If you want to do anything beyond getting a small single-core speed bump the M5 Pro is a better, more capable purchase. At least until the M7 comes out.
Not weighing in on the privacy issue but using Ollama you can run a smaller agent like Qwen 3.6 35b a3b on a sufficiently potent laptop. Pair it with something like Hermes for a nice interface and you have more than you might need for diary like usage.
My fear is that this is an enhanced virus that was being subjected to gain of function research, making it potentially much more dangerous than bog standard plague.
Rationality is the key point. A lot of devs approach their work in ways that are not rational or practical. Like the dev who wants to build a gold filigree decorated elevator that can handle ten thousand pounds of cargo and moves with the smoothness of a magnetic levitation rail in order to reach the second floor when all you really need is a ladder for the 2 people that will need access.
One line that got me wondering: "...and one group ate their dead relatives’ brains at funerals so consistently that they gave themselves a mad cow type disease called kuru, which killed a large percentage of their population and then, within a few generations, evolved a genetic mutation that protects against it"
I had heard this before but my question now is, did they develop this tradition recently? If it were a historical thing wouldn't that genetic mutation have evolved a long time ago? One would expect that if they had this tradition for a long time the genetic mutation that happened so rapidly would have happened long ago, yet it did not. I'm curious as that thought struck me just now.
CJD develops in about 1/1,000,000 people per year globally, and the Fore people have a population of ~20,000. In theory, that suggests there should be an outbreak within 50 years of the society regularly consuming brain matter. Perhaps that number could be reduced somewhat by the infection rate, but the infection rate seems pretty high, to reach the level it did as fast as it did each person with Kuru needed to infect 1.6 people. Perhaps sporadic CJD isn't as sporadic as we assume, and it's tied to being in environments where others have had CJD? Another possibility is tied to the seeming link between genetics and the infection rate of Mad Cow Disease. Perhaps the population regularly went through boom-bust cycles, where everybody with 2 copies of the recessive gene that makes one more susceptible to transmission gets killed off, then the disease dies off for a long enough time for the carriers to re-introduce their recessive trait back into the gene pool.
At least according to this article[1], you're correct; the practice of eating brains that caused kuru to spread was a recent innovation. However, the article doesn't say how recent. I guess I'd need to go read the actual book, since I can't quickly find anything else on how long this was occurring.
Deprive who of capital? The folks behind Deepseek, Kimi, Qwen, etc. or only the likes of Anthropic and OpenAI? You can wipe out the mosquitos around your house but if you don't get the entire neighborhood you may as well not bother.
But then by describing it you are committing it to a set of conditions this unnameable thing satisfies.
But then if you go beyond a narrow interpretation of that paradox and accept that naming and describing are both accomplishing the same fundamental thing, that being committing a thing to a condition (like a name) or set of conditions (like a description), you do run into the same problem.
Hmm, interesting. Now back to this E2E testing stuff I've been avoiding.
In mathematics, there are infinitely many "computable" numbers. That is, numbers which can be describe using any mathematics available. Then there are far more "non computable" numbers, which can't be described by anything finite.
Names are like variables in a function. you can name variables anything you want from a human understanding point of view (final cause), but the compiler doesnt care about that. The compiler only cares about the efficient cause of that variable in the sense of what it represents (stack/heap etc).
I can tell you that in my case, at least, the real areas of opportunity for something like this come from the masses of people that flood the manager up to senior VP level in a mega-corp. When I'm sitting in a meeting with 8 people and myself and 1 other person are doing most of the work while the rest are vaguely accountable for some metric being reported (we two talk about what's going on, plans, maybe present something completed while the others say "I don't have anything" and the meeting ends, repeat ad nauseum) I start dreaming of what a setup like the one posted here could do. Feels like we could cut at least 50% of our people at those higher levels and stay perfectly efficient and make progress.
Mega corp has too many people who define success by how many reports they have, how many charts they present (prepared by others who are perfectly capable of presenting themselves), how many meetings they sit in and how many reviews they conduct. Automate them away.
reply