As someone who has struggled with social anxiety over the years and has thought about this a lot, I have some thoughts.
It's all nice to imagine everyone talking to each other, but the reality is that in (western?) society, we have kinda collectively decided that socialisation is to be avoided. Either it's too weird, too boring, or too unsafe. I mean have you tried randomly talking to people? Most don't seem very open to it.
Also it doesn't help that the little "pretext" scenarios that can lead to socialising are being systematically eliminated from our lives.
And finally, if you're neurodivergent or otherwise aren't perfectly typical, enjoy people thinking you're weird anyway.
Yes, there is a pervasive anxiety around strangers and impromptu socializing among younger millennials and Gen Z particularly in North America and parts of Europe, and across age groups in certain subcultures. There are lots of causes for this, but this phenomenon is neither as entrenched nor as universal as you might think and the dangers are basically infinitesimal (zero for all intents and purposes). If you are respectful and mindful of how you engage, the overwhelming majority of people will at worst ignore you. Which sucks, yes, but more than likely they won't even do that, i.e. they'll probably reciprocate
I agree re the pretext scenarios disappearing and re neurodivergence adding extra challenges.
RE the former: there are lots more of these pretext scenarios than you might realize
RE the latter, I realize it's not your point but for what it's worth, you won't really be able to tell in most cases that someone on the street or wherever is or isn't nd. Meaning: there's a good chance that the person you are talking to is nd themselves. Lots of us are pros at masking
In general though i would say to be careful when generalizing about human behavior in a way that causes you to implement and enforce rules / limitations on your own behavior in response. This is unavoidable, right? And yes, there's often an nd component to this. But especially as you get older, these can start to calcify and limit you in increasingly destructive ways
Genuine question: what if the recovery asks for a 2nd factor that's e.g. the device which you lost? Is that common?
Personally I don't really trust companies to not do a whoopsie and permanently lock you out when you lose credentials. Especially when the company is big or hard to access in person.
For someone like me who already uses a password manager for everything, passkeys seem to add no security while reducing usability and control.
> For someone like me who already uses a password manager for everything, passkeys seem to add no security while reducing usability and control.
One advantage of passkeys is that they’re phishing resistant. They’re bound to the website that you created them for, it’s impossible to use them for a different website.
> Genuine question: what if the recovery asks for a 2nd factor that's e.g. the device which you lost? Is that common?
Instagram does something similar. If you have no logged in device and you reset your password, good luck getting in, cuz it wants you to log in a device "it recognizes" else it won't let you log in.
Ok I don't really care either way but to play devil's advocate, what exactly is this specific challenge of adding numbers with a transformer model demonstrating/advancing? The pushpack from people, albeit a little aggressive, does have a grain of truth. We're demonstrating that a model which uses preexisting addition instructions can add numbers? I mean yeah you can do it with arbitrarily few parameters because you don't need a machine learning model at all. Not exactly groundbreaking so I reckon the debate is fair.
Now if you said this proof of addition opens up some other interesting avenue of research, sure.
>what exactly is this specific challenge of adding numbers with a transformer model demonstrating/advancing?
Well for starters, it puts the lie to the argument that a transformer can only output examples it has seen before. Performing the calculation on examples that haven't been seen demonstrates generalisation of the principles and not regurgitation.
While this misconception persists in a large number of people, counterexamples can always serve a useful purpose.
Are people usually claiming that it strictly cannot produce any output it hasn't seen before? I wouldn't agree, I mean clearly they are generating some form of new content. My argument would be that while they can learn to some extent, the power of their generalisation is still tragically weak, particularly in some domains.
But it does not, right? You can either show it something, or modify the parameters in a way that resemble the result of showing it something.
You can claim that the model didn't see the thing, but that would mean nothing, because you are making the same effect with parameter tweaks indirectly.
Iteratively measuring loss is a way to reconstruct values. That's trivial to show for a single value If 5 gives you a loss of 2 and 9 gives you a loss of 2 then you know the missing value is 7.
