Would be a pretty amusing black comedy. They kidnap the potential Satoshi, who is actually Satoshi but they’re not sure. [hijinx added here]. Then in the process of torturing him, they accidentally kill him before he reveals the password. And then it’s confirmed he’s who they wanted.
Thank you. TFA links to the map that was part of the Google/Samsung ad, but not to the map that apparently everyone is excited about and is the topic of the story. Ridiculously petty editorial choice for information hiding.
"to begin with" is expecting miracles we don't have today. Delta has been around forever and presumably runs a lot of critical stuff was written in the 90s, or (hopefully not by now) even the 60s. And, as cool as Linux is as an OS, many smart people program in C#/MSFT-stack, and you don't want to remove them from a talent search if you're Delta and need 1000s of developers. And this CrowdStrike thing wouldn't have been mitigated by running a Windows App in a container, it would have killed the Windows OS supporting the container (I'm pretty sure...).
"Premature optimization is the root of all evil" is a common architecture guideline. Well, in a way Delta (and any company 30+ years old) optimized all their business processes using old coding standards. Now they have to effectively change the oil while the car is driving down the highway. Whoever figures out how to get AI to assist in this will make the first AI fortune.
Ok. But I think it's reasonable to ask why flight arrival information displays have to run Windows. And even if they have to run Windows why not some embedded ROM-boot library kiosk version? Why does a sign need to have a fully featured desktop OS?
(I have a picture of said sign displaying its blue screen lest anyone think I'm making this up).
Best answer I can guess: because it's easy and cheap to set up, and the dev team involved was moved to another project years ago.
Windows is dominant for UIs because of a long history of having drivers for all the various peripherals which eases hw procurement issues. Sure that advantage went away long ago but the momentum takes a long time to die out. The brains with the expertise know how to do it on Windows. Combine that with the fact that Windows UI is not something you have to train new hires on and it makes business sense that all the user-facing interfaces ended up Windows applications. Sure, over time they should be migrated to containerized web UIs, but there's a lot of work to be done. Updating the flight arrival display isn't mission critical; it's at the end of the backlog.
I believe I heard one thing that got screwed up was a crew-scheduler product. Like: they couldn't check in crews or get their schedules written in so a system (presumably something on a mainframe) could work out where all the people needed to be at what times. Much more mission critical! The central big brain was (probably) not Windows, but those user inputs at the end were enough to screw up the whole business process.
Maybe because airline traffic is a hard business (airlines make cents per passenger per flight).
And thus airports are pressured by airlines to minimize costs. In the end, the answer is probably, that it's just cheaper to use windows than to invest any more effort into the task.
A user named observationist made a response to this post, but they responded to a troll, whose comment was nuked which removed their very valuable comment (I was responding to them at the time so I happened to have both in cache).
Around 1% of people have schizophrenia. This holds over a lifetime - there's a structural, unavoidable component to the person's neural wiring or physiology that will result in a schizophrenic break. Prior to the break, they may seem more or less normal, but after, they will experience deficits in cognition and perception, and may have significant barriers to living a normal life.
Schizophrenics, as a rule, will have a psychotic break before they turn 45. Psychoactive substances, and high doses of psychedelics, will trigger breaks from reality earlier than they might otherwise happen. Stress, caffeine, trauma, or significant excitement can also be triggers, but psychedelic drug trips are a reliable trigger, and in conjunction with other effects, can spiral a "bad trip" into a much worse trauma.
Another 3 to 4% of the population have significant mental disorders, ranging from those we know, to those we can observe but don't have a good diagnostic criteria for. In these cases, it can be very detrimental to use psychoactive substances generally, and psychedelics in particular.
It's crucial to visit with a doctor to rule out the likelihood that you're in the roughly one in twenty people that might have a significant negative reaction to psychedelics. Some of the people in that camp might be safe from harm later in life. I know a person with significant family history of schizophrenia and earlier life indicators he was at risk, who then started using mushrooms in his 50s and seems very stable. He talked things over with his doctors before deciding to take the risk - apparently after you turn 45 it's incredibly rare, even with significant trauma and stressors, for schizophrenic breaks to occur, so if that's your main threat, it might be safe to engage in psychedelics when you're older.
