I wish this were organized according to suggested/logical reading order. For example, the paper introducing the attention mechanism probably ought to precede "attention is all you need".
<button type="button"
class="download-hover"
href="https://github.com/zellij-org/zellij/releases/latest/download/zellij-x86_64-unknown-linux-musl.tar.gz" rel="nofollow">https://github.com/zellij-org/zellij/releases/latest/downloa...'">
linux download
</button>
Screaming into the void, I guess, but PSA. Don't use buttons for links. In my case, I couldn't right-click and copy the URL, but there are a lot of other reasons not to do this.
Strange article. Why is Go the best language for agents instead of, say, Python? Here are the points the author seems to make:
---
# Author likes go
Ok, cool story bro...
# Go is compiled
Nice, but Python also has syntax and type checking -- I don't typically have any more luck generating more strictly typed code with agents.
# Go is simple
Sure. Python for a long time had a reputation as "pseudocode that runs", so the arguments about go being easy to read might be bias on the part of the author (see point 1).
Is that a big deal if you don't need to build binaries at all?
# Agents know Go
Agents seem to know python as well...
---
Author seems to fall short of supporting the claim that Go is better than any other language by any margin, mostly relying on the biases they have that Go is a superior language in general than, say, Python. There are arguments to be made about compiled versus interpreted, for example, but if you don't accept that Go is the best language of them all for every purpose, the argument falls flat.
I have a Ph.D. in a field of mathematics in which complex numbers are fundamental, but I have a real philosophical problem with complex numbers. In particular, they arose historically as a tool for solving polynomial equations. Is this the shadow of something natural that we just couldn't see, or just a convenience?
As the "evidence" piles up, in further mathematics, physics, and the interactions of the two, I still never got to the point at the core where I thought complex numbers were a certain fundamental concept, or just a convenient tool for expressing and calculating a variety of things. It's more than just a coincidence, for sure, but the philosophical part of my mind is not at ease with it.
I doubt anyone could make a reply to this comment that would make me feel any better about it. Indeed, I believe real numbers to be completely natural, but far greater mathematicians than I found them objectionable only a hundred years ago, and demonstrated that mathematics is rich and nuanced even when you assume that they don't exist in the form we think of them today.
Curious to know what makes this "a proper VT100 implementation in the browser, not a JavaScript approximation of one" -- isn't Ghostty also an approximation, just implemented in a different language? Seems unnecessarily pejorative to me.
The initial board position is certainly reachable (and reached in every game!), but there are only 20 legal moves available: the 16 legal pawn moves for White, and the 4 legal knight moves for White.