A model with enough parameters can memorise the training set in a similar manner. Technically the model hasn't seen that data by direct input either, but the mechanism provides the means to determine the what the data was. In that respect it is reasonable to say the model has seen the data.
Performing well on examples not in the training set is doing something else.
Any attempt to characterise that as having been seen before negates any distinction between taking in data and reasoning about that data.
I still do no see any causal link from the test set. When was this observed, how and by whom?
Are you trying to say that the person who entered the parameters had access to the test set? I find it more likely that they encoded the generalising rule than observed every instance of its use.
>I find it more likely that they encoded the generalising rule..
Look, I am saying that during training the model ends up "learning" the generalising rule from training data, but here it was explicitly entered into it, with out any training.
Ad blockers don't work anymore, at least not with the version YT serves me. If it thinks that I have an ad blocker active (false positives happen too), it will only show a black rectangle and not even load the comments.
On PC, I use Firefox with the uBlock Origin extension and I see no ads on Youtube.
Same with my pocket supercomputer: Firefox works great on Android, including for Youtube. And it uses extensions like the PC version does. No ads there, either.
On the BFT in the living room, I have a Google-manufactuered Google TV device. It runs SmartTube, and displays no ads on Youtube.
I even have an iPad that I use primarily for watching Youtube videos. For that, I stay completely within the confines of the walled garden and use Safari with the AdBlock add-on. And: If you're guessing that I'm about to write that have no ads on Youtube there either, then you're right. There's no ads on Youtube with that device, either.
Am I doing this wrong?
Maybe my perspective differs from that of some others, but it seems to all work very well for me here in 2026. (There's been some ups and downs with this over the years, but it all finds its way back to exactly what I wrote above, anyway.)
I also use Firefox with uBlock Origin. It worked flawlessly until some time this January. It happened with the switch to a new version of the video player which changed the design and behaviour. I'd be curious if you're still on the old version or something else is different.
Roughly in that timeframe YT also successfully blocked downloads with yt-dlp for a bit. Seems like they're trying harder now because of AI scrapers.
And that's about it. I recently pruned some other Firefox extensions while troubleshooting ompletely unrelated issues, and all that's left is uBlock Oorigin, Dark Reader, and BitWarden.
Seriously, I've had no recent issues with Youtube ads at all and certainly none in January or February of this year. It's been smooth-enough for me on all of the platforms I mentioned before (and I use them all quite a lot, except perhaps for the BFT).
try firefox, librewolf, waterfox, chromium. In these browsers I had ublock origin (lite for chromium), adguard and NoScript (And/Or Privacy Badger) on my phone and PC, I didn't see any ads at all. I use the unhook and enhancer extensions with them)
Sure it's technically always a choice, but because society exists, some options are dramatically more plausible than others.
For example, say phones become more and more locked down and invasive. Technically you can choose not to have a phone, but how are you meant to function in today's society without a phone? Basically everything of importance assumes you have a phone. Technically you could make your own phone, I guess, but that's very difficult.
I don't think you can reasonably make the argument that because technically everyone can make their own choices, we should be ok with whatever status quo in society.
I know, the expectation of phones and "just install our app" sucks, but it's easier than the alternatives for most people.
I don't think we should be ok with the status quo, and I think complaining about issues can be a catalyst for change, but rather than just complain about the state of affairs, I'm pointing out that alternatives exist, so it's on us to enact change.
TBH, I'm pessimistic about my words making a difference, but I want to promote independent/DIY mindset anyway. It's ironic that the frontier LLMs are proprietary platforms, yet they're enabling more independence to their users. Regardless, if everything goes to shit, we can still opt out and go back to the previous generation's lifestyle. No mobile phones and moving at the speed of snail mail doesn't sound all that bad, though I'd sure miss Google Maps.
Its not a boolean choice. How often, and how you use a phone matters as well. While I am no stranger to screen time, my phone sees very limited and specialized use. I look at the weather, I talk to my car, I text when I am away from my desks. I am not using my phone now.
