apomekhanes's comments

This shouldn't have been downvoted, even if only for the phrase "phosphorescent feces" ... on its own merits.

Fun phrases forfend fatigue phenomenally.

Edit: wow, I'm realizing that "phosphorescent feces" is at more like "Eminem" levels of phoneme repetition / assonance / etc. My much more basic largely merely alliterative response pales in comparison.

I wonder how this author will feel about that question when they're busy running from their home because some "non-conscious" ... "entity" has ... "decided" that they're a nuisance - that it's tired about hearing about its "lack of consciousness."

Ah, that put a smile back on my face that was lacking earlier in the day. TERRific!

Very interesting - hadn't come across this before, thanks!

Now this, I entirely agree with.

On the one hand, it's a perfectly reasonable (and interesting) question (IMO). On the other hand, as you are pointing out - Banks appears to be writing quite explicitly from the perspective that "genius" and "productivity" (in the sense of creative, scientific, technological, etc. advances) are obviously GOOD and IMPORTANT. And, there seems to be a strong current of "if we knew what served as the 'fertile silt' for these ... 'Cambrian explosions' of creativity / science / tech... we could use this knowledge to foster the appropriate conditions and better harness our magnificent human potential."

Now, granted, I'm obviously purposefully cherry picking (to a degree) from a large enough essay AND "putting words in his mouth" (hyperbolic, comparatively) to a degree that I'm almost certainly glossing over language that's more nuanced and judicious, say. Nevertheless, I'm somewhat surprised at ... his surprise, the rosy cast of the whole thing, and, I think the quite incomplete nature of his analysis of the data and information that IS available.

Further, I outright disagree with any premise that "genius" is straightforwardly or simply "net positive". I don't think there's a need to bring the subjective into it, per se. And, much like discoveries and advances in "nuclear chemistry / physics" (providing a particularly stark example, IMO - nuclear/radiological weapons / nuclear energy of various types, medicine, etc.), most of this is "neutral", at best. I used to be far more "pro-advances", and I'm still no Luddite etc., but, really ... the continuous barrage of, in some sense, "f'ing around and finding out" (esp. when it comes to technologies enabled by all of the work of geniuses) really ought to make more people question assumptions about what is seemingly so often taken for granted as being "good".

(Apologies for likely excessive verbosity - it's way too late...)

Not sure why you're being downvoted.

Are there other opinions about the cortex or module idea? Is there a fundamental problem with that idea I'm missing?

I think the parent comment + yours (and others off parent) provides a perfect encapsulation of one of the dimensions of teaching / learning: what's often referred to as "style"*. One way to summarize, specifically, might be something like "inductive" vs. "deductive".

As my experience has ... accumulated ... through the decades, I've come to feel that these sorts of differences / preferences likely don't have much impact on ultimate (potential) "level"**. And, I think you see this and related notions of "what mathematics 'actually is'" echoed (in a very fractal-like way, +1 to the universe in achieving a consistency we'll never rival) across the development of individual mathematicians as well as through the history of mathematics [1-6].

These distinctions are important in "pedagogy" - can be very helpful for teachers and students to be aware of and work at, especially at the more "basic" levels. This can make a massive difference in how an individual's arc unfolds - with extremes of "F this subject" vs. "I'm willing to accept low pay in exchange for torturing myself with this material for the rest of my life!" But, aside from trying to be mindful of the differences - and all involved, ideally, trying to USE awareness of knowledge and "EQ" and all of that in making the mutual learning enterprise work for everyone involved, many other aspects of the differences can just be outlets for time-wasting if focused on IMO (/ experience).

* AFAIK, not really my field though and it has been ~15 years since I did any significant reading / study in the area - for the sake of 'full disclosure'

** The effects end up more in details of notes, problems and areas people are drawn to more or less, etc.

[1] https://terrytao.wordpress.com/career-advice/theres-more-to-...

