They likely will lead in compute power in the medium term future, since they’re definitely the country with the highest energy generation capacity at this point. Now they just need to catch up on the hardware front, which I believe they’ve also made significant progress on over the last few years.
What is the progress on that front? People here on HN are usually saying China is very far away from from progress in competitive cpu/gpu space; I cannot really find objective sources I can read; it is either from China saying it is coming or from the west saying its 10+ years behind.
Genetic diversity within continental races, including that of Sub-Saharan Africans, are mostly a consequence of genetic drift.
While genetic diversity between races are from selection. Thus the inter-racial genetic differences are more likely to manifest in trait differences that humans find more meaningful (which I use purely in a descriptive manner, not prescriptive), such as physiological (medical, metabolic), psychological & behavioral (personality), cognitive (intelligence), and of course physical (appearance, athletic).
The intra-racial differences that arise from genetic drift result in things that are still tangible genetic differences, e.g. ABO blood group frequencies, but don't map well onto characteristics that human societies place emphasis on as much.
And to address your point that:
>The genetic diversity of "black" alone exceeds the rest of the world combined.
This is because the level of genetic diversity as influenced by genetic drift is primarily a function of population size, and Africa being the origin of the Homo sapien species, and probably the Homo genus as a whole, has always had the highest level of effective population size. Thus genetic drift in Africans is least likely to be able to cause allele fixation on particular genes, and so such diversity is better preserved. But as already mentioned, these forms of genetic diversity is less likely to impact the observed traits that most humans, both academics/social scientists and your average joe, find "meaningful".
No idea how Fridman manages to bring on the type of high profile guests that he does. Guy does not ask good questions and has the charisma of a wet rag,
Huh, I'm the exact opposite. With the exception of Hannah Fry's work at deepmind (where she acts as a charismatic proxy for the more nerdy guests), he is by far the best interviewer on technical stuff (AI stuff mostly, but some early robotics stuff as well). He knows the field, he asks pertinent questions and more importantly he knows when to just let the speaker speak.
Compared to someone like Dwarkesh, it's night and day. There's a fine line between pushing the guest and just interrupting them every 2nd thought to inject your own "takes".
I think similar to Joe Rogan that's the main value he provides to listeners. He identifies guests that have some veil of intellectualism and provides them with a platform to speak.
However I don't think that makes for an interesting interviewer. There are no challenging questions, only ones he knows will fit into the narrative of what the guest wants to say. I might as well read a 2-3 hour PR piece issued by the guests.
What you call "platforming" I often call "listening to what someone says/thinks". Not every interview needs challenging questions, or to be a battle/debate, and sometimes it's not appropriate (above George Hotz being an example, difference in qualifications being another). But, I enjoy trying to understand someone, quirks and all, especially the human aspect, flaws and all. It's interesting seeing the differences in people.
From what I've seen, people that crave "challenging questions" usually most enjoy activist interviewers that are very strongly aligned with their own (usually political) worldview. I don't think that describes Lex Fridman, or me as a listener, at all, and that's fine.
No, not every interview. But if an interviewee presents fiction/hatred as fact the interviewer should have the ability to call that out or at least caution the reader with a "I don't know about that".
A specific example that comes to mind is Eric Weinstein's appearance on the podcast and letting him talk about his "long mouse telomere experiment flaws" without questions which at that point had been thoroughly debunked.
I find little interesting "human aspect" to be found therein, as it usually boils down to "you are lying (to us/yourself) for your own gain", which isn't novel.
There are podcasts that do a similar long form format well. A great example is the German format "Alles gesagt?" (~="Nothing left unsaid?"), where interesting personalities can talk for however long hey want, but the interviewers ask interesting/dynamic follow up questions, and also have the journalistic acumen/integrity to push back on certain topics (without souring the mood).
> letting him talk about his "long mouse telomere experiment flaws" without questions
This requires that the interviewer is as knowledgable as the interviewee (the qualification problem I mentioned). Unless the questions and answers are known ahead of time, it won't be possible to know everything an interviewee will say. Assuming this is the case, how should he have handled that response? Should he not interview people outside of his own expertise? I think one way would be "is there any disagreement?" but then you're left with the same problem.
I think Lex Fridman not knowing much about the history/current state of rat telomere research is entirely reasonable. I think a requirement of knowing the entire context of a person is not reasonable. I also don't think it's reasonable to believe everything you hear in an interview, from either human. "Charitable interoperation, but verify" is a good way to take in information.