If you're not in the high risk camp, you should still have at least one frank discussion with your doctor about pitfalls, and do a metric ton of personal research about any substance you intend to use. It can be a profound and wonderful departure from the norm, or a mildly unpleasant experience, or a stressful confrontation with your inner demons, depending on the dose and preparation.
my response:
Thank you for this. I thought this was a very informative comment; I am worried about schizophrenia as a disease that might impact my kids. I wanted to ask you for more information, but that is a burden, so I asked ChatGPT instead so at least you wouldn't have to go find links. If you have Other reading besides what is below I would be happy to hear about it.
Here is it's response from ChatGPT (Claude couldn't provide links). My contribution is that I checked the links and skimmed them to see if they supported the statement. They are repetitive (there are only 7 articles linked actually), but they generally support your comment. Of note the PLOS article does not support your comment, and it seems that it doesn't support what ChatGPT says (maybe I misunderstood when skimming it). The stuff in parens below (Looks Like This), was a link in ChatGPT, but the links didn't copy-paste, so I'm going to put all the articles at the top here:
The comment you saw online contains some accurate points but also could benefit from additional context and nuance based on available research.
1. Prevalence and Risk Factors of Schizophrenia:
- The lifetime prevalence of schizophrenia is approximately 0.3% to 0.7% globally, which supports the 1% figure as an upper bound (Nature) (BioMed Central) (World Health Organization (WHO)) .
- Schizophrenia typically emerges in late adolescence to early thirties, with men often experiencing onset earlier than women (National Institute of Mental Health) (World Health Organization (WHO)) .
- Factors such as genetic predisposition, prenatal exposures, and psychosocial stressors contribute to the risk of developing schizophrenia (National Institute of Mental Health) (World Health Organization (WHO)) .
2. Triggers for Psychotic Breaks:
- The statement that high doses of psychedelics can trigger psychotic breaks in predisposed individuals is supported by evidence. Drug-induced psychosis, particularly from hallucinogens and cannabis, can lead to schizophrenia in some cases (Psychiatric Times) .
- Other triggers include stress, trauma, and significant life changes, which can exacerbate underlying vulnerabilities (Berkeley Psychedelics) .
3. Impact of Psychedelics on Mental Health:
- Psychedelics can pose significant risks for individuals with a family history of schizophrenia or other major mental health disorders. It is crucial for these individuals to consult healthcare professionals before considering psychedelic use (Berkeley Psychedelics) .
- Research has shown that about 25% of those with substance-induced psychosis may transition to schizophrenia, with the type of substance being a significant predictor of this transition (Psychiatric Times) .
4. General Mental Health Considerations:
- Around 3-4% of the population may experience significant mental disorders other than schizophrenia. For these individuals, the use of psychoactive substances, including psychedelics, can be particularly detrimental (PLOS) . [NOTE: This seems to be an error from ChatGPT, this PLOS article doesn't seem to support this conclusion. As I haven't done personal work on this yet, I don't know whether the statement is supported by other research.]
- Mental health evaluation and professional consultation are recommended before the use of psychedelics to identify potential risks and ensure safety (Berkeley Psychedelics) .
5. Later-Life Considerations:
- The risk of new-onset schizophrenia after the age of 45 is indeed rare, which suggests that older individuals may have a lower risk of experiencing a first psychotic episode triggered by psychedelics (Berkeley Psychedelics) .
For further reading and to deepen your understanding, you may refer to sources like the National Institute of Mental Health (NIMH), the World Health Organization (WHO), and recent research studies on the global burden and risk factors of schizophrenia (National Institute of Mental Health) (World Health Organization (WHO)) (Nature) . Additionally, the Berkeley Center for the Science of Psychedelics (BCSP) provides detailed information on the safety and risks associated with psychedelic use (Berkeley Psychedelics) .
Isn't asking an LLM to find links that support an assertion equivalent to cherry picking sources? Also, just from a quick scan of some of these, it is apparent that the citations are not completely accurate.
IMO, this is kind of asymmetric lazy commenting that wastes other peoples' time. If you want to share something, just link to a article, and leave the LLM bullshit out of it.
I appreciate the pushback on this process, it made me think.
I actually asked the LLM for supporting or refuting sources. I didn’t think I was cherry picking. Looking at its response… maybe CharGPT didn’t pick up on the “refuting” detail, or maybe observationist was correct. So maybe next time a prompt “find supporting” and another prompt “find refuting” would be useful to ensure coverage of both sides.
