4." , it's just '2 and 2 is 4.' -- I think that's important.
In fact, a lot of people insert the word 'believe' to insert a concept of self-doubt. "What was our last test results passing rate?" "I believe it was around 95 percent.."
But semantics aside here's the real question : Why do you have some kind of notion that you should 'believe' anything without being able to understand it? Just trust in the world and those around you?
We haven't figured origin yet, so let's get off that, but when a scientist of some sort makes a discovery, they release evidence and methods , and you decide to believe the conclusions without an understanding of the work -- well that's just a display of faith.
Faith in the scientist themselves, the system they work within, and the society you're in.
Which leads me to say this : If you make an effort to begin to understand the frameworks and systems which lead to scientific conclusions you can largely remove the faith and belief elements up until you hit the very highest spectrums of each field where speculation comes back into play.
tl;dr : if you 'cant understand a shit', you don't put any leg-work in and make an effort to speak the language, you'll probably end back up in beliefs rather than an ever increasing codex of knowledge -- regardless of the field. That's okay -- but it doesn't offer the same benefits as knowledge -- it just lets one say things like "I don't believe in any theory..."
Yes, steam locomotives are neat.
Yes, Parton is a saint.
Yes, Tennessee is better place because of her.
Yes, she did good things with her money.
BUT the fact that we're all still so impressed by steam engines that we decided that 1000 tons of coal a year ( 622 cars worth of co2, the annual energy use of ~250 US homes a year) was a good value just to see an antique demo at the US's 30th (!!) most popular theme park bodes pretty poorly for us and our priorities.
Might not be nostalgic, but these things have huge steam stacks and exhaust output seemingly; is capture at all possible?
I had the same feeling when I first rode it. It’s wasteful - a theme park is fundamentally wasteful. But it’s the only time in my life I’ll get to ride a steam engine. And for many others, the only time they’ll ever be on a train.
Yeah, that was my thought. I'd love to see steam trains converted to electricity or even diesel in a way that basically they still look like steam trains to the casual observer, but without all the coal burning.
What's the point of the look if they're electric? A few steam engines operating for historical tourism doesn't seem like a big issue for emissions compared to the millions of ICE cars. We should keep them operating on their original fuel.
> A few steam engines operating for historical tourism doesn't seem like a big issue for emissions compared to the millions of ICE cars. We should keep them operating on their original fuel.
The CO2 emissions aren't the only issue; they are _seriously_ dirty. Probably fine in Dollywood where it's presumably quite open, but in some countries it's somewhat common to run 'heritage' engines on main lines as an event, and it can really be _pretty bad_ in enclosed stations.
>Also, Kik turn out to be negligent and pretty scummy.
turns out?
they threatened a pre-existing naming collision with legal action and bullied the platform first into forcing the name to be theirs, and then afterwards by crying to npm until their software tests passed again.
Yeah, but this also happened to a colleague of mine who created the pug templating package. It's so long ago now that I forget what it was originally called but, basically, he'd chosen a name that infringed somebody else's trademark. I'm not a trademark law expert but the thing about trademarks is they have to be defended or the holder can lose the exclusivity of the mark.
So my friend sensibly caved in and changed the name of the package, got on with his life, and now it's all long forgotten history.
Going back to Kik, before I knew about all the other stuff (which I only found out about when I listened to that Darknet Diaries episode last year - bit late to the party there) I simply thought they'd gone about defending their trademark in a hamfisted and douchey way that had got Azer's back up. Lawyer's gonna lawyer, and the way they did it I thought they were douchebags, but beyond that I didn't give it much consideration. There was certainly no way any of this even hinted to me that they were negligently facilitating the distribution of child porn[0].
[0] Yes, this is obviously against Kik's ToS, but ToS are only worth anything if they're enforced whereas - certainly at times prior to the Darknet Diaries episode being released in 2021 - there was at best inconsistent and ineffective enforcement of these terms. I have no insight into the current situation with Kik.
Yes! Thank you! That was it. I still use pug in a side project because it works really well and would just be way too much hassle to untangle and migrate.
I just looked jade up on npm and it's still there, so the company that wanted Forbes to change the name didn't even want to publish a package by the looks of it.
If you want to know who made it, maybe try asking Microsoft, not expecting a random open-source project to hold the answers.
On the Widening AI Skill Gap
No, sophisticated software doesn't automatically mean AI was used. Your immediate jump to an "AI skill gap" just because something looks well-made says more about your assumptions than about the software itself. Perhaps the real "skill gap" is in telling the difference between good engineering and AI magic.
>Benefiting the most vulnerable people of the community seems a bit much though.
it makes sense contextually.
if there is some holy manifest that urges people to do a thing even when they're old/invalid/bed-ridden/sick, and there are people that will devoutly follow this rule, then it stands to reason that those people will feel a burden eased when part of the manifest is accomplished automatically.
Cursor is the only product that I have cancelled in 20+ years due to a lack of customer service response.
Emailed them multiple times over weeks about billing questions -- not a single response. These weren't like VS code questions , either -- they needed Cursor staff intervention.
No problem getting promo emails though!
The quicker their 'value' can be spread to other services the better, imo. Maybe the next group will answer emails.