I'm fine with opinionated people who have lived in broadly along the socio economic ladder. Atleast their opinions are grounded across a richer experience of life. Rather than just growing up upper middle to wealthy and saying you dropped out of college to make YC funded startup.
No disrespect to founders who do get there, it's certainly an accomplishment. But I'd rather listen to loud erratic Netflix engineer Dr disrespect.
Guests don't care about charisma, they care who your previous guests were. He early on got Elon Musk as a guest (AFAIK by writing a paper that was overly favorable to Tesla) and managed to snowball that into a big podcast.
Also guests agreeing to go on your show means they already want to talk about something, so in a way it's more important to shut up than ask good questions.
If you do not know of a single Wikipedia article that you judge to be politically biased, then that says more about you and your gullibility than it does about me.
The point is not that Wikipedia is completely unbiased. That's an obvious impossibility - for any encyclopedia.
The point is that accusations of "noticeable bias on any topic that has political implications" is the kind of accusation made by someone simply trying to sow distrust in information, writ large. It's increasingly common.
BuzzFeed, Salon and PinkNews being used as reliable sources should be everything you need to know about WP.
Or read some of the more critical viewpoints against the Wikipedia editor bureaucracy (that shields itself with a laughable "Anybody can edit Wikipedia! We don't exist! Don't look at the man behind the curtain") like https://www.tracingwoodgrains.com/p/reliable-sources-how-wik...
Small aside, it's a fun coincidence I (finally!) saw Brazil for the first time a week ago...
Again, can you find articles using some of these "unreliable" sources (I don’t know Salon or PinkNews, and I know that BuzzFeed News actually had pretty good articles back then) to promote biased content?
Just looking at the front page of PinkNews, the content appears sourced and factual. A media being oriented (LGBT in this case) doesn’t necessarily mean it’s biased or lying. Taking this article as an example[1], I see no reason why it shouldn’t be used as a Wikipedia source.
Completely biased in language, which matters because the bias can and will be added verbatim to Wikipedia articles
The bias is that: how do you handle the fact that any man could claim to be a woman and be housed with women? Especially when the issue is compounded by those numbers on rape they're reporting? Do you build special quarters in every prison? For the 47 individuals in 50~70k detainees? Be realistic and have a more balanced view of the matter.
I think the "bias blindness" of WP is a weapon selectively applied to one side and should be removed in favour of sources that at least pretend neutrality. The problem is obviously that you almost have no source left, then; at least in the political/ideological domain.
> how do you handle the fact that any man could claim to be a woman and be housed with women?
Does it happen? What’s wrong with handling it on a case by case basis? Is "some men could lie" more important than "incarcerating trans females with men will get them raped"? I’m assuming real trans people can be detected pretty easily: do they look like the opposite gender? Are they on HRT (boobs on men and beard on women are pretty clear giveaways that they’re actually trans)? Did they present as the opposite gender before being incarcerated?
> Do you build special quarters in every prison? For the 47 individuals in 50~70k detainees?
I don’t know, what’s wrong with debating it? Is it that weird to think some population should get a different treatment if they’re wayyy more at risk of getting raped, or worse?
Sounds to me like "a bias towards humanity" is unacceptable
For example, look up Tremaine Carroll and Karen White. Both of them men who claimed to be women, were transferred to women's prisons based on policy that allows "gender identity" to override sex, then raped and sexually assaulted female prisoners who were locked up with them.
The whole reason we have sex-segregated prisons is to prevent imprisoned women from being subjected to male predation and violence. Letting men into women's prisons because these men claim to be women completely undermines this.
Yes, there is no source code in here. This is their scripts / tooling / prompts repo. The actual code that powers their CC terminal CLI does not exist anywhere on their public GitHub
It is available on npm but it’s a wasm file last I checked. You also don’t need it to find their endpoints, people are just seeing what networks calls are made when they use Claude Code and then try to get other agents to call those endpoints.
The hard part is that they have an Anthropic-compatible API that’s different than completion/responses.
Very nice, BAML looks useful. Building an agentic app right now, and trying to get agents to respond with structured output definitely makes me feel uneasy. So looking forward to trying this out.
So why bother with the earlier hypocritical pretence bringing up torture and murder? Just straight up say you approve of the move because a new U.S. stooge in Venezuela would be better for US geopolitical interests.
Haha, ouch. I promise it’s just me—I just spent 20 minutes rewriting that comment because I didn't want to sound like an idiot explaining search to a search engineer. I'll take it as a sign to dial back the formatting next time.
I need to switch my home network to at least use IPv6 externally, because my ISP recently deployed CG-NAT, which made my SSH server that used to work no longer reachable from outside of my LAN.
reply