It's still true. Your metabolic system is probably not simpler after taking terzepatide. Although, just because it's not simpler doesn't mean it can't be better. I'm very glad for the C++ abstraction layer over assembly, even if the stack is more complicated than if it were just assembly
Trontinemab is in trials right now and has 92% of patients achieving low amyloid levels. And more people should be able to take it as it causes less brain swelling (ARIA-E). I'm unaffiliated, I just follow medical research in my free time. But I'm quite hopeful about this medication
I also know someone who's significantly better now than they were a few years ago thanks to alzheimer's medication. And Trontinemab, which is currently in phase III trials I believe, seems even better than what is publicly available as it crosses the blood-brain barrier more readily. We're entering a brighter future for alzheimer's patients.
The compile errors are great. I can change one function signature and have my output fill up with compile errors (that would all be runtime errors in python). Then I just let claude cook on fixing them. Any time you have to run your program and tell claude what’s wrong with it you’re wasting time, but because claude can run the compiler itself and iterate it’s much more able to complete a task without intervention.
I think most people perceive program semantic not only to be defined for the whole program as a whole, but also towards individual subexpressions. If the "LLM compiler" changes the output completely when a single word is added, then it is not deterministic for the subexpressions, that don't contain that addition.
Granted that is not the rigorous definition of determinism. Also some existing compilers are non-deterministic with such a definition, namely when "undefined behaviour" would be triggered. That's precisely the problem with UB.
The disconnect might be that there is a separation between "generating the final answer for the user" and "researching/thinking to get information needed for that answer". Saying "deeply" prompts it to read more of the file (as in, actually use the `read` tool to grab more parts of the file into context), and generate more "thinking" tokens (as in, tokens that are not shown to the user but that the model writes to refine its thoughts and improve the quality of its answer).
Running rust in wasm works really well. I feel like I'm the world's biggest cheerleader for it, but I was just amazed at how well it works. The one annoying thing is using web APIs through rust - you can do it with web-sys and js-sys, but it's rarely as ergonomic as it is in javascript. I usually end up writing wrapper libraries that make it easy, sometimes even easier than javascript (e.g. in rust I can use weblocks with RAII)
It does work well logically but performance is pretty bad. I had a nontrivial Rust project running on Cloudflare Workers, and CPU time very often clocked 10-60ms per request. This is >50x what the equivalent JS worker probably would've clocked. And in that environment you pay for CPU time...
The rust-js layer can be slow. But the actual rust code is much faster than the equivalent JS in my experience. My project would not be technically possible with javascript levels of performance
I did. I don't remember the specifics too well but a lot of it was cold starts. So just crunching the massive wasm binary was a big part of it. Otherwise it was the matchit library and js interop marshalling taking the rest of the time.
edit: and it cold started quite often. Even with sustained traffic from the same source it would cold start every few requests.
The only known explanation of what's going on in quantum mechanics is a multiversal one^[1]. Using radioactive decay of an atom as an example: there are an uncountably infinite number of universes that are initially "fungible" (identical in every way), and over time the universes gradually differentiate themselves with the atom going from a non-decayed to decayed state, at different times in each universe. But you will be in all of those universes. So if you thought the atom would decay in, let's say 5 seconds, there would be some universes where you were right and some where you were wrong. That makes it impossible to ever make reliable specific predictions about when the atom will decay. So, in practice that just looks like perfect randomness.
^[1]: There are other interpretations, of course. And those other interpretations are equally explanatory. But they do not claim to be explanations of what is actually happening to unobserved quantum particles. There is also Bohmian mechanics, but I don't know how many people take it seriously.
Makes me want to learn to sew to make my own clothes. I've wanted to for a while because seams on clothes always bothered me. (Not for taste or fashion, but just because I feel like the technology to make a seamless clothing product must exist.)
Very few fabrics can be fused together to make seams disappear, mostly your synthetics. Though technically wools could be felted together, but that would probably be extremely labor intensive.
