Look! It's a vibe-coded version of the Godel Escher Bach "strange loop."

I taught high school math for years. Toward the end, my students consistently outperformed everyone else in my school district. Basically what I'm saying is I've actually taught, extensively, and successfully.

The fact of the matter is, you're dead wrong. A huge room of 25 teens is just not going to behave how you think or want them to. Until you've spent a few years in a classroom, you just don't have a clear mental picture of how managing teens works.

Locking the phones up is exactly what needs to happen. The next thing that needs to happen is for people like you to shut the hell up.

I think there's a bit of a misunderstanding here.

If I work real-hard digging a ditch and filling it back up in my back yard every weekend, I'm not magically getting rich because I "worked real hard." My boss isn't going to say "good job digging that ditch at home and filling it right back up." Hard work in and of itself means nothing. However, many activities that do lead to wealth, or at least definitely help get wealth, require a lot of hard work and persistence. For example, most professional middle class jobs like accountancy, law, software engineering, teaching, nursing, medicine, etc, require a ton of work to master. And when you've mastered a skill like that, it's definitely a lot easier to get wealth, even if it's not guaranteed. Similarly, running a small business is a ton of work (even if it could go under). Climbing the ranks of a corporation is a lot of hard work (even if you could get side-lined, passed over, or stuck).

But it's also possible to bust your butt at a dead-end-job for nothing. Jacob in the Bible gives a pretty serious scolding to his uncle since he was basically put in this exact situation. He busted his butt, but his boss kept changing his salary. In Jacob's case, God looked after him, but otherwise he would have worked hard for nothing.

I think the olde social contract was that if you work hard for your employer, they will reward you hard work with more salary, promotions, etc. That idea, though, does seem to be dead.
 

What kills it for me is it's more expensive. They want to charge a "premium' for not killing the environment or being healthy or whatever. To be blunt, if I could get the double cheese burger for $0.50 off (a reverse up-charge) I would probably go for it. But I'm not paying a "premium" for an inferior tasting product. And I really don't understand how pressed beans actually costs more than a beef patty.

Now plant based meat that costs half price the real thing would make a killing.

I agree base 2 seems most natural in this context. Of course, if we do use different bases it just re-scales the growth by a constant factor via the base change formula, so I think it's probably just ignored for that reason (see first link). As for my notation, if you look under the section Using Common Logarithms in the OpenStax textbook section (see second link), you'll see a discussion on the meaning of "log" in the context of the common logarithm. Usually in math log is the common log, or base 10. But in computer science, sometimes log means log base 2. If you look at the article that talks about the new algorithm, you'll notice they just use log too. Since it's also about computer science, they may have meant base 2, but I'm not sure. Eitherway, I don't think it matters since it just re-scales by a constant factor anyway. Strangely, lb(x) sometimes means log base 2 (binary log) and lg referred to the common log. Ew.

https://cs.stackexchange.com/q...

https://openstax.org/books/pre...

I accidentally switched to y's, that should have read x\logx / x\log(x)^{2/3} = log(x)^{1/3}.

Okay I'll bite. I didn't spend a lot of time proof reading this and re-thinking it, but I think it works. Anyway, it's sketchy to say "for which" values of v and e, since the growth rate is asymptotic. But approximately for any particular implementation, we just set the growth rates equal.

Taking the complexities from:

https://arxiv.org/abs/2504.170...

We get that the two equalize at:

mlog(n)^{2/3}n = m + nlog n

If we switch m for y and n for x, and solve for y, we can write y as a function of x as:

y= \frac{y\log(y)}{y\log(y)^{2/3} - 1}

Which you can copy-paste into Desmos to see the approximate curve along which the two algorithms equalize. To see the behavior as the number of vertices increases without bound, you just take the quotient of the leading terms, which gives y\logy / y\log(y)^{2/3} = log(y)^{1/3}. So asymptotically, the new algorithm wins when the number of edges is less than the cubed root of the log of the number of vertices. But I really didn't carefully read everything so take that with a grain of salt.

> Satire only hits the spot when it's somewhat based in reality.
>
> I think the problem is that your lack of experience with Linux is preventing you from recognizing what's funny and what's just incorrect...

>Here again... why would you set a TERMINAL text editor like Nano to be your default GUI based text editor?

