Free speech violations in UK and the country pushing for more ID checks is a simple example.

I'm not seeing how it's an example showing that they're doing it "precisely so that they can control discourse".

You could still argue that ID checks are done to partition content by underage/adult which for many is a reasonable thing to do absent any better solutions.

You can use the number 0.{concatenation of all 1 bit strings ordered}{concatenation of all 2 bits strings ordered} = 0.0100011011…

Now an interesting problem would be to have the most “compact” number, where you can find all the strings of length n in a minimal number of digits of such number. It reminds me of the math problem solved by a 4chan user.

Personally I see std::move more like removing ownership because it’s not explicit from its call where the ownership is transferred.

Even that is a bit suspect, because ownership may well remain with you even after the call, so it's not really removed.

For example, this is perfectly valid C++, and it is guaranteed to have no issue:

  std::string abc = "abc";
  std::move(abc); //doesn't remove ownership or do anything really
  std::print(abc); //guaranteed to print "abc"

Battery life is the best selling point of MacBooks and the reason these are selling like crazy. I’m a full time Linux user and I’m even considering buying a macbook and running a Linux VM full time because of the battery.

Just to be clear this is entirely a response to what I have in the parentheses, right?

Ok, perhaps it is not niche. I don’t know. I have never had to use a laptop for 12 hours without any ability to recharge but if that’s a common use case I’m happy that folks are finding a way to satisfy.

No it's pretty niche. Most people don't have a need for super long battery life.

They certainly aren't in Europe, Africa or Asia, as not everyone has the income to afford Apple prices.

I also have one bought used. It’s the only way to have 4k and 200% scaling on Linux without everything being too big or too small. Size and ppi are perfect but sadly other aspects are becoming really dated (bad colors and contrast, high latency, low refresh rate etc).

Huh. Maybe your particular sample is degrading?

I also have one, and it's holding up pretty well. A month or so ago I broke out my colorimeter and it had almost 100% sRGB at around 120 cd/m2. I don't recall the delta E, but it was very low.

While I didn't measure the backlight, it does seem to not go as bright as before, judging by the levels I set in the OSD. I never went above 70% or so when the sun was shining in the room (not directly on the screen, though), so it didn't have any effect on me.

I understand there are two version, I have the second one. But I don't think there's a difference in the panel itself, I think the change was related to HDMI support.

I can't comment on the latency, the only games I played on it were Civilization and Anno Something. Never had a problem for this.

I have been using P2415Qs for over 10 years by now. Replaced some, bought second hand, had to ship to Dell at one point because of the wake issues (pointless: they never really fixed them), so I know the drill. There are actually 4 versions.

The last new one I bought in 2018 I actually paid the same price for it than when I bought my first one in 2015, so it is one of those few computer accessories that significantly increased in price over its course rather than decrease.

If you cannot see the P2415Q degrading and/or being generally crap in any metric (EXCEPT DPI) when compared to even the non-IPS black Dell monitors from this decade, you are simply blind. They are early HiDPI-revival-era panels, and it shows.

Some of the newer IPS black panels are so good that it is tempting to just take the DPI hit and go 27''... albeit with care as it seems Dell has decided this last year to put some filter that further increases blurriness.

I don't pretend that I have the best vision out there, though I don't think I'm completely blind since I don't run into things. But I actually measured this display, and it's within specs. So maybe both I and my colorimeter are blind? Sure, it's not absolutely impossible, but how likely is it?

I actually have a newer "ips black" dell, an ultrasharp 3223qe and yes, it's much better.

But what I'm saying is that the old one is still good. However, I never pretended it was as good as current models. That's moving goalposts. The initial comment was about the display degrading, so comparing it to itself when new (not even other similar models from that era!). Mine only seems to have become somewhat dimmer, but not enough to matter in my day-to-day use since it's still brighter than I need.

> One naive belief many people have is that proofs should be "intelligible" but it's increasingly clear this is not the case.

That’s one of the main reason why I did not pursue an academic math career. The pure joy of solving exam problems with elegant proofs is very hard to get on harder problems.

Not true, most tools are deterministic. For instance my programming language LSP just works 100% of the time with no failure. It doesn’t hallucinate any types, methods or variables.

Your LSP also can’t do complex reasoning across the purpose of your whole codebase.

Neither LLM can reason about anything.

Reasoning is an human trait.

Whatever you say lol.

The usage of the word "reasoning" in the context of LLMs, just like the "I" in "AI", that's more marketing than a technical reality. I know it can be confusing.

Regardless of semanthics, LLMs + tooling can do impressive things.

For example I can tell LLMs to scan my database schema and compare to code to detect drift or inconsistencies.

And while doing that it has enough condensed world knowledge to point to me that the code is probably right when declaring person.name a non-nullable string despite the database column being nullable.

And it can infer that date_of_birth column is correct in being nullable on the database schema and wrong in code where the type is a non-nullable date because, in my system, it knows date_of_birth is an optional field.

This is a simple example that can be solved by non-LLMs tooling also. In practice it can do much more advanced reasoning with regards to business rules.

We can argue semanthics all day but this is reason enough to be useful for me.

There are many examples I could give. But to the skeptics I recommend trying to use LLMs for understanding large systems. But take your time to give it read only access to data base schema.

Sure, sure.

> Neither LLM can reason about anything.

> Reasoning is an human trait.

Note: this is not directed at the commenter or any person in particular. It is directed at various patterns I've noticed.

I often notice claims like the following:

- human intelligence is the "truest" form of intelligence;

- machines can't reason (without very clearly stating what you mean by reasoning);

- [such and such] can only be done by a human (without clearly stating that you mean at the present time with present technology that you know of);

Such claims are in my view, rather unhelpful framings – or worse, tropes or thought-terminated clichés. We would be wise to ask ourselves how such things persist.