I've had some athletic wear with "seamless" features, but after sometime the adhesive lets go. Fixing that at home is much more difficult than needle/thread fixes for normal stitches. To be honest, I never even realized it was "seamless" until the adhesive failed. It had no factor in my purchasing.
> why is it that fabrics can be made in a square shape but not e.g. a capless cylinder shape?
Woven fabrics are naturally rectangular because they're made of a 2D grid of fibers at 90° angles to each other. The easiest (cheapest) way to make an irregular shape out of a woven fabric is to make a rectangle and cut it down.
> I can knit clothes seamlessly, right?
Knit garments usually have some amount of seaming, but yes, you have a lot of options to make irregular shapes when knitting.
However, knitting machines tend be most efficient and making rectangular fabric. They can do some amount of shaping, but the labor and cost goes up.
If you want to hand knit a garment, you can make quite complex irregular shapes with very little or no need for seaming. However, you're talking about two orders of magnitude more labor to make a garment. Few people want to pay $1,000 for a hand-knit sweater, so you're mostly limited to knitting it yourself or having a friend or loved one who likes you.
You can manage a seamless clothing product if you are willing to have it knit on-demand for you, either by machine or by person. If you start with how [1] socks are made, then consider how to decompose your clothes into sock-shapes, you'll find:
Shirts: one tube sock for the torso, two tube socks for the arms, zero ends closed; Pants: two tube socks for the legs, one tube sock for the torso, zero ends closed; Gloves: five tube socks for the appendages, one tube sock for the palm, zero-to-five ends closed depending on fingerless style; Socks: one tube sock with one end closed; Hats: one tube sock with one end closed.
So it's entirely possible to construct a sock weaving pattern that ends up weaving a head-to-toe single garment for you out of some kind of stretchy yarn, that you would then have to figure out how to clamber into through the face hole (since that's the only open-ended sock) — but that coverall (literally!) pattern would have to be constructed for your complete set of measurements [2] in every regard, and that's an exceedingly costly amount of labor (measurement, knitting, measurement, unraveling, repeat). You can scale down that cost for seamless tops or bottoms somewhat, which you'll absolutely see high-fashion retailers do, but at the end of the day it's the cost of bespoke-tailored clothing from scratch plus the cost of bespoke-knit fabric from scratch plus the cost of not getting it exactly right the first time. None of this is intended to criticize your desire — I hate awful seams and I have collected clothing that has seams that don't bother me and/or are extravagantly seams because the sweater was intentionally panel-knit inside-out! — but I wanted to offer a bit of depth into why it's difficult to find seamless. You have to start and end the knit somewhere, and that's exponentially simpler if you start and end the knit more than once; thus, seams.
[2] https://cwandt.com/products/personal-body-unit-index makes the point nicely enough, though I believe you need Even More And Different measurements for tailoring [3] that were out of scope for this particular creation:
> Che-Wei’s Mom often does this weird finger walking dance along the edges of furniture, fabric or random stuff. She knows that the span of her hand from thumb to pinky measures 18cm. So she can quickly size things up. We always thought this was funny, until we realized it was GENIUS and started to copy her. We made Personal Body Unit Index so we can be more like Che-Wei’s Mom.
[3] Men's tailoring measurements are generally optimized for a couple dozen taken at most; further variability gets handled through 'adjustments' or 'on the fly' rather than formally at the construction stage. I think I can identify a couple dozen measurements just on my torso alone — just the bust is an entire three-dimensional construct that has to be measured over, across, under, rise, attachment shape, attachment height and width, volume, not to mention desired support/lift/shaping, and that's before we even get to the usual waist-hips-butt conglomerate, torso/arm length, shoulder width, upper/lower arm width that men are familiar with, and the perhaps less-familiar belly shape/distribution (it isn't always above-the-belt as is typical for men) and front abdomen curve shape (often without a certain male sexual characteristic, often with varying fat pattern distributions, see also belly).
reply