What happens if somebody (maybe anthropic!) uses Claude Code Security to find & fix a vulnerability in some piece of open-source software---openssh, linux kernel, that sort of thing? Can the DoW use the resulting fix?
I want so badly to try and talk you into flying gliders, because it's amazing: way, way more fun (IMO) than the overwhelming majority of the power flying you can do as a civilian. And there are people who make it work! But ... probably this is wise, and better to make thoughtful decision.
It seems like this gets easier as the kids get older; I've seen parents of teenagers make it work. For some folks it's a family affair---several kids & one or both parents learning to fly. These families have been uniformly super fun to have at the field! For others I think it's a matter of the kids being old enough to have some independence, + I'm sure a very supportive partner.
So don't give up on gliders forever! I'm expecting times in my life when I can't get out to the field enough to stay proficient & safe, and I'll have to quit flying for a little---but a dearly hope not forever. It's just that, likewise, now's maybe not the right time for you.
> That's all to say, that I doubt money is as big of an obstacle to getting started in this as you imagine if you prioritized it.
Very much the case! (Well, idk quite what gp imagined, but it's not as expensive as many things.)
When I was learning, around 2020, I budgeted ~$300 / month for glider flying, + ~$600 (I think: they've gone up!) for annual club dues. These days the monthly would be a bit higher, and the dues more like $700-800, I think. Flying as a club member is a lot cheaper than rides; you pay for the tow and for time on the aircraft, but aircraft time is way, way cheaper than power (no fuel to burn, no engine to maintain) and the instructors are volunteers.
NB this is in a club environment. The upside is that it's cheap and the club environment is a really good place to learn by osmosis / watching everybody else / listening to stories / seeing all kinds of different situations. The downside is that it's a huge time commitment. You'll drive 1.5 hrs and hang around all day to get twoish flights, sometimes < 10 min. each. And you have to be willing to commit all of every Saturday (or Sunday) for a year plus: you need to be flying just about every week, and given that some weekends'll be weathered out you have to be ready to take advantage of every flyable weekend. Folks that aren't committed just don't make progress: hang around, season after season, still flying with instructors, until they finally give up or just occasionally grind it out.
(I did the bulk of my training in 2020 and spring/early summer 2021. This was perfect: I was single and newish to the area I was living in, and thanks to Covid I had nothing else going on in my life. Even as things started to reopen in 2021 it was easy to maintain that "saturday? of course I'm at the field" habit.)
This is all harder to do as a Real Adult with responsibilities. Some folks manage to do it, but it's harder. Commercial operations, where you go and get a whole bunch of flying in relatively quickly, are also an option---but I hear there's a wide range of quality, and even the best won't get you the seasoning / airmanship you get from hanging around at the field every weekend for a year, flying in all sorts of conditions and taking advantage of the unofficial ground school from all the other instructor/student pairs there at the same time.
The economics change first once you've got your rating, when you're no longer doing short training flights and the bulk of your flying is (one hopes!) longer soaring flights; and then again when (if) you buy your own glider---but it's still that few thousand bucks / year order of magnitude. Expensive, but doable, especially compared to power.
Gliders themselves range from "surprisingly inexpensive" to "less expensive than a new powered aircraft", more or less. I'd expect to hear something like $5,000 for a Schweizer 1-26 (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Schweizer_SGS_1-26: classic glider, still widely flown by a devoted community, but appreciably lower performance than gliders built after the massive jump that came with the switch to fiberglass); I have a part-share in a Jantar (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/SZD-41_Jantar_Standard, early fiberglass) that totals $25,000 or a little less, with reasonably nice avionics.
So, all told, yes, flying gliders costs a meaningful amount of money, but isn't terribly terribly expensive. The question to ask yourself is really not whether you've got the money, but whether you've got the time.
In relatively recent versions of Anki, you can create nested Cloze deletions: "{{c3::{{c1::foo}}{{c2::bar}}}}" will show you cards "[...]bar", "foo[...]", and "[...]", in that order, all with answers "foobar".
As for multiple choice and q&a---my practice is to make both Cloze and basic cards for, well, most things---Cloze are good for the early steps and for seeing how different pieces fit together, but basic cards are more demanding, and without them I don't quite feel like I've learned a thing.
(FWIW my primary use is physics & the mathematics behind it, not language learning.)
I think that's customary at LessWrong, more or less---if folks write something that's of interest to the community, they'll double-post, blog and forum. Likewise things get cross-posted to the EA forum and maybe other places.
Yes! My last year in grad school, this is part of how I kept my sanity: random little side-projects on which I could make concrete progress in a couple of evenings.
Well, to be fair, you actually also have to put in some numbers, too: masses, mixing angles, coupling constants, and the Higgs vacuum expectation value. (See https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Standard_Model#Construction_of... .) But, yeah, that symmetry description is incredibly powerful.
I'm curious about his use of Runge-Kutta. IANA numerical methods expert, but it seems like this is exactly what symplectic integrators (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Symplectic_integrator) are for. Looks like he gets very good results, but how trustworthy is Runge-Kutta?
From his perspective, of course, using Runge-Kutta makes perfect sense. This is "Huh: I have this tool, and applying it to this problem wouldn't be too hard; would the tool work?", not "I should create a new tool."
It's not clear to me how these warrants are "automatic". FTAmendments:
"a magistrate judge [...] has authority to issue a warrant to use remote access to search electronic storage media [...]" (emphasis mine)
IANAL, though; could someone who knows more explain what's going on? How will the procedure and requirements for obtaining a warrant for such "remote access" differ from those for searching, say, a house?
Edit: as I typed, slapshot posted some helpful explanation.
Seconded. I'd note that while Johnson's memoir (/Kelly/) is more inspiring, I recall there being more meat in Rich's memoir (/Skunk Works/)---more discussion of the technology, organizational dynamics, and interpersonal politics. Both are, as you say, very much worth reading.
As a counterpoint, I have a hard time keeping my focus for more than 45 min. 90-min classes, which I've been having for a good five years now, can be killers.
This is even more true when I'm working on my own: it requires a substantial amount of effort to make it through one 25 min. pomodoro period.
I want a good "what does a LISP programmer need to know about WL?" :-)---or, rather, a nice, conversational tutorial, a "WL for Lisp programmers" that discusses not just the things you need to know, but the underlying philosophical similarities and differences and the pitfalls you're liable to encounter if you try to make the transition.
(I also want an open-source implementation, but it would seem that isn't on the table.)
Oh, man, that bit me so many times, especially when it had to interact with some kind of scoping trick. I read that tutorial (or the equivalent from before the WL), and never really got good intuition for how immediate & delayed evaluation worked and when to use which.
> There might have been higher level ways to do this using functions like Array and Table, but perhaps not.
I was actually using Table, but I was thinking of it as "iterate over these variables". Table's nice, although every once in a while it would break the picture I had in my head of it as "map-over-cartesian-products".
> Plus, I think we have a chance in the next year or two to really leapfrog other languages with some amazing static analysis tools.
Great! Another beef I have with Mathematica (and Scheme, for that matter) is that it doesn't have types: since I learned bits and pieces of Haskell and started using Julia seriously, I've come to love the way a type system can save me from my own stupidity. This is definitely a matter of taste, though.