Curated. Since this post has been published, there's been a couple of times I've heard the whisper of "More Dakka ... do it again". I've booked additional appointments with potential lawyers and tailors, called around for more quotes, and bought spares of trousers I like.

I haven't explored most of the bullets in this post, but I think posts that (a) move concepts closer to next actions, (b) flesh out concepts in a bunch of different ways and explore them from different angles and (c) give examples are undersupplied. This post does all of those!

I think Romoeo is thinking of checking a bunch of mediators of risk (like aldehyde levels) as well as of function (like whether the organism stays colonised)

Whoa! The meetup to beat

This is a straightforward consequence of the good regulator theorem

IIUC, the good regulator theorem doesn't say anything about how the model of the system should be represented in the activations of the residual stream. I think the potentially surprising part is that the model is recoverable with a linear probe.

(I would agree-react but I can't actually make it)

It seems unlikely that different hastily cobbled-together programs would have the same bug.

Is this true? My sense is that in, for example, Advent of Code problems, different people often write the same bug into their program.

"Crucial to our disagreement" is 8 syllables to "cruxy"'s 2.

"Dispositive" is quite American, but has a more similar meaning to "cruxy" than plain "crucial". "Conclusive" or "decisive" are also in the neighbourhood, though these are both feel like they're about something more objective and less about what decides the issue relative to the speaker's map.

D&D.Sci forces the reader to think harder than anything else on this website

D&D.Sci smoothly entices me towards thinking hard. There's lots of thinking hard that can be done when reading a good essay, but the default is always to read on (cf Feynman on reading papers) and often I just do that while skipping the thinking hard.