Elite early education minimal little long term benefit, people tend to revert to the mean over time. The education system has plenty of slack for intelligent individuals to excel, so play the long game.
Health and wellbeing pay the best dividends as you can maximize the nurture aspect of intelligence early and build resilience against unexpected hardships.
The data doesn’t support that assertion. Elite collages do favor elite high schools, and elite high schools do favor elite middle schools etc but each link in the chain dilutes the impact of the steps further up the chain. Kids have many opportunities to jump up the chain before college and many to fail to keep up with the elite track. Which is why statistically elite preschools have such a minimal impact.
Of course that’s adjusting for the role of the parents which impacts attendance at elite schools but is obviously not impacted by their kids attendance.
I don’t know why humans even bother talking to each other anymore. Go ask AI why your argument is wrong.
I already did it for you: the numbers I gave you are already conditioned on all that. You’re making the false assumption that moving from each tier is a low probability event. It is not. The retention from elite elementary to elite high school is very high. It’s not some hyper improbable funnel.
You didn’t give any numbers, just stated things very confidently without actually reviewing any of the relevant literature.
> the false assumption that moving from each tier is a low probability event
Doesn’t need to be a low probability events, multiply probabilities and the result becomes less likely every single time. And that’s of course ignoring the underlying reasons why the probability at each stage isn’t low in the first place. A smart kid at 6 is unlikely to turn into a dumb kid at 16 etc.
I’d expect there’s many situations where sending a helicopter would be considered too dangerous for the crew, but the lack of medical care on a drone seems like a big limitation.
Drones are not at equal risk in all missions and neither are wounded soldiers in equal need for evacuation. A long list of Americans have died in helicopter accidents while receiving medical transport but a much longer list had their lives saved by those same basic methods.
LLM’s are terrible at following the rules of Chess when playing a game. Determinism isn’t helpful because valid moves are so dependent upon the total state of the board.
Programming state gets way more complicated, but code is generally written to help people understand it greatly simplifying the process. Feed in “cursed” code leveraging obscure language features in creative ways and LLM’s and most people fail.
LLM's on their own might fail, but coding agents will succeed because they will be able to write scripts which simulate the states correctly.
You're right that it's worth considering in the same way as the letter counting tricks, since coding agents can get around that in the same way. But I would say the letter counting has the advantage that it at least is easy for humans.
I am just as interested in making the language hard for LLMs as for LLMs+coding agents though.
LLM's were terrible at chess last year. Today, they can't beat stockfish but they can play competitively with the top 2% of chess players. Next year, who knows.
Look at the “legal %” field on that chart. That’s utter trash even counting per move vs games without errors. Further they outperform vs bots who stick to main lines more than normal players, actual performance vs humans means both lower ELO and more errors.
Note: * = Anchor player (fixed rating, used for calibration)
HOA’s kill any character an area has. The fees more than offset the economic benefits of joining one. The damming economics largely comes down to local governments skipping road maintenance without giving you a discount on your taxes.
Net effect you lose money living in a worse location.
Transmission lines can act like storage when there is PV to the east or west of you. This doesn’t remove the need for storage, but can dramatically reduce it.
The old model of cheap peaking power plants and cheaper base-load power is equivalent to cheap peaking power + cheap but inconsistent green energy. It’s a very complicated optimization problem to work out the optimal mix of locations and quantities to of each, but price signals can help assuming you haven’t completely distorted the market.
Chile still wants transmission north south because in the winter solar closer to the equator has longer days and in the winter solar near the poles does.
Oh boy, you are very naive, ain't you? No country will put their energy stability in hands of their neighbors. Or do you see China, Korea, India and Russia interconnect their grids? What other supranational grids you know of?
Note how there are only 7-8 regional connections spanning multiple countries (counting Europe and North America as one block each). One is there for historical reasons (IPS/UPS, Russia), others for economic integration (post-Soviet) or political affinity. With the exception of one, none are integrated with aggressive countries, and in most cases the distance isn’t far enough for it to become reasonable to do what you think can be done. The US ended up with separate interconnections because a single one proved unstable anyway. Hell, Japan has two networks!
DC links do exist outside those blocks, but they’re bilateral and small. The problem isn’t that it’s technically impossible, it’s that states won’t make their grid reliability depend on a neighbor. Just to point a single case, in 2018 a dispute between Kosovo and Serbia was enough to throw off the frequency of the entire continental European grid. Something being technically possible doesn’t make it practical
The nice thing about maps is they show every country, so you can quickly see how few lack such links. If like tables add up what percentage of countries aren’t tied in with at least one of their neighbors. It’s a short list, even NK is tied to China.
You may discount England but it’s got enough DC links to move a large fraction of demand.
Japan has two networks for historic reasons, but they can move well over 2% of each grid’s average demand to the other. It’s just significantly less efficient but that’s relatively minor vs the other disadvantages of a split 50hz vs 60hz national grid.
You’re trying to apply an arbitrary metric to two radically different process. Suppose you could pay an extra 1,000$ so it fils in 40 seconds vs 4 hours at home (and only at home).
Personally it wouldn’t be worth the money to me because the only thing that matters is the time to plug it in and the time to unplug it.
You’ll get something to show up on schedule but it’s frequently needs to be returned because of a problem on their end. No I don’t accept paying full price for a used product in subpar repair. No I don’t want a convincing fake.
The hassle of even 1 return in 20 isn’t worth faster delivery. Worse even if I just throw away their junk I still need to make a new order.
Needs isn’t quite the right term as AI energy use is way higher than the market actually supports.
A large fraction of AI’s energy use is pure bubble me too redundancy. A long list of companies are doing essentially the same training with essentially the same data. When grok dies all that training goes away independent of any use of AI by consumers.
Similarly, by subsidizing usage with VC funds you get a lot of demand that goes away at market rates.
.png){kind=link}
Stuff you can do for a week doesn’t automatically extend to maintaining that over the next 50 years.
reply