Take with a grain of salt.

Observation:

1. Chess engines during development only play against themselves, so they use a relative ELO system that is detached from the FIDE ELO. https://github.com/official-stockfish/Stockfish/wiki/Regression-Tests#normalized-elo-progression https://training.lczero.org/?full_elo=1 https://nextchessmove.com/dev-builds/sf14
2. It is very hard to find chess engines confidently telling you what their FIDE ELO is.

Interpretation / Guess: Modern chess engines probably need to use like some intermediate engines to transitively calculate their ELO. (Engine A is 200 ELO greater than players at 2200, Engine B is again 200 ELO better than A...) This is expensive to calculate and the error bar likely increases as you use more intermediate engines.

I follow chess engines very casually as a hobby. Trying to calibrate chess engine's computer against computer ELO with human ELO is a real problem. I doubt extrapolating IQ over 300 will provide accurate predictions.

Ranting about LangChain, a python library for building stuff on top of llm calls.

LangChain is a horrible pile of abstractions. There are many ways of doing the same thing. Every single function has a lot of gotchas (that doesn't even get mentioned in documentations). Common usage patterns are hidden behind unintuitive, hard to find locations (callbacks has to be implemented as an instance of a certain class in a config TypedDict). Community support is non-existent despite large number of users. Exceptions are often incredibly unhelpful with unreadable stack trace. Lots of stuff are impossible to type check because langchain allows for too much flexibility, they take in prompt templates as format strings (i.e. "strings with {variables}") and then allows you to fill in the template at runtime with a dict, so now nothing can be statically type checked :)

There are a few things I dislike about math textbooks and pdfs in general. For example, how math textbooks often use theorems that are from many pages ago and require switching back and forth. (Sometimes there isn't even a hyperlink!). I also don't like how proofs sometimes go way too deep into individual steps and sometimes being way too brief.

I wish something like this exists (Claude generated it for me, prompt: https://pastebin.com/Gnis891p)

Many people don't seem to know when and how to invalidate the cached thoughts they have. I noticed an instance of being unable to cache invalidate the model of a person from my dad. He is probably still modelling >50% of me as who I am >5 years ago.

The Intelligent Social Web briefly talked about this for other reasons.

A lot of (but not all) people get a strong hit of this when they go back to visit their family. If you move away and then make new friends and sort of become a new person (!), you might at first think this is just who you are now. But then you visit your parents… and suddenly you feel and act a lot like you did before you moved away. You might even try to hold onto this “new you” with them… and they might respond to what they see as strange behavior by trying to nudge you into acting “normal”: ignoring surprising things you say, changing the topic to something familiar, starting an old fight, etc.

In most cases, I don’t think this is malice. It’s just that they need the scene to work. They don’t know how to interact with this “new you”, so they tug on their connection with you to pull you back into a role they recognize. If that fails, then they have to redefine who they are in relation to you — which often (but not always) happens eventually.

I would like the option to separate subscribing to posts and subscribing to comments. I mostly just want to subscribe to posts, because it is much easier to decide whether I want to read a post than a comment.

that is much clearer that I think you should have said it out loud in the post

I also mostly switched to browser bookmark now, but I do think even this simple implementation of in-site bookmarks is overall good. Book marking in-site can sync over devices by default, and provides more integrated information.

I want to be able to quickly see whether I have bookmarked a post to avoid clicking into it (hence I suggested it to be a badge, rather than a button like in the Bookmarks tab). Especially with the new recommendation system that resurfaces old posts, I sometimes accidentally click on posts that I bookmarked months before.

This is like raw, n=1, personal feedback.

No, not really. I read it twice but couldn't bring myself to care. It seems you are going into tangents and not actually talking directly about your technique. I could be wrong, but I also couldn't care enough to read into the sentences and understand what you're actually pointing at with all the words. Having conclusion is nice because I jumped straight to that at first, seems kind of too normal to justify the clickbait though. Overall I feel like I read some ramblings and didn't learn much.