How do these ideas lodge in our brains? There are various shaky premises (including cognitive missteps) that lead to them. So I want to make some general comments that often lead to the above kind of thinking.

It is more important than ever for people to grow their understanding and appreciation. I suggest considering the following.

1. ... recognize that one probably can't offer a definition of {reasoning, intelligence, &c} that is widely agreed upon. Probably the best you can hope for is to clarify the sense of which you mean. There are often fairly clear 'camps' that can easily be referenced.

2. Recognition that implicitly hiding a definition in your claims -- or worse, forcing a definition on people -- doesn't do much good.

3. Awareness that one's language may be often interpreted in various ways by reasonable people.

4. Internalize dictionaries are catalogs of various usage that evolve over time. Dictionaries are not intended to be commandments of correctness, though some still think dictionary-as-bludgeon is somehow appropriate.

3. Acknowledge confusing terminology in AI/LLM in particular. For example, reasonable people can recognize that "reasoning" in this context is a fraught term.

5. Recognition that humanity is only getting started when it comes to making sense of how "intelligence" decomposes, how our brains work, the many nuanced differences between machine intelligence and human intelligence.

6. Recognize one's participation in a social context. Strive to not provide fuel for the fires of misunderstanding. If you use a fraught term, be extra careful to say what you mean.

7. Hopefully obvious: sweeping generalizations and blanket black-or-white statements are unlikely to be true unless you are talking about formal systems like logic and mathematics. Just don't do it. Don't let your thinking fall into that trap. And don't spew it -- that insults the intelligence of one's audience.

8. Generally speaking, people would be wise† to think about upping their epistemic game. If one says things that are obviously inaccurate, you are wasting your intelligence refined over millions of years by evolution and culture. To do so is self-destructive, for it makes oneself less valuable relative to LLMs who (although they blunder) are often more reliable than people who speak carelessly.

† Because it benefits the person directly and it helps culture, civilization, progress, &c

I’m now an iOS user but the problem is actually the same here : apps not respecting communication channels to push ads (mostly to their own app or service). I usually fully block notifications from most apps but for some apps the notifications are really convenient (carpooling, transport or delivery app). Yes I want to know if the train I booked is delayed. No I don’t want to be notified that you are now partnering with another transport company and that you are sharing 5% off coupons to try it… I systematically give a 1 star review explaining the issue and mail the devs if possible. I even think that Apple Store and Play Store ToSs are against this practice but they are not enforcing it sadly…

Worse even because iOS doesn't offer notification groups/channels like Android does (ignoring the fact that market leaders like Uber, DoorDash, etc. eschew them in favor of "General" channels they can pump both delivery/ride info and ads through.)

IMO this needs to be an app guideline enforced by the iOS App Store and Play Store. I remember back in the day, iOS used to be known for having less spammy notifications.

I remember when I first started seeing obvious ads in notifications and assumed Apple would come down hard. I wish I had been right.

If any app abuses the notifications at all I turn them all off, that's the only way to stop it. If the notifications are required for the app's operation, well, then I have to delete the app.

Society has fucked itself over allowing these to exist.

My United Healthcare app told me I had 43 notifications. I just turned it off. There’s literally never a time they need to notify me via a push notification on my phone.

Society has fucked itself over allowing everyone to be dependant on software entirely from two american companies.

20 years ago the idea that I'd have to have an account with an american company so as to be able to interact with so much of my on-another-continent society would be ridiculous!

Now it is the default. It is sad.

Apple doesn’t even follow that guideline (It exists) themselves and is happily using push notifications for ads.

> IMO this needs to be an app guideline enforced by the iOS App Store and Play Store.

Yeah, but... money.

Maybe this matters at the bottom end of the market, but it's mainly the top players I see take this approach to notifications. DoorDash, Uber, and the social media platforms all have incentive to stay on the official app stores.

I expect the bottom end of the market is also dependent on the official app stores to make money. What real alternatives do users have, especially with sideloading on Android now requiring Google bless your APK anyway? (edit: Looks like Google has started to walk this back slightly. Even still. https://android-developers.googleblog.com/2025/11/android-de...)

I chose the hard way and disabled them anyway. If I want to know if a train is delayed, I check. If I wait for a driver, I check. Actually the latter is better as I'm not surprised by the guy arriving but can synchronize well. And frankly, I don't complain.

And every evening or so I sit down on my computer and check WhatsApp notifications on web.whatsapp.com to catch up with what's going on in groups people added me to. I find this quite good for my well-being.

Sadly arm strength and endurance is way worse than legs, this should obviously work with pedals like a bicycle. I would even be ready to buy one to replace my daily commute when working from home.

Fully agree, a set of pedals should be able to power a kitchen machine or other appliances too

Such sites would be illegal if not sharing the header back from the source website and be banned as much as adult websites incorrectly setting this header. It’s not a real problem.

Making them illegal does not fix it. There will be a indefinite whack-a-mole game which is very hard to solve without draconian control over the Internet.

The problem is that it's easy to make, easy to deploy, easy to make money on, and a single site opens up the whole Internet. It will happen even if it's illegal.

Compare this to adult webpages setting the header. They will probably be quite willing to do so, since they want to make their money legally, and there is probably little money in serving to kids anyway. And even if a single out of thousand adult webpages refuses, it still only opens that single site.

It's actually hard to understand on "which" side you're on, but a charitable interpretation is that you're arguing that there are no perfect solutions, hence a simple and minimal non-invasive method will probably have the same effect as a complex and invasive method. That is, both methods will add enough friction that children who don't know what they're missing won't bother and the ones who can't do without, will choose every conceivable method to get around the restrictions.

Worrying about the latter makes no sense, because they are sort of like organized crime. People still take drugs even though they are illegal.