The gcc stub surprised me:

  user@shiro:/tmp/hn$ cat main.c
  #include <stdio.h>
  int main()
  {
    printf("Hello\n");
  }

  user@shiro:/tmp/hn$ cc main.c -o main; ./main
  Hello, World!

  user@shiro:/tmp/hn$ cat main
  #!/bin/sh
  echo 'Hello, World!'

I'm intrigued. I'd like to see an analysis of how this was done. My first guess is they record humans doing the moves, and then map that to the robot movements. Then I'd like to see a teardown of one of the robots to understand their construction.

The mouse is invisible on the splash screen, except for when I manage to move it over the play button.

Are you saying Haiku is better than Sonnet for some coding use? I've used Sonnet 4.5 for python and basic web development (pure JS, CCS & HTML) and had assumed Haiku wouldn't be very good for coding.

I'm saying Haiku isn't that bad, it's good enough for my needs, and it's the cheapest one. Maybe it's because I'm giving it small, well defined tasks.

I'm using Sonnet with a free account.

Maybe it is just the HN effect, but it is really slow.

I read "Thinking, Fast and Slow" and some of the other references in the article. I found Kahneman's arguments persuasive, however the article makes me re-evaluate those conclusions.

When asked what is more probable, I think in terms of statistical probabilities. However the article makes an interesting argument that most people don't define the term, "more probable" the same way. I'm not convinced Kahneman was wrong, but I do see how simple changes in the wording of a question can lead to a material difference in answers. I also see that my own interpretation regarding the "correct" meaning of words aligned with Kahneman, and contributed to my general agreement with his conclusions.

Kahnemann had the intellectual honesty to accept that large parts of his book are flawed, and he called on psychologists to clean up their act by doing a systematic multiple reproduction study program:

https://www.nature.com/news/polopoly_fs/7.6716.1349271308!/s...

"Kahnemann had the intellectual honesty"

I once heard an interviewer ask him if Kahneman was still susceptible to cognitive biases after reading the book. He said something to the effect of "absolutely, they're tough to escape". I really appreciated that. People that recognize and acknowledge the fallibility of their own minds are a breath of fresh air.

I don't think that's a great example. If Kahneman claimed not to be susceptible, it would have greatly undermined his claims about the universality of these phenomena: many other people would presumably also not be susceptible.

If I remember correctly I took the interviewer's question to mean "now that you're aware of these cognitive biases are you still affected by them?" not "do you experience cognitive biases?". I don't see the first question at odds with the universality claim. The latter would be.

Not "large parts". Just a few chapters.

Probabilities are a philosophical rat's nest of sorts. When it comes to statistics, it's generally agreed that we're working with a frequentist interpretation of the meaning of probabilities, but you are right that a person with no prior background could well have a completely different understanding here (subjectivist probability, degrees of belief).

I also think stating presuppositions and limitations around observation and prior knowledge is monumentally important as soon as you begin talking in terms of probabilities, if you really want your statements to be clear, but most people don't do this. There are some ways in which I think the casual use of probabilities can actually be more harmful than encouraging a simple binary boolean dichotomy of "I know" or "I don't know" and need more information.

Isn't "I know" just a subjective threshold for the probability of being true? A layman may put that probability at 90%, while I scientist may put the probability at 99.999% before saying, "I know".

I don't know, is a logical deduction like the classic aristotelian syllogism 99.9999% certain, or is it certain?

There's a lot of genes that impact lifespan, both good and bad. For example my father has hereditary hemochromatosis due to 2 copies of the HFE C282Y mutation. He was diagnosed in his 50's, so I'd expect the damage it did to his body to impact lifespan.

In my case I don't have it (I'm just a genetic carrier). If I did have the genotype and took the necessary dietary measures to avoid the phenotype, then it likely wouldn't impact lifespan.

On one hand you can argue a heritable disease like HHC has an impact on lifespan, but with genetic testing and treatment you can argue it doesn't impact lifespan (or it's impact is significantly mitigated).

Julius Kivimäki was released pending the outcome of his appeal. https://www.bankinfosecurity.com/finnish-vastaamo-hacker-fre...

The article cites "Ryan" as one of his aliases, so the id ryanlol commenting in this thread could plausibly be Kivimäki.

Could plausibly be, but there are many people using the name 'Ryan'. Maybe this one saw an opportunity to troll everyone.

Most residential 200A electrical panels use tin plated aluminum busbars. https://www.eaton.com/cr/en-us/catalog/power-connections/bus...

Most commercial panelboards and transformers also use aluminum buss.

As a common-law legal system, I would expect Ireland to have something similar to Canada's Criminal Code identity fraud.

    403 (1) Everyone commits an offence who fraudulently personates another person, living or dead,

        (a) with intent to gain advantage for themselves or another person;

        (b) with intent to obtain any property or an interest in any property;

        (c) with intent to cause disadvantage to the person being personated or another person; or

        (d) with intent to avoid arrest or prosecution or to obstruct, pervert or defeat the course of justice.

    Marginal note:Clarification

    (2) For the purposes of subsection (1), personating a person includes pretending to be the person or using the person’s identity information — whether by itself or in combination with identity information pertaining to any person — as if it pertains to the person using it.

    Marginal note:Punishment

    (3) Everyone who commits an offence under subsection (1)

        (a) is guilty of an indictable offence and liable to imprisonment for a term of not more than 10 years; or

        (b) is guilty of an offence punishable on summary conviction.