First, let me be clear that Ubuntu/Mint/etc are perfectly usable. Modern Linux distros can be as easy or easier than Windows. My commentary is about older distros and why they didn't gain traction.

You seem to have made my point for me. In response to saying older Linux is overly complex, I was pointed to Nano. When I performed a search for basic Nano use, the first results launched immediately into various options like what I cited. At no point did either source mention a distinction between terminal based applications and GUI based ones in the context of Linux. So in an attempt to rebuff my statement Linux can be complicated, you've simply resorted to saying I'm not experienced enough to tell the difference between terminal and GUI system. As if mainstream users are supposed to eagerly learn the distinction so they can use Linux. So instead of rebuffing me successfully, you've just further hammered home my point. Can you imagine an average computer user trying to figure out Nano, and tech support rebuffs "Oh well you need to know the difference between terminal based programs and GUI ones." Now modern systems like Mint and Ubuntu are perfectly usable. But older systems? I've flat-out ran Linux distros that when installed out of the box don't even have a windowing system (one must be installed via a terminal). I don't think the average computer user has an abstract enough grasp of computers to realize their windowing system is itself an application.

I asked ChatGPT to generate a set of satirical commands that poke fun at how basic tasks that can be complex on Linux. So it wasn't a hallucination, it was intended as satire.

I shared the instructions below in a separate post, but I'll share them here too. Below are the commands to set Nano as the default editor from geeksforgeeks, and they're real. In Windows this can be accomplished by right clicking a text file, selecting properties, and pushing the "change default program" button. On Linux, we get to enter the joys of environment variables and editing shell profiles through the command line. You cannot seriously tell me with a straight face this garbage would ever reach mainstream adoption. I'm being harsh with my rhetoric, but I've seen way too many "oh geesh really it's easy!" posts that are really just attempts to say "it's easy for ME because I'm super smart." As if everyone will gasp and proclaim "wow, that person thinks this hard thing is easy, they must be uber!" Sorry, but that isn't helpful. To be less condescending toward Linux, the reality is many Linux distros are designed for software developers, not mainstream users. The command line stuff is useful because it makes it easy to automate various tasks and integrate different programs, which is what is needed for servers. But it's complicated because it's designed to integrate with serious software engineering workflows, not the daily needs of an office worker. So anyone who thinks it's "super easy" is either truly suffering from the curse of knowledge, or show-boating. And I think when it comes to Linux, often it's a young guy trying to show-boat. Anyway, here are the instructions to set Nano as the default text-editor:

"""Here's how to set nano as the default editor in the command line:

                Open your terminal
                Edit your shell profile (usually .bashrc for bash). You can use nano itself to edit this file:

nano ~/.bashrc

                Add the following lines to the end of the file:

export EDITOR="nano"
export VISUAL="nano"

                EDITOR is the most commonly used environment variable for the default editor.
                VISUAL is a fallback variable used by some programs. Setting both ensures wider compatibility.

Save the changes and exit the editor (usually Ctrl+O to save, Ctrl+X to exit).

Refresh your shell configuration to apply the changes. You can do this by either restarting your terminal window or running:

source ~/.bashrc """

https://www.geeksforgeeks.org/...

It's fantastically accurate. Linux historically pandered to egos, not just good design. There's a thrill of typing up a complicated looking command and getting an impressive cascade of text that's moving too fast to read, while fantasizing about everyone in the coffee shop being impressed. Thus, a great many tasks that could have been easy to perform were hidden behind esoteric and non-obvious commands for the sole purpose of creating an intellectual moat. "Oh he's got shades and Linux, must be one of those super hackers!" And while I'm burning karma to speak the truth anyway, this fact frankly applies to EMACS to some extent.

Ubuntu/Mint started to move Linux to mainstream when it focused on being a good, usable OS. It included wild, progressive ideas like having a web browser built-in, or allowing the user to install a program without knowing how to push around a g++ compiler. Don't get me wrong, I'd rather develop on a Linux box than Windows, but I'm also not a GNU extremist that thinks my spread-sheet program needs to be delivered in .cpp files. Just to make my point, here are the actual steps to set Nano as the default text-editor. On Windows, this can be accomplished by right clicking a text-file, selecting properties, and hitting the "change default program" button. On Linux we need to:

"""Here's how to set nano as the default editor in the command line:

        Open your terminal
        Edit your shell profile (usually .bashrc for bash). You can use nano itself to edit this file:

nano ~/.bashrc

        Add the following lines to the end of the file:

export EDITOR="nano"
export VISUAL="nano"

        EDITOR is the most commonly used environment variable for the default editor.
        VISUAL is a fallback variable used by some programs. Setting both ensures wider compatibility.