"Basically everything of importance assumes you have a phone" -- this is far from the truth in my world. It seems that how one uses a modern smartphone shapes one's world view of what's valued and what's possible.
When I visit my parents, I often fly to the major airport a hundred miles or so from them and take a bus from the airport to their town. There used to be a desk in the bus station attached to the airport where you could buy tickets, ask the clerk when the next bus to your destination was, etc. A few years ago they got rid of the desk and have a sign with a QR code to download an app that gives schedules and let's you buy tickets. There is no other way to ride the buses now. This is just one example of how there's an assumption of "everyone has a smart phone" these days.
Well said. I wonder about this too in my city (Australia). Apparently many people think "living the dream" is having an excessively large copy-pasted house in a copy-pasted suburb in the middle of nowhere, with no amenities, no green/community space, and you have to drive for an hour to get anywhere. It sounds like a dystopian lifestyle to me.
Or, you could live in a somewhat smaller residence where you actually have access to the things that make life good. But god forbid there's a train nearby that increases the sound by 10dB every 10 minutes and brings in all those dodgy (i.e. working class) people! Grrr functional society makes me angry!!
Could it be possible that what makes life good is subjective and people have different enjoyments and hobbies?
Having space for a woodworking shop or a large garden or a backyard pool or any other such things bring joy to some people. Not everyone wants to live in an apartment in Manhattan.
This is a strange opinion to me and I guess it's just "the divide". The things that make life good to me, of the things that change with home location, are peace/quiet, privacy, safety, meditative aspects, nature, space to host and play and have kids run around. Hearing that a city block contains "the things that make life good" is kind of baffling. Driving time is suboptimal but it's nowhere near an hour and it's worthwhile.
The suburbs I'm talking about do not really have nature or space to play. They are by no means rural, but endless seas of identical streets and houses. They are basically the worst of both worlds (no nature and no accessibility), with the advantage of a little extra space. And often they don't have shops either because again, they're so far from anything. Just sad places in my opinion.
Also, there is such thing as medium density, in between "city block" and "endless houses". No one seems to want to acknowledge this exists and may be a good option. I'm fortunate to live in a medium density area and I think it's very pleasant. It is absolutely not a city block but there's a train station 1 minute away and a local shopping/community precinct 10 minutes away (by walking). A decent amount of green space, and it seems to be popular with couples and small families. But suburbs like this seem to be rare and that's my point.
Nah I'm a C++ (ex?) enthusiast and modules are cool but there's only so many decades you can wait for a feature other languages have from day 1, and then another decade for compilers to actually implement it in a usable manner.
I am fine with waiting for a feature and using it when it's here.
But at this point, I feel like C++ modules are a ton of complexity for users, tools, and compilers to wrangle... for what? Slightly faster compile times than PCH? Less preprocessor code in your C++.. maybe? Doesn't seem worth it to me in comparison.
On one hand I can see where you can draw this argument from. But on the other hand I don't think daily consumption of the huge quantity of news that exists is necessary for having a decent political opinion, especially given that most news is inflammatory junk (at least in my country). I just don't need a 5 page breakdown of every single event that some corpo decided to shove down our throats.
Also - and maybe I'm naive for this - I don't really need news to inform my political opinion because the current state of affairs is so far from my ideal world. Like no matter what could reasonably occur in the news, I still know who I'm voting for on polling day.
If you look at enough cheapo/handmade circuit boards you'll notice they often look like the bottom one. Cramped, untidy, or otherwise odd trace layout, poor part placement, poor soldering. The top one - although looking less space efficient because there's more going on - is layed out better. The design just flows in a way amateur designs don't.
It's all nice to imagine everyone talking to each other, but the reality is that in (western?) society, we have kinda collectively decided that socialisation is to be avoided. Either it's too weird, too boring, or too unsafe. I mean have you tried randomly talking to people? Most don't seem very open to it.
Also it doesn't help that the little "pretext" scenarios that can lead to socialising are being systematically eliminated from our lives.
And finally, if you're neurodivergent or otherwise aren't perfectly typical, enjoy people thinking you're weird anyway.
reply