My value add in the human+AI workflow was to check the links. They seem high quality and directly applicable to statements made. I took pressure off observationist to go find directly applicable links (and I saved time by not googling for each separate fact). That being said, I probably didn’t need to requote ChatGPT in full. I liked the full answer because it assured me ChatGPT was responding on each claim but the important thing was the links. So, more efficiency was possible in my yc comment.
> Across studies that use household-based survey samples, clinical diagnostic interviews, and medical records, estimates of the prevalence of schizophrenia and related psychotic disorders in the U.S. range between 0.25% and 0.64%
Kessler RC, Birnbaum H, Demler O, Falloon IR, Gagnon E, Guyer M, Howes MJ, Kendler KS, Shi L, Walters E, Wu EQ. The prevalence and correlates of nonaffective psychosis in the National Comorbidity Survey Replication (NCS-R). Biol Psychiatry. 2005 Oct 15;58(8):668-76. PMID: 16023620
Wu EQ, Shi L, Birnbaum H, Hudson T, Kessler R. Annual prevalence of diagnosed schizophrenia in the USA: a claims data analysis approach. Psychol Med. 2006 Nov;36(11):1535-40. PMID: 16907994
Desai, PR, Lawson, KA, Barner, JC, Rascati, KL. Estimating the direct and indirect costs for community-dwelling patients with schizophrenia. Journal of Pharmaceutical Health Services Research, 2013 Jul;4(4):187-194. doi/10.1111/jphs.12027/epdf
Thank you for this. I thought this was a very informative comment; I am worried about schizophrenia as a disease that might impact my kids. I wanted to ask you for more information, but that is a burden, so I asked ChatGPT instead so at least you wouldn't have to go find links. If you have Other reading besides what is below I would be happy to hear about it.
Here is it's response from ChatGPT (Claude couldn't provide links). My contribution is that I checked the links and skimmed them to see if they supported the statement. They are repetitive (there are only 7 articles linked actually), but they generally support your comment. Of note the PLOS article does not support your comment, and it seems that it doesn't support what ChatGPT says (maybe I misunderstood when skimming it). The stuff in parens below (Looks Like This), was a link in ChatGPT, but the links didn't copy-paste, so I'm going to put all the articles at the top here:
The comment you saw online contains some accurate points but also could benefit from additional context and nuance based on available research.
1. Prevalence and Risk Factors of Schizophrenia:
- The lifetime prevalence of schizophrenia is approximately 0.3% to 0.7% globally, which supports the 1% figure as an upper bound (Nature) (BioMed Central) (World Health Organization (WHO)) .
- Schizophrenia typically emerges in late adolescence to early thirties, with men often experiencing onset earlier than women (National Institute of Mental Health) (World Health Organization (WHO)) .
- Factors such as genetic predisposition, prenatal exposures, and psychosocial stressors contribute to the risk of developing schizophrenia (National Institute of Mental Health) (World Health Organization (WHO)) .
2. Triggers for Psychotic Breaks:
- The statement that high doses of psychedelics can trigger psychotic breaks in predisposed individuals is supported by evidence. Drug-induced psychosis, particularly from hallucinogens and cannabis, can lead to schizophrenia in some cases (Psychiatric Times) .
- Other triggers include stress, trauma, and significant life changes, which can exacerbate underlying vulnerabilities (Berkeley Psychedelics) .
3. Impact of Psychedelics on Mental Health:
- Psychedelics can pose significant risks for individuals with a family history of schizophrenia or other major mental health disorders. It is crucial for these individuals to consult healthcare professionals before considering psychedelic use (Berkeley Psychedelics) .
- Research has shown that about 25% of those with substance-induced psychosis may transition to schizophrenia, with the type of substance being a significant predictor of this transition (Psychiatric Times) .
4. General Mental Health Considerations:
- Around 3-4% of the population may experience significant mental disorders other than schizophrenia. For these individuals, the use of psychoactive substances, including psychedelics, can be particularly detrimental (PLOS) . [NOTE: This seems to be an error from ChatGPT, this PLOS article doesn't seem to support this conclusion. As I haven't done personal work on this yet, I don't know whether the statement is supported by other research.]
- Mental health evaluation and professional consultation are recommended before the use of psychedelics to identify potential risks and ensure safety (Berkeley Psychedelics) .
5. Later-Life Considerations:
- The risk of new-onset schizophrenia after the age of 45 is indeed rare, which suggests that older individuals may have a lower risk of experiencing a first psychotic episode triggered by psychedelics (Berkeley Psychedelics) .