[2] Polya's "How to Solve It", in particular, I think of (from the intro): "The title of the very short second part is 'How to Solve It.' It is written in dialogue; a somewhat idealized teacher answers short questions of a somewhat idealized student.") - many options for accessing / buying, but, for this text, it's in the (unfortunately images) here - https://math.hawaii.edu/home/pdf/putnam/PolyaHowToSolveIt.pd...

[3] https://citeseerx.ist.psu.edu/document?repid=rep1&type=pdf&d...

[4] https://www.maa.org/sites/default/files/pdf/upload_library/2...

[5] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Galois_theory#A_non-solvable_q...

[6] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hilbert%27s_program

... and, so many more, of course...

Yes, this is definitely their theory. Huffman has basically said as much.

In my opinion*, all of this brings to mind the quote attributed to Napoleon about not interrupting your enemy "when he is making a mistake."

I certainly don't / didn't consider Reddit an enemy, and yet, suddenly, the site has an adversarial halo around it that simply didn't exist several weeks ago. A halo that I'm quite sure didn't need to be created (for Reddit Inc. to achieve its actual goals) and could have been avoided with a little more "EQ" and better PR efforts and planning.

This isn't, remotely, the first time that Huffman, in particular, has shown PR ineptness, including the egregious PR blunder of outright highly visible dishonest behavior and inability to properly acknowledge & apologize [1].

* Which is the opinion of an internet rando / 'armchair general', but, informed by knowledge of past PR disasters and borne out, so far, by events of this saga, to date

[1] https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=13074093

Sure. Risky AF, considering how the site actually runs, unnecessary, and a major-league speed-bump towards IPO.

How do you think advertisers - some of whom have now had to reschedule ad buys / launches / pause campaigns, or at least factor a sudden major hit to 'stability' / consistency into consideration of the platform [1,2] - and potential enterprise customers for ML-model feeds &c. are taking this news?

Further, it has caused the CEO himself to repeatedly indicate lack of profitability (after > $1.2 billion in VC funding) and has created a massive 'paper-trail' of PR ineptness evidence.

[1] https://www.adweek.com/social-marketing/ripples-through-redd...

[2] https://www.thedrum.com/news/2023/06/12/what-do-advertisers-...

(... among various additional articles)

I've definitely gotten the sense that this is a potential significant factor in this "clown car crash". Kind of feels like Reddit has been able to raise insane amounts of money for years, but, with the sudden appearance of (and gold rush-style interest in) ChatGPT combined with Fed moves on interest rates, the taps have 'suddenly' been closed. And, apparently, there was no ... real plan (even though they hired a CFO back in 2021 and have been signaling plans to IPO since around that time).

Of course, this underscores the stupidity of the whole thing. Given that THE 'google-hack du jour' is adding reddit to search terms (with articles in MSM showing up since at least Jan 2022) AND the value of Reddit's 'corpus' (as Huffman himself put it back in April) to companies like GOOGLE (trying to not only build ChatGPT-style ML, but relevant up-to-date search capabilities based around ChatGPT-style 'agents'), you'd think they'd be able to convert these stories into reasonable financial health and successful IPO w/o wading into brand-destroying PR debacles...

... but, apparently not.

This is exactly correct.

This is almost entirely a "management / PR debacle". A very easily avoidable debacle, I'm fairly sure, if they had simply brought in the right people or person (even) to help them through the process.

A number of Huffman's statements, seemingly tinged with bitterness / resentment and broadcasting a sense of "unfairness" (i.e., that third party apps have been profitable but Reddit itself has not), have been laughably unprofessional. And I'm not even writing about the tit-for-tat potentially libelous completely lacking in understanding of relevant LAWS crap.

This is not remotely 'C-suite' 'level' messaging / behavior. Particularly for a company that put in a target of $15 billion valuation back in 2021.

Honestly, I will say, I feel a little bad for Huffman, at this point. He's clearly out of his depth. I suspect there is some pressure that has shown up / backstory that created a sense of serious urgency starting some months ago, and the management team at Reddit figured they could handle this process &/ want(ed) to demonstrate competence. So, they have been forging ahead w/ trying to line everything up. Some have cited "ChatGPT", and, of course, there's always the rising interest rates being a potential issue ... nevertheless, they've created substantial bad sentiment among some of the most important users & devs at a particularly BAD time.

