As someone who definitely gets worked up when there’s a timer (still got all 18; top 1% really? Might be good to show a rough number of total players), I don’t really get it without a timer.
I am with the people asking for a scramble/ shuffle button. I have to do anagrams all the time in cryptic crosswords and sometimes it requires seeing things in a totally different order to unlock the answer.
>who is this written for, and what do they want to see happen
It's at wespoint.edu. The US military has a long and proud history of really good thinkers writing insightful and important pieces the government then ignores. My outsider impression has always been there was a freedom of ideas there. Don't get used to it though as Pete Hesgeth is fixing it fast as he can.
Always fighting the last war. But wait until you see how the next generation of our drones fails in a future war!
Being less flip, the pull quote suggests (per my bias) our drone design is as much influenced by how much shit contractors can sell to put on a drone as it is by tactical needs. The kinds of targets that would require one ton of explosive are fixed sites that have been specifically hardened against attack. You'd hope some modern McArthur would look at the situation and say, "Screw it, we will just go around those sites and bomb the hell out of their supply lines with tiny drones", but what the hell do I know?
Sure, but can we not work out how to make humans more efficient for less money? There are obvious optimizations there that none of us would like to be part of.
That's my question reworded: she wound up being in charge of this particular sinking ship at this particular point in time. Did she hole it below the waterline personally or no?
Why villainize her specifically? Seems like the whole division has been in limbo for a decade. Maybe there are good reasons, I am uninformed on the matter, but hesitant whenever a woman gets run over in tech fora.
Thanks for calling this out (long with others here). I am just starting in on it but had to come back to say thanks and call this out,
> We have replicated the core claims on Qwen 3.6 27B, and also share preliminary evidence of extending this work by finding abstract "interpretative meta-tokens", like Chinese characters for "what does this mean" that seem to activate and play a causal role on processing ambiguous sentences
Not sure if I am picking up what they are putting down, but if LLMs are using symbols to try to encode squishy concepts from human language into consistent, meaningful “tokens”, that sounds really interesting. In every long-term, successful use of AI, I hear echoes of The Zen of Python, “Explicit is better than implicit.” I try like hell to do it, but it’s far too easy to be lazy with AI.
Man, doctors thought they had it bad before. For just a six yards I can play Peter Thiel at home! $6k invested so I can set an AI in YOLO mode to tell me I have some hyper-specific version of kennel cough?
“But that occurs in dogs?”
“You’re right. Let me look into actual gene sequencing instead of just guessing. I think the N is the load bearing letter.”
HackerSmacker profile: https://www.hackersmacker.org/user/tclancy?hs=aAP6eDSvujn7LtWK2W