I hadn't since the pandemic was (more or less) over, but last November I got a booster shot, as people seemed to be getting more sick than before. I know someone who (probably) has long-term covid, and you definitely don't want to catch that. However, I always become sick the next day, so I'm not too eager to get it.

> a few hundred years ago introspection wasn't all that common

Early death, however, was common. What's your point?

> Marc is not against introspection

One of the people cited spoke of a "zero-introspection mindset." That wasn't Andriessen, but it's rather clear.

>Early death, however, was common. What's your point?

I wrote my point clearly: not enough of the society had an introspective mindset for society to be meaningfully influenced by it

The CVE seems to be real.

Your comment is obviously against the rules, but I read it as: Why are people not more careful? This is some unknown, app, with unknown, unvetted depths, and you only like it because other people say it's shiny and AI. It made you giddy, and you forgot that giving a tool permissions is an invitation to hackers. Well, you went ahead and ignored all common sense, and here we are.

It's CYA. Nobody ever got fired for buying IBM, the old saying went. And it was true. Perhaps they should have, but they weren't. Nowadays, Oracle and MS have taken that position. They have the "share of mind," a PR concept that unfortunately succinctly expresses the problem. Someone proposes MS or Oracle, and everybody nods because they've heard about it. If that causes problems, other people will have to solve them anyway.

I have literally never met a competent person who takes MS or Oracle seriously.

I confess, I'm a little salty. It's just insane how widespread Azure is when there's no obvious reason to prefer it. Of course, having the whole market be dominated by 3 giant American companies (even in Europe) is annoying in its own right.

Education research is really low quality. Like so many other fields in social sciences, the results rarely generalize beyond the direct findings, and only support the hypotheses in the mildest way. It cannot robustly guide decision making.

The fact that studies on screens vs books cannot get a consistent answer says enough. I checked #3 of your links, and the amount of bullshit is astonishing. The cited articles offer vague, unresearched explanations for contradictory findings, or point at differences in the stimuli, something which should obviously never have happened. After some cherry picking, article #3 treats the remaining studies as equal and reliable enough to throw in a big bag, as if that solves the problem.

Think of it like this: the replication crisis in cognitive psychology was found trying to replicate some of the better studies. The average education research study is several levels below that. It'll have a replicability of 0.1 or worse.

Yep. Part of the reason is the ethical problems with experimenting on children.

And part of the problem is that there is a ton of money to be made in education, so there is a lot of incentive to create or cherry pick data promoting one’s preferred (most profitable) policies.

Not to mention it’s a topic most if not all people have an innate strong opinion about based on their lived experiences!

Why do you think children will learn anything from a remark on a specific problem? If it were that simple, teaching would be easy. (Notice that teaching smart kids is easy).

Much of education requires making errors until you get it right a few times in a row, and paying attention of the errors. Getting an explation of your errors is only part of that process. No LLM can provide the rest of it.

I use a very simple encryption plus some padding (fluff in the article), but the email address gets updated by JS. This requires JS plus evaluating the resulting DOM. If you don't evaluate JS, the address will be something like "please@activate.javascript". Or you could use "potus@whitehouse.gov", in which case clueless scrapers end up spamming the US government.

The best works of Bach and Beethoven are from later in their life, although neither lived to be 85 (65 and 57, respectively), and also wrote great works in their younger years. Bruckner kept improving with age. There are also composers who lost it at a later age: Ravel, famously. Classical music is difficult, so experience does allow a better overall view, something which a lot of short works (such as pop songs) don't need.

If I remember correctly. Bach had about 20 children and he dedicated a lot of his time to their education. A few became very successful musicians. It is an example than later in life a lot of our value is not so much on doing, but helping form the new generations.

Ravel wrote his most famous work, Bolero, after age 50, and suffered a traumatic head injury a few years later. Not a good example, except perhaps that the odds of bad things happening increase with longevity.

He wasn't happy with the Bolero, and it certainly wasn't his best work. The piano concerto in G was also late, and that's definitely better. I didn't know about the head trauma.