Of course, this may well not derail an IPO, the site too much, etc., in the short run. But, it's ludicrously bad management - examples more likely by the day to show up in future business courses. A SOCIAL MEDIA site bungling MESSAGING, possibly catastrophically, and pissing off some of the people MOST WILLING to contribute to financial health (almost certainly) and MOST INTERESTED in the site continuing to be viable!

They really ought to consider, if they haven't done so already, getting some small team of 'crisis PR' or 'management advisors' or something in, with expertise in the various areas they are clearly having massive issues with right now. Simply doing that, and having Huffman indicate (externally) a degree of 'stepping aside' so that things can be righted, could defuse some of the serious negative sentiment they have now generated.

Clever & sensible.

One potential concern with this would be the possibility of 'upper airway obstruction(s)' (aka, choking). Not necessarily because this position is inherently problematic*, but because it would be a novel position to consume food** in (to presumably most people) and it's a position that most people are likely not used to in the present day, period (i.e., we usually sit up, lie flat, etc., we aren't typically in orientations like this for any real length of time, if at all).

Seems like a clever way to exercise an area that is not easy to exercise in any typical way, but I'd strongly advise caution and awareness of potential aspiration / choking issues if trying it out, at least in initial trials.

* In any anatomical way I can think of off the top of my head

** I would avoid trying to consume liquids in this position, at least initially - aspiration is far easier with thin liquids etc. The author seems to focus on food, in any case.

(sorry for responding after so many days - didn't see reply before)

Ha! Certainly a fair and good point.

I would propose that there is a spectrum when it comes to the 'damage', as a term that comes to mind right now, (likely to be) caused by various kinds potentially confusing information.

Given differences in the way different people understand, well, pretty much anything, I'd propose that it might best be thought of as some set of statistical distributions. Using this kind of framework*, we might be able to reasonably improve thinking about what these distributions might look like, how we might tailor the information we provide and how much work we put into trying to avoid introducing possibilities for confusion, etc. Further, I suggest 'set' as we might benefit from 'parameterizing' (thinking about distinct distributions) in terms of traits - autism, ADHD, anxiety, etc.

In my mind, and based on my experiences, I would (in part, thinking terms of the model I'm proposing here) be much more wary of asserting potentially incorrect information in the realm of math and some of the more 'abstract' subjects that people tend to have more trouble in the first place. A concept like 'Santa Claus' isn't something that a child may need to be able to use as a basis for building serious skills on, say. Of course, 'Santa Claus' can be helpful for building imagination, ability with storytelling, developing narratives, etc. ... but the fundamental information regarding some specific entity 'Santa Claus', is not really problematic, in terms of the perspective I'm trying put forward here. On the other hand, statements that are 'too strong' (or 'too weak' possibly) or using terms in ways that aren't standard in mathematical discourse ... these sorts of things can make it feel like the ground is really slipping away as you try to learn other bits about a subject that, again, for many people is ... nebulous ... it's not (so) visual, tactile, ... it's very strange in many ways, early on.

That's the best I can do, right now, in response, I think.

You raise a good point, for sure. And I'm sure there are entire books, there are papers out there in the literature, etc. Personally, I can HIGHLY recommend books like Polya's "How to Solve It" ... as a starting point regarding 'math pedagogy'. That book is a gem, IMO, and gives some real insight into how to think and problem solving in general. And, it's a good gateway to many more resources and research into these areas.

As with everything human and 'complex', there's really no 'optimum' or chance of finding any such thing, I think. Avoiding the worst impacts ... essentially, in terms of opportunities and establishing bases etc., that's doing pretty well - raising children / 'new humans' is hard.

