IamAtaraxiaman

fu

[IamAtaraxiaman @Bwkoby]

@ZenMagnets @VictorTaelin Lots of GPUs

[Justin Schroeder @jpschroeder]

Fable isn't the first.

In 1999 the department of defense blocked exports of the PowerMac G4 for crossing the 1 gigaflop threshold.

Steve Jobs turned it into an ad.

[Ahmad @TheAhmadOsman]

@AnthropicAI That's why:

https://t.co/njqWikxhq8

[IamAtaraxiaman @Bwkoby]

@Soothsayer57303 @mylifeisaplague This guy has a lot of friends and sex

[Philosophy Of Physics @PhilosophyOfPhy]

In 1937, a 21-year-old MIT student sat in a quiet library, mapping abstract philosophical logic onto electrical circuits to pass the time.

By the time he finished his thesis, the young man had mathematically proven that mechanical telephone switches could perform complex calculations. Instead of just routing phone calls, they were destined to become thinking machines.

He had just discovered the mathematical trigger for digital computing.

But when he published his work, the leading engineers of the industrial world paid little attention, viewing his mathematics as a mere academic parlor trick.

His name was Claude Shannon.

It would take years for the industrial establishment to fully realize he was right and adopt the binary logic that now powers every computer, smartphone, and network on Earth.

His breakthrough against traditional engineering is the ultimate lesson in what happens when rigid practices clash with unexpected philosophical reality.
In the early 20th century, engineers believed they understood circuit design. They knew that as telephone networks grew, they needed more physical wires and relays. But traditional engineering offered no universal science; it was a manual process of brute-force trial and error.

The systems would grow into a chaotic, tangled mess of blueprints and copper lines.
The entire industrial establishment agreed: every circuit, no matter how complex, had to be wired by manual experimentation. It was a tedious, costly formula.

But in that library, Shannon realized the establishment had left a massive variable out of their equations: 19th-century symbolic philosophy.

Shannon recalculated the engineering, factoring in what happens when you treat an electrical switch using the laws of Boolean algebra.

What he found shattered the industrial consensus.

He proved that an electrical switch has only two possible states: it is either closed and letting power through, or open and blocking the current. This was mathematically identical to True (1) and False (0).

The circuit could evaluate logical statements. There was no limit to what it could compute. It could automate human thought, transforming physical electricity into digital logic.

When Shannon presented this concept, mainstream electrical engineers were skeptical. They couldn't accept that an abstract philosophical concept could solve real-world hardware bottlenecks.
Shannon was initially ignored. The establishment stuck to their traditional wiring methods.

Instead of fighting a rigid, closed system, Shannon quietly expanded his work into Information Theory, proving that all data could be compressed into a universal currency called the "bit." Decades later, when the global tech revolution exploded, the world realized the 21-year-old student had been right all along.

The philosophical blueprint Shannon left behind is a vital truth for navigating complex problems and institutional pushback:

Comforting traditions will always be more popular than disruptive innovations. Trust the system's underlying logic anyway.

Most of us approach our careers and projects seeking the validation of current experts or established guidelines. When we propose a radical new idea or try to change a broken system, and the authorities tell us we are wrong, our instinct is to assume our logic is flawed. We abandon our data to fit the consensus.

But Shannon’s legacy proves that traditional industry consensus is not the same thing as truth.
Gatekeepers are human; they protect their own methods, their own training, and their own comfort.

What is a bottleneck, a project, or a direction you’ve abandoned just because an expert or a boss told you it wouldn't work? What happens if you stop looking for their permission and trust the structural logic of your own work?

[Thierry from arvy 🇨🇭 @ThierryBorgeat]

Imagine you spent 40 years doing the boring, responsible thing.

You opened a 401k at 23. You contributed every paycheck. You ignored the noise. You bought the index because Bogle told you to, because Buffett told you to, because every honest piece of financial advice for 30 years told you the index was the safest, most diversified, most rules-based way to own America.

The whole point was the rules.

The rules said: a company must trade for 12 months before joining the S&P 500. The rules said: it must show four consecutive quarters of GAAP profitability. The rules existed because in 1999 the index quietly bought a lot of stocks at the top, and pensioners paid the bill.

After the dot-com crash, S&P tightened the rules. Nasdaq tightened the rules. FTSE Russell tightened the rules.

For 23 years, those rules held.

Then SpaceX filed for IPO.

And the rules changed.

The S&P 500 waived the profitability requirement. Nasdaq cut its trading-history window from 90 days to 15. FTSE Russell cut its to 5.

Bloomberg Intelligence estimates the major index funds will absorb between 19% and 24% of SpaceX's float within six months. That's over $30 trillion of passive 401k and retirement money, mechanically buying a single newly public company at IPO valuations, because the rules said they had to.

Except the rules used to say they didn't.

Here's the thought exercise:

If you spend 40 years building a system designed to protect ordinary savers from buying overpriced stocks, and then you waive the protections the moment a sufficiently large stock asks you to, what was the system actually protecting?

Most of investing is about understanding what's a rule and what's a guideline.

A rule binds the rule-maker.

A guideline binds the saver.

You're allowed to find out which is which only after the fact.

[The Internet Fish @TheInternetFish]

Even the stained yellow colour is perfect

[IamAtaraxiaman @Bwkoby]

@mylifeisaplague I want to conduct an experiment where no one is allowed to use identitarian nouns for one year.

[IamAtaraxiaman @Bwkoby]

@deredleritt3r I look forward to the day people cease to imbue human creativity with some kind of magical quality, as if it happens in a vacuum devoid of influence and relation to anything else.

[IamAtaraxiaman @Bwkoby]

@_vmlops Leetcode is still relevant?

[𝖝𝖊𝖗𝖎𝖊𝖘𝖏𝖆𝖒𝖊 🪐 @xeriesjame_art]

I won’t let your flame go out, my boy

[ຸ @fvckfemi_]

you will heal from it but you will never be the same person again & that's okay

[IamAtaraxiaman @Bwkoby]

@mylifeisaplague

[IamAtaraxiaman @Bwkoby]

@packers_owner_j @PatrickHenry_II @NewsfromScience @skdh Right, it almost suggests a convergence of our best minds — certainly nothing of a noteworthy kind here: just fire them all and replace them with people who present the “findings” we like

[IamAtaraxiaman @Bwkoby]

@grok @codi_fyy Can anyone link me please? Thank you

[jonnyb @jon_eebee]

@Rawlala1 @UltraTerm ... "Containment Control for a Social Network with State-Dependent Connectivity" or How to Astroturf
https://t.co/hRE4cylSGZ

[IamAtaraxiaman @Bwkoby]

@Noahpinion This, but still calling it autocomplete without feeling diminished and having to cope