Quotes

Somebody should write up how the early-2000s push for open standards and the Web Standards Project’s advocacy are a major factor in why Apple was able to create its enormously valuable comeback. Put another way, one of the killer moments of the first iPhone demo was Jobs saying it had the “real” web, not the “baby” web, by demonstrating the NYT homepage. That would’ve been IE-only & Windows-only if not for effective advocacy from the web standards community.

116. If a man would hasten towards the good, he should keep his thought away from evil; if a man does what is good slothfully, his mind delights in evil. 121. Let no man think lightly of evil, saying in his heart, It will not come nigh unto me. Even by the falling of water-drops a water-pot is filled; the fool becomes full of evil, even if he gather it little by little. 122. Let no man think lightly of good, saying in his heart, It will not come nigh unto me. Even by the falling of water-drops a water-pot is filled; the wise man becomes full of good, even if he gather it little by little.

It is quite easy to show, decision-theoretically, that the greatest chance of survival generally belongs to those who have most of their beliefs about things which affect our survival ability true. Philosophy, however, is totally irrelevant to survival from an evolutionary point of view. Natural selection has no way of weeding out veridical intuitions about the basic constitution of matter, for instance, from false ones, because humans have not generally been killed before they can procreate due to having erroneous metaphysical intuitions. Or bluntly put: having a true metaphysical theory does not help you getting laid.

With statistical learning based systems, perfect accuracy is intrinsically hard to achieve. If you think about the success stories of machine learning, like ad targeting or fraud detection or, more recently, weather forecasting, perfect accuracy isn't the goal --- as long as the system is better than the state of the art, it is useful. Even in medical diagnosis and other healthcare applications, we tolerate a lot of error. But when developers put AI in consumer products, people expect it to behave like software, which means that it needs to work deterministically.

Getting agents using Beads requires much less prompting, because Beads now has 4 months of “Desire Paths” design, which I’ve talked about before. Beads has evolved a very complex command-line interface, with 100+ subcommands, each with many sub-subcommands, aliases, alternate syntaxes, and other affordances. The complicated Beads CLI isn’t for humans; it’s for agents. What I did was make their hallucinations real, over and over, by implementing whatever I saw the agents trying to do with Beads, until nearly every guess by an agent is now correct.

The main innovation here is just using more data. Specifically, Qwen2.5 Coder is a continuation of an earlier Qwen 2.5 model. The original Qwen 2.5 model was trained on 18 trillion tokens spread across a variety of languages and tasks (e.g, writing, programming, question answering). Qwen 2.5-Coder sees them train this model on an additional 5.5 trillion tokens of data. This means Qwen has been trained on a total of ~23T tokens of data – for perspective, Facebook’s LLaMa3 models were trained on about 15T tokens. I think this means Qwen is the largest publicly disclosed number of tokens dumped into a single language model (so far).

... the overall conclusion I reach is that we have so much to gain from making Django async-capable that it is worth the large amount of work it will take. I also believe, crucially, that we can undertake this change in an iterative, community-driven way that does not rely solely on one or two long-time contributors burning themselves out.

If Apple is really successful, it’s likely that other companies will be more emboldened to forsake openness as well. The catch is that customers won’t accept the sudden closing of a previously open platform, that’s one of the reasons Palladium failed. But Apple has shown that users will accept most anything in an entirely new platform as long as it offers users the experience they want.

Where's the Poet? show him! show him, Muses nine! that I may know him. 'Tis the man who with a man Is an equal, be he King, Or poorest of the beggar-clan Or any other wonderous thing A man may be 'twixt ape and Plato; 'Tis the man who with a bird, Wren or Eagle, finds his way to All its instincts; he hath heard The Lion's roaring, and can tell What his horny throat expresseth, And to him the Tiger's yell Come articulate and presseth On his ear like mother-tongue.

I believed that giving users such a simple way to navigate the internet would unlock creativity and collaboration on a global scale. If you could put anything on it, then after a while, it would have everything on it. But for the web to have everything on it, everyone had to be able to use it, and want to do so. This was already asking a lot. I couldn’t also ask that they pay for each search or upload they made. In order to succeed, therefore, it would have to be free. That’s why, in 1993, I convinced my Cern managers to donate the intellectual property of the world wide web, putting it into the public domain. We gave the web away to everyone.