* Which is a way I've been trained to think, sorry if it's not a great model for you - kind of best I can think of off the top of my head and with limited time this moment

Thanks for that - unfortunate that it is returning 404 right now, for whatever reason, and thanks to those who provided the various internet archive and github links!

For those that may not have seen this, before, one of my favorite pages on UNIX history is:

https://multicians.org/unix.html

The name origin is, perfection.

Recently, there was a job posting with a typo that was posted to reddit - a request for a "full sack developer". This provided an extremely rare opportunity to make certain ... Multics / UNIX jokes ...

https://www.reddit.com/r/ProgrammerHumor/comments/11mi8wc/in...

(e.g., "u/AFreshTramontana" - "And I thought Multics1 was dead...

Let us have Caladonia do her highly erotic temple dance in praise of Eros..."

... rare opportunity, pretty good capitalization IMO)

Fish seem to be a very important component of the most healthful human diets, AFAIK, likely/mostly grounded in various aspects of evolution - some more on the side of actual 'selection pressure', some more on the side of chance and 'doesn't break things in a way that really matters' (i.e., successful enough reproduction / survival until ages required for reproduction).

That said, and in light of the comment from https://news.ycombinator.com/user?id=AlecSchueler, in particular - many of the most essential nutrients / 'micronutrients' that are obtained from eating fish are actually not made by fish themselves. Rather, fish 'concentrate' these substances as they go about their own business of survival. For example, vitamin D3, DHA, EPA, etc. Consequently, there are much more readily available 'vegan' sources of these substances, derived directly from the fundamental source(s) - microalgae and the like.

FYI (to all).

Overfishing IS a serious problem. Our activities, in general, are at a scale, and grounded in processes, these days, that produce significant impacts on the environment. Frankly, in the 'great scheme' of things, it doesn't matter a whit. Humans, and even this planet, are not even a droplet in the ocean of the universe, as far as we / I can even get any sort of a solid handle on that concept, now. But, that doesn't absolve us of any responsibility for trying not to absolutely annihilate OUR home.

It's disgusting to be GIVEN so much (none of us had much hand in almost anything that exists now, even what we've 'built' - we can't create atoms, we don't choose when, where, or to whom we are born, many of the opportunities we are afforded in a 'given life', etc.), and treat it as casually as so many do - to be so entitled as many seem to be.

But then, the universe (/ God / gods / whatever concept you prefer) will always have the final say. It'd just be nice to not F things up for everyone else, IMO.

EDIT: I hope the latter bits, above, don't come off as too moralizing - not my intention ... it's difficult to avoid some frustration with some of what the news inundates us with every day, I find.

More importantly - vitamin D3 is also readily produced in our own bodies with enough of the right kind of sunlight (dependent also on skin tone, age, kidney & liver function [etc.], and, ultimately, 'height of the sun in the sky' - i.e., enough ~290-300nm UV rays penetrating the atmosphere at the angle of inclination / solar zenith angle / whichever concept/quantification you prefer). And, this is actually not much at all. While skin cancer is, itself, a risk - this should, of course, be weighed against the importance of vitamin D3 itself. This comment is already REALLY long, but basically, for latitudes close enough to the 'Tropics', typically only 10 - 20 minutes of sun around noon in summer would be necessary. Winter is trickier. Here are a few links that may be useful for more info (in general, Pubmed - searching for review articles, etc. - is usually a good place to start, IMO - depending on how comfortable you are with reading these types of articles, otherwise, backtracing to those that cite them, especially, the efforts at more 'popular press' descriptions of research now produced by journals like Science etc.):

https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/32918212/

https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/28516265/

https://academic.oup.com/ajcn/article/110/1/150/5487983

... The 'Linus Pauling Institute' also seems to have, in my past experience, quite good information on 'micronutrients', in particular (with good citations, etc.), for all of Pauling's actual more tenuous beliefs (himself, in later life) about vitamin C:

https://lpi.oregonstate.edu/mic/vitamins/vitamin-D

Yes, I learned long division fairly well around that time. I was fortunate (/ disruptive) enough to be sent to a "Montessori school". Long division was definitely pushing it when I was about 5 or 6, but, honestly, given steadier instruction in math starting earlier, I suspect I could have been entirely solid on long division by that time and moving on to algebra. And, I think this is true for a reasonable proportion of children.

