Thanks, the one problem with that is that you have to use dumpy.wrap if you ever create a function that uses loops and then you want to call it inside another loop. But I don't see any way around that.

At one point, I actually had some (LLM-generated) boxes where you could click to switch between the different implementations for the same problem. But in the end I didn't like how it looked, so I switched to simple expandy-boxes. Design is hard...

There's no magical significance to the assert x.ndim==1 check. I think I just wanted to demonstrate that the softmax code was "simple" and didn't have to think about high dimensions. I think I'll just remove that, thanks.

Fixed!

Even better, eat lots of plants!

Well, Einstein summation is good, but it only does multiplication and sums. (Or, more generally, some scalar operation and some scalar reduction.) I want a notation that works for ANY type of operation, including non-scalar ones, and that's what DumPy does. So I'd argue it moves further than Einstein summation.

Hey, thanks for pointing this out! I quite like the bracket notation for indicating axes that operations should be applied "to" vs. "over".

One question I have—is it possible for me as a user to define my own function and then apply it with einx-type notation?

Thanks, I really like the idea of "performing enjoying". I'd heard of the Ben Franklin effect before, but not the conjectured explanation. (The other conjectured explanations on Wikipedia are interesting, too.)

All fair points!

1. To be honest, I'm not entirely sure of the difference between stress and anxiety and jitters. For me they're closely related, and I guess I tried to measure some combination of them.

2. True, more isn't always more. But more does tend to be more, and this is one of the suggestions people made from the first experiment.

3. I agree. However, I see this in the context of the first post—the scientific literature has tested theanine and found basically nothing! I was originally convinced that the internet was onto something, but now I tend to think the boring scientific literature had it right all along.

This advice generally makes me sad, but still worth thinking about.

I support you. Personally, after spending way too much time thinking about Bourdieu etc., I've come to believe that:

(1) The majority of worthwhile human activities have some dimension of "showing off" to them. (2) Worrying too much about showing off is best thought of as a form of neuroticism.

I mean: Marrying someone you don't like because you think they'll impress your friends or spending all your time trying to look good on Instagram is surely bad. But having a personal library is not like that!

Currency is a great incentive. I think a good way of thinking about "rights" is a sort of structure to encourage transfers of currency. For example, should corporations be allowed to put up surveillance balloons and track every vehicle and sell that data to whoever? Or should that be a voluntary transaction, like in your case? (I don't have an answer, just trying to point to the complexities.)

I wonder who that was. Maybe Heaviside?

The response I find really amusing is that lots of people respond with, basically, "But if you don't do this then it's harder to make money on twitter."

(OK... If doing plagiarism makes it easier to make money, then it's not plagiarism?)

Confirmed!

(PS I love pedantic emails)

Subscription confirmed!

That's a good point re: biology. It's so vast that everyone seems to sub-sub-sub specialize. It's hard to speculate about what might follow if someone was able to master literally every aspect of biology at the same time.

Re: Trump, my naive model is that people are just complicated and it's incredibly hard to model them and say how they will respond to a given situation, or how many of the different types of people there are, or exactly what media they've consumed, etc. Do you really mean that just using the existing polling data, etc. it should have been possible to be confident?

The main thing that gives me pause there is that some people were very confident that Trump would win, most notably that French guy that made millions betting on the outcome. He definitely made some good points regarding polling analysis, though I wonder if there are other people who could have made equally good points if the election had gone the other way...

Agree with your first point. For the second point, I felt like I had to add some artifice because otherwise the morally correct choice in almost all situations would seem to obviously be "ask humanity and let it choose for itself"! Which is correct, but not very interesting.

(In any case, I'm not actually that interested in these particular moral puzzles, I have other purposes in asking...)

For sure, thinking faster alone will hit diminishing returns pretty fast. I think you need to assume the Being is also much "smarter" along all sorts of other dimensions, too.

Yeah, I totally agree with this point! DNA is definitely not sufficient to build an organism. Originally, I thought there was definitely a large (albeit hard to quantify) amount of information embodied in the cells. Though there's been some debate on that point about how large that really is. For example, if I provided a single photograph of an adult human and—I don't know—gave the typical fraction of different atoms in a human body, would a sufficiently intelligent alien race reverse engineer how to make a zygote?

In any case, my (annoying) answer to this challenge is to retreat: I don't technically have to solve this problem because I'm not trying to estimate the amount of information in a cell, just the information in DNA.

That's what I see, too—if I'm able to hold my focus exactly constant. It seems to disappear as soon as I move my eyes even a little bit.