For further reading and to deepen your understanding, you may refer to sources like the National Institute of Mental Health (NIMH), the World Health Organization (WHO), and recent research studies on the global burden and risk factors of schizophrenia (National Institute of Mental Health) (World Health Organization (WHO)) (Nature) . Additionally, the Berkeley Center for the Science of Psychedelics (BCSP) provides detailed information on the safety and risks associated with psychedelic use (Berkeley Psychedelics) .
>> you can use it to explore the thought processes of why someone might pick a particular set
The danger I see here, is that if you ask an LLM to explain the thought processes, it will never say “I don’t know”. It will instead describe some thought processes associated with coffee grinders. It may say something like “this grinder has fine grain controls that allow customizing the size of grind.” …which that particular grinder doesn’t have at all…but that’s a thing people write about when choosing grinders. The frustration is that 90% of the answer will be accurate, but somewhere in all the sentences is a hallucination, treated with the exact same authority as the rest of the answer.
To be really specific, it identified a La Marzocco Linea Mini and incorrectly, a La Marzocco Swift grinder. I cross-checked with Google and the Swift was incorrect. ChatGPT then suggested it could be a Mahlkönig EK43 or Nueva Simonelli Mythos.
Mahlkönig EK43 was the correct answer, but the combo is unusual, because people will usually get a couple of La Marzoccos from a supplier who holds both, and Mahlkönig is an unseen brand here. Why go to the trouble? La Marzocco makes good enough grinders.
With further interrogation, ChatGPT was absolutely insistent on it being a EK43, a limited edition model called The Icon, which was notable for its white color and gold trimmings. This kind of precision is easy to verify, but it's not a detail that comes up in a Google search for the EK43.
The correct answer was that the coffee shop's owner's mentor was from Vietnam, where the EK43 was more common. It was particularly good for making complex latte art like unicorns as it has a precision that allowed controlling the acidity of the crema.
But this whole thought process was just wild. I want it to give me all kinds of crazy answers. I want it to have a high miss rate. It's perfect for brainstorming. But you need sufficient expertise to guide ChatGPT to the next answers.
I quote this all the time to people. There’s too much, we’re spread too thin. Ignorance shouldn’t be considered a big deal or a huge embarrassment. Not being ready to learn is a problem, but ignorance is sort of the default state now.
Not to be a wet blanket, but yes ignorance should be tolerated and warmly received about things which do not matter much, but sometimes a person's ignorance about certain things can tell you unfortunate truths about the way they view the world and what they consider worth looking into or not.
For example, think of someone who is ignorant of the cultural practices of a certain minority of people despite seeing members of this group every day in their neighborhood, this tells me something not so positive about this person and how they view the world and other people. However it is never too late to change, either.
The same can be said for class as well, many people I have met who have grown up wealthy and comfortable and just don't think much about the people who serve their food, do work for them, make the things they buy, and have no idea who they are and what their lives are like and don't wonder about it. Part of that is how society is structured to hide these people from them, that's part of what they're paying for.
The fundamental issue is that regardless of how common ignorance is, you risk failure.
You're correct it's not the end of the world, but you'll need to catch up quick once you realize something and maybe even completely rethink plans. This isn't always a bad thing and the stuff you come up with from ignorance might be useful in other ways.
In my opinion, ignorance is just a fact of life. Too much of it can be a disaster, but just enough can spark meaningful creativity. Often times though, it's just something to immediately move on from because you have way more other stuff to do.
Thank you! I particularly like the brief clip of an armored guy standing on a chariot strapped to a treadmill. It appears he is able to stand stoically while machines work underneath him. I have to assume it’s some sort of wind tunnel test and there’s a fan or something off camera left?
They’ve been charging a that amount forever, it’s a crazy ask. But you’ll be happy to hear that the quoted price is about 80% off of the price in 2000, so take advantage of the discount. In 2000 it was $100K/month.
Inflation has been 80% since then, but that doesn't mean it's 80% off. $1000 in 2000 is $1800 today, so a discount of 44%. 80% off would imply it's $5000 today, but prices didn't 5x fortunately.
I’ve heard this is important for young kids when eyes are developing. Once the weakness is built in, there’s not much t that can be done.
But I definitely recommend this to people I know with new babies. We do a bad job consciously recognizing the difference between indoor and outdoor light, but they’re orders of magnitude different in actual brightness.