Save the changes and exit the editor (usually Ctrl+O to save, Ctrl+X to exit).

Refresh your shell configuration to apply the changes. You can do this by either restarting your terminal window or running:

source ~/.bashrc """

https://www.geeksforgeeks.org/...

What always kept Linux from gaining mainstream adoption is that many features were just intended to stoke egos. Post-Ubuntu/Mint, things have changed for the better. I think programmers fantasized about everyone thinking they're-super smart with their text command interfaces. Thus, instead of providing a simple text-editor, the user was required to engage in a lengthy ritual to get anything working. Not because it was needed, but because it made the users feel super 1337. The following is a fairly accurate set of commands required to create a simple text document in an older Linux system, which may or may not have been written by AI:

#!/usr/bin/env bash
set -euo pipefail

# Step 1: Invoke the Partition Ordinance to delineate storage boundaries
sudo fdisk --create --primary /dev/sda

# Step 2: Ratify the Ext4 Filesystem Decree on the newly defined partition
sudo mkfs.ext4 --force /dev/sda1

# Step 3: Establish the Mountpoint Sanctuary for operational readiness
sudo mkdir -p /mnt/working_volume
sudo mount /dev/sda1 /mnt/working_volume

# Step 4: Summon the Text Daemon under strict supervision
sudo systemctl start textd.service

# Step 5: Audit Daemon Activation via journaling mechanism
sudo journalctl -u textd.service --since "5 seconds ago" --no-pager

# Step 6: Acquire a Dedicated Text Session with the daemon
textctl session --create default_session

# Step 7: Instantiate Document Buffer within the session context
textctl buffer --new --name official_document

# Step 8: Assign Buffer to the Sanctified File Path
textctl buffer --save-as /mnt/working_volume/official_document.txt

# Step 9: Transition into Composition Protocol
textctl edit --enter --mode composition

# Step 10: Authoritative Text Composition (meticulous attention required)
# [Insert your meticulously crafted text here]

# Step 11: Securely Exit Composition Protocol
textctl edit --exit

# Step 12: Commit and Broadcast Document Finalization
textctl buffer --commit --notify all

# Step 13: Dismount the Volume to preserve systemic integrity
sudo umount /mnt/working_volume

# Step 14: Conclude Text Daemon Operation
sudo systemctl stop textd.service

# Step 15: Declare Protocol Completion with Official Affirmation
echo "Protocol complete. Document available at /mnt/working_volume/official_document.txt"

This is very much new. The screwflies made it through the containment gap that has held them back for a generation. They are moving north toward the US again, and fast.

After a few rounds of docked online Knockout Tour, when I switch to portable mode my Switch 2 is pretty warm. I'm fairly confident that an unregulated dock market would result in plentiful burned out Switch 2's. This would then incite the ire of Slashdot over expensive Switch 2's burning out, even though it would have been an issue with the dock's cooling system. And I'm sure the EU would still find a way to fine Nintendo infinity billion dollars over it. Realistically, it probably is better to have docks cleared with Nintendo to make sure they handle the cooling properly.

The diathesis-stress model suggests that mental health issues arise based on a combination of genetic factors and environmental ones. So you are correct that there was likely an underlying issue. However, we can identify and control environmental risks, which can improve outcomes for those at risk. For example, someone with high blood pressure problems should limit salt intake. Can a healthy person use salt? Sure, it's harmless. But it's especially bad for certain people. Social media is now a known risk factor for anxiety, depression, self-harm, etc, especially for at risk teenagers. It took time for the evidence to build up for that, and now it's looking like AI has its own risk factors.

The sole purpose of a business is to make profits, but as with all human endeavors that is bound by ethics. Unfortunately, a lot of psychopaths seem to think that free-market is this magical place where unethical behavior is suddenly acceptable. Islam specifically has rulings about business - first that businesses have a right to earn a profit, but also that they shouldn't overcharge. Christianity, similarly, has admonishments for unethical business practices. In fact, one famous story involved Jesus flipping the table of people who tried to maximize profits unethically. So no, businesses are NOT free to just "maximize profits" without question.