I insist thus emphatically on the importance of genius, and the necessity of allowing it to unfold itself freely both in thought and in practice, being well aware that no one will deny the position in theory, but knowing also that almost every one, in reality, is totally indifferent to it. People think genius a fine thing if it enables a man to write an exciting poem, or paint a picture. But in its true sense, that of originality in thought and action, though no one says that it is not a thing to be admired, nearly all, at heart, think that they can do very well without it. Unhappily this is too natural to be wondered at. Originality is the one thing which unoriginal minds cannot feel the use of. They cannot see what it is to do for them: how should they? If they could see what it would do for them, it would not be originality. The first service which originality has to render them, is that of opening their eyes: which being once fully done, they would have a chance of being themselves original. Meanwhile, recollecting that nothing was ever yet done which some one was not the first to do, and that all good things which exist are the fruits of originality, let them be modest enough to believe that there is something still left for it to accomplish, and assure themselves that they are more in need of originality, the less they are conscious of the want.

It’s a wonderful thing to be clever, and you should never think otherwise, and you should never stop being that way. But what you learn, as you get older, is that there are a few million other people in the world all trying to be clever at the same time, and whatever you do with your life will certainly be lost—swallowed up in the ocean— unless you are doing it with like-minded people who will remember your contributions and carry them forward. That is why the world is divided into tribes.

Every drop of blood has great talent; the original cellule seems identical in all animals, and only varied in its growth by the varying circumstance which opens now this kind of cell and now that, causing in the remote effect now horns, now wings, now scales, now hair; and the same numerical atom, it would seem, was equally ready to be a particle of the eye or brain of man, or of the claw of a tiger...The man truly conversant with life knows, against all appearances, that there is a remedy for every wrong, and that every wall is a gate.

When a client is driven to the utmost extremity, it is warmth and food and ease from pain he wants. Peace and justice come afterward. Rain symbolizes mercy and sunlight charity, but rain and sunlight are better than mercy and charity. Otherwise they would degrade the things they symbolize.

There was a man who sat each day looking out through a narrow vertical opening where a single board had been removed from a tall wooden fence. Each day a wild ass of the desert passed outside the fence & across the narrow opening—first the nose, then the head, the forelegs, the long brown back, the hindlegs, & lastly the tail. One day, the man leaped to his feet with the light of discovery in his eyes & he shouted for all who could hear him: 'It is obvious! The nose causes the tail!'

Do you think I’d have given it to the fishermen if it were more than a toy? No, I am my own great work. And I am my only great work!” Dr. Talos whispered, “Look about you—don’t you recognize this? It is just as he says!” “What do you mean?” I whispered in return. “The castle? The monster? The man of learning? I only just thought of it. Surely you know that just as the momentous events of the past cast their shadows down the ages, so now, when the sun is drawing toward the dark, our own shadows race into the past to trouble mankind’s dreams.” “You’re mad”, I said. “Or joking.” “Mad?” Baldanders rumbled. “You are mad. You with your fantasies of theurgy. How they must be laughing at us. They think all of us barbarians… I, who have labored three lifetimes.”

Almost in the same way as earlier physicists are said to have found suddenly that they had too little mathematical understanding to be able to master physics; we may say that young people today are suddenly in the position that ordinary common sense no longer suffices to meet the strange demands life makes. Everything has become so intricate that for its mastery an exceptional degree of understanding is required. For it is not enough any longer to be able to play the game well; but the question is again and again: what sort of game is to be played now anyway?

They walked on, thinking of This and That, and by-and-by they came to an enchanted place on the very top of the Forest called Galleons Lap, which is sixty-something trees in a circle; and Christopher Robin knew that it was enchanted because nobody had ever been able to count whether it was sixty-three or sixty-four, not even when he had tied a piece of string round each tree after he had counted it. Being enchanted, its floor was not like the floor of the Forest, gorse and bracken and heather, but close-set grass, quiet and smooth and green... Sitting there they could see the whole world spread out until it reached the sky, and whatever there was all the world over there was with them in Galleons Lap.

…The prudent text-books give it In tables at the end— The stress that shears a rivet Or makes a tie-bar bend— What traffic wrecks macadam— What concrete should endure— But we, poor Sons of Adam Have no such literature, To warn us or make sure!We hold all Earth to plunder— All Time and Space as well— Too wonder-stale to wonder At each new miracle; Till, in the mid-illusion Of Godhead ’neath our hand, Falls multiple confusion On all we did or planned— The mighty works we planned.We only of Creation (Oh, luckier bridge and rail!) Abide the twin damnation— To fail and know we fail. Yet we—by which sure token We know we once were Gods— Take shame in being broken However great the odds— The Burden or the Odds.Oh, veiled and secret Power Whose paths we seek in vain, Be with us in our hour Of overthrow and pain; That we—by which sure token We know Thy ways are true— In spite of being broken, Because of being broken, May rise and build anew. Stand up and build anew!

As duplicitous and sad as "fake following" sounds - and let's be honest: the whole idea's pathetic on a number of levels - for a certain kind of user, I can see why there’s a desire for this functionality. Especially on a site like FriendFeed, which has quickly become the platform of choice for the web's least interesting narcissists - and the slow-witted woodland creatures who enjoy grooming their fur - this is a major breakthrough in the makebelieve friendship space. Yes, primate culture may be primitive, but it is not without its evolving needs.