My experience, ultimately, was much less ... 'high-quality', let's say. When I left the Montessori school (by 3rd grade), I learned practically no math from then until after high school. First, in normal 'elementary' school (US), multiplication was still being covered in 6th grade. Then, suddenly (from my perspective), letters were being brought into the picture in 7th or 8th grade. So, in my arc, math started to not make sense, at all.

From my perspective, we had spent multiple years on multiplication and long division, which I already understood very well by the end of 2nd grade ... so, there was the period where I basically didn't learn anything, where it seemed like we'd reached the end of math or something. Or, perhaps, like there were some sort of subtleties remaining in multiplication and division. It just gave me a chance to be bored with all of it, boredom correlates heavily with mistakes with kids with attention issues (IMO), this fed into some sort of doubts about my understanding of everything etc., and then, suddenly, there was new material again starting in 7th grade. Material that was 'mechanical', and that didn't seem to have explanations I could understand.

Ultimately, I struggled along with that garbage through high school, then, after, took a course where we actually did PROOFS. Basic number theory stuff - modular arithmetic, etc. Bam, suddenly, the subject started to make sense.

Typing this out actually makes me slightly angry. I'm not sure I previously connected it all together - why I had so much trouble with math for some years ... how this 'arc' was pretty much perfectly engineered to make math a problem, for me. In any case, schooling through high school can be a really low quality experience at times - for some students, subjects, etc. The math curricula, methods of teaching, and progression I was exposed to, worked together, in some sense, to make the subject a problem for me. To do almost the opposite of what was intended - to pretty well impede learning. There's no one factor in that story I can point to and say 'here, fix this' ... no one involved in the story was actively attempting to do anything other than what they thought was best or what they were required to do, but, the net result was honestly worse - I now believe (and believed some years ago, even without quite this analysis) - than if I'd just been given some selection of math material to pick from and been allowed some sort of semi-self directed coursework.

Even better, though, if I'd simply had that course with proofs / basic number theory in, say, 8th grade ... guh, would have avoided so much pain, I'm pretty sure...

Hmm, that could potentially cause confusion later. There are 'countable' and 'uncountable' forms of infinity / infinite sets.

A countably infinite set could be 'counted' (i.e., you could sit around labeling elements using the 'natural' or 'counting' numbers) in the sense that we might count candy. The issue for a human being is that you'd run out of time but not elements to count, at least, proceeding in the sense one might count the candy - a piece at a time. Of course, you can, instead, simply provide a 'bijection' (between the natural numbers and the set you wish to prove is countably infinite), and in a sense, you are done.

The subject of infinity and infinite sets can be kind of subtle, and for years the best mathematicians made many mistakes and had many difficulties handling these concepts in ways that didn't cause potentially serious problems (absurdities, paradoxes, etc.). I think that with the development of things like Zermelo-Fraenkel set theory, Gödel's incompleteness theorems, etc., things became a lot clearer. It's a lot easier, with all of the groundwork laid by people who worked on these, to get a good sense of what is possible and what isn't - what gets you into trouble and what doesn't. But, boy, did it twist the minds of the people trying to work it out at the time. In part, this is because it was less clear, without development in these areas, what math even is and what its limits are ... what its relationship to the structure of the universe, say, even is (something along those lines, in my opinion / experience).

Reminds me of Pratchett and the adaptability of the Quirmians when muddy old boots were substituted for the original ingredients ...

"... let's see ... Mousse de la Boue dans un Panier de la Pâte de Chaussures ..."

(... I don't now if this was simply Pratchett's standard cynicism / semi-jaundiced take on humanity, as applied in a standard enough way to French restaurants, or more directly related. Pratchett did have an awfully wide range of knowledge and constantly expanded that knowledge with research while writing.)