Mail to <hi@cursor.com> is replied by “Sam from Cursor” which is “Cursor's AI Support Assistant” and after few back and forth it tells “I'm connecting you with a teammate who can better investigate”. Guess what? It’s been a month and no further communication whatsoever.
I don’t have high hopes for its customer services.
Super weird. It never did this to my defaults. Why would it do to some users and not others? Terrible behavior. Surprised Mac even allows a program to simply overwrite such settings.
No clue, it very much did it for me, but given the lack of new comments since March they might have silently stopped doing that. That they never responded there nor even bothered to close the thread fits squarely with GP's experience with their non-existent customer service :)
Had no idea that this was possible on Mac either, never seen any other app do this, though commonplace on Windows.
because it represents a paper thin condom that prevents Google from fucking the whole world, and if it gets steered the wrong way we're doomed until the inevitable 1990s style anti-trust suit.
no, people tell them to focus on the browser because the majority of features added in the past 15 years are either incredibly flavored (here's your new AI tab!) , or they're profit-seeking motivated (we're proud to present our new collaboration with Pocket (tm) (c), P.S. welcome to your new hompeage with cookies and sponsored assets. )
The major reason Firefox has a large market share is simply because Google is that much more abusive to users -- and that's not a great reason.
I was thinking that on this, folks need a cron task to run a trivial prompt at 5-6am and get that 5hr timer running so that it the majority of the quota is available in the working day morning, and then a new 5hr block starts around lunch time. This should maximise use of included tokens by a standard work day spanning 3 blocks rather than 2
Also useful for paid APIs like DeepSeek's, where they have cheaper inference price (50%/75% off) for UTC 16:30-00:30, so being able to schedule some stuff you know would take a ton of tokens for that time period would make sense.
I moved to Max after projecting a $2,000 annual API bill. I haven't yet hit five hour limits, but login/ toggles easily between plans. I believe the interface tells you when you've hit a limit, but as I said I don't know first hand.
According to CCUsage, I hit limits on Opus usage around the equivalent of $150. If we naively extrapolate, that suggests about $600 of Opus usage per session on Max 20x.
Also Sonnet only, no Opus. That being said it lets you use the included stuff and easily switch to metered if you need to use a different model or you burn through your included allotment.
>Why? Claude Code already gives you the option to accept requests permanently going forward. The cost of configuring rules is worse than the cost of just telling Claude Code "yes and you don't need to ask again".
want to see this mode fail catastrophically? write enough CLI stuff w/ python w/ powershell or wsl or some other 'leaky' cli. It will eventually fail a command and then try to pipe a shell command through the python interpreter or a specific PS incantation.
This means that you now need to approve 'git' , and 'python sh git' and 'powershell.exe git' and 'wsl.exe ubuntu git' as separate and independent commands. (I dont remember the shell incantation command so excuse the pseudocode).
That means that for the entire gambit of approvals needed for continued permission for a singular task might be 4x greater than normal -- probably more given that claude is aware of so many different ways to pipe to shell..
Claude has been adding PYTHONPATH to test commands, and for some reason, the “don’t ask again” doesn’t stick for these types of commands. So I’ve been trying to get it to use make commands, which can modify the environment, and don’t trigger the same permission issues. Just now I finally put it in CLAUDE.md “always use make commands to run tests”. Haven’t seen yet whether it will stick.
I hate to be pessimistic but this is something that CC doesn't seem good at: forgetting the tools that it loves and using the ones you want it to. You might want to try "disallowing" that command(?) explicitly (in addition to adding to CLAUDE.md and/or prompt).
I'm not sure what command is being called to set PYTHONPATH. If my assumption that it relates to a specific command is incorrect the above probably isn't helpful.
haven’t used claude code directly, but at least through copilot ive seen it read my makefile, extract the command, and run it directly after modifications. telling it to use make helped, but wasn’t perfect
It can be, but generally the concept of 'belief' isn't attributed to ground truths; it's just 'the truth', you rarely hear the phrase "I believe 2 and 2 is 4." , it's just '2 and 2 is 4.' -- I think that's important.
In fact, a lot of people insert the word 'believe' to insert a concept of self-doubt. "What was our last test results passing rate?" "I believe it was around 95 percent.."
But semantics aside here's the real question : Why do you have some kind of notion that you should 'believe' anything without being able to understand it? Just trust in the world and those around you?
We haven't figured origin yet, so let's get off that, but when a scientist of some sort makes a discovery, they release evidence and methods , and you decide to believe the conclusions without an understanding of the work -- well that's just a display of faith. Faith in the scientist themselves, the system they work within, and the society you're in.
Which leads me to say this : If you make an effort to begin to understand the frameworks and systems which lead to scientific conclusions you can largely remove the faith and belief elements up until you hit the very highest spectrums of each field where speculation comes back into play.
tl;dr : if you 'cant understand a shit', you don't put any leg-work in and make an effort to speak the language, you'll probably end back up in beliefs rather than an ever increasing codex of knowledge -- regardless of the field. That's okay -- but it doesn't offer the same benefits as knowledge -- it just lets one say things like "I don't believe in any theory..."
reply