Without touching upon the question of who’s right and who’s wrong in the specific case of Basecamp’s Hey app, or the broader questions of what, if anything, ought to change in Apple’s App Store policies, an undeniable and important undercurrent to this story is that the business model policies of the App Store have resulted in a tremendous amount of resentment. This spans the entire gamut from one-person indies all the way up to the handful of large corporations that can be considered Apple’s peers or near-peers.

So the first answer to Why Now? is simply 'Because it's time.' I can't tell you why it took as long for weblogs to happen as it did, except to say it had absolutely nothing to do with technology. We had every bit of technology we needed to do weblogs the day Mosaic launched the first forms-capable browser. Every single piece of it was right there. Instead, we got Geocities. Why did we get Geocities and not weblogs? We didn't know what we were doing.

Imagine writing the investment memo for “20% of a picture of a dog” and being like “the most we should pay is probably about $2 million because the whole picture of the dog sold for $4 million three months ago and it can’t realistically have appreciated more than 150% since then; even if the whole picture of the dog is worth, aggressively, $10 million, this share would be worth $2 milllion.” What nonsense that is!

Heck, I practically invented the formula of "tell a funny story and then get all serious and show how this is amusing anecdote just goes to show that (one thing|the other) is a universal truth." And everybody is like, oh yes! how true! and they link to it with approval, and it zooms to the top of Slashdot. And six years later, a new king arises who did not know Joel, and he writes up another amusing anecdote, really, it's the same anecdote, and he uses it to prove the exact opposite, and everyone is like, oh yes! how true! and it zooms to the top of Reddit.

A machine is not a way of doing something; it stands in the way of doing something...The goal of technology is therefore to eliminate itself, to become silent, invisible, carefree...A perfect radio will draw no attention to itself, will make it seem we are in the very presence of the source of its sound... When it is most effective, machinery will have no effect at all.

But unlike the phone system, we can’t separate an LLM’s data from its commands. One of the enormously powerful features of an LLM is that the data affects the code. We want the system to modify its operation when it gets new training data. We want it to change the way it works based on the commands we give it. The fact that LLMs self-modify based on their input data is a feature, not a bug. And it’s the very thing that enables prompt injection.

Without a discovery process, machines must be told about resources ahead of time and will only be able to interact with resources that they already know. This is the same as only starting a conversation with people you already know, even though with little effort you should be able to talk to new people with a common language.

The value of his questions and answers, as Socrates knew so well, will lie wholly in the monition of the argument developing within him and carrying him whithersoever it will, like a dream or like a god. If philosophers must earn their living and not beg (which some of them have thought more consonant with their vocation), it would be safer for them to polish lenses like Spinoza, or to sit in a black skull-cap and white beard at the door of some unfrequented museum, selling the catalogues and taking in the umbrellas; these innocent ways of earning their bread-card in the future republic would not prejudice their meditations and would keep their eyes fixed, without undue affection, on a characteristic bit of that real world which it is their business to understand.

The fossil record—the La Brea Tar Pit—of software technology is the Internet. Anything that shows up there is free for the taking (possibly illegal, but free). Executives at companies like Microsoft must get used to the experience—unthinkable in other industries—of throwing millions of dollars into the development of new technologies, such as Web browsers, and then seeing the same or equivalent software show up on the Internet 2 years, or a year, or even just a few months, later. By continuing to develop new technologies and add features onto their products they can keep one step ahead of the fossilization process, but on certain days they must feel like mammoths caught at La Brea, using all their energies to pull their feet, over and over again, out of the sucking hot tar that wants to cover and envelop them.

After the uprising of the 17th June The Secretary of the Writers Union Had leaflets distributed in the Stalinallee Stating that the people Had forfeited the confidence of the government And could win it back only By redoubled efforts. Would it not be easier In that case for the government To dissolve the people And elect another?

The world around us redounds with opportunities, explodes with opportunities, which nearly all folk ignore because it would require them to violate a habit of thought; there are a thousand Hufflepuff bones waiting to be sharpened into spears...I cannot quite comprehend what goes through people's minds when they repeat the same failed strategy over and over, but apparently it is an astonishingly rare realization that you can try something else.

The software entity is constantly subject to pressures for change. Of course, so are buildings, cars, computers. But manufactured things are infrequently changed after manufacture; they are superseded by later models, or essential changes are incorporated into copies of the same basic design. Callbacks of automobiles are really quite infrequent; field changes of computers somewhat less so. Both are much less frequent than modifications to fielded software. In part, this is so because the software of a system embodies its function, and the function is the part that most feels the pressures of change. In part it is because software can be changed more easily—it is pure thought-stuff, infinitely malleable.