Can you recommend some books you’ve read? Struggling with the same thing

Not who you asked but:

- Quiet - Susan Cain (introversion in general)

- Cues and Captivate - Vanessa Van Edwards (business-focused social skills)

- The Gentle Art of Verbal Self-Defense at Work - Suzette Haden Elgin (I actually didn't enjoy this one too much, didn't finish it, but I think that was a personal mismatch)

- How to Win Friends and Influence People - Dave Carnegie (a lot of the techniques are very, very dated and transparent when used today... but it's pretty foundational and worth a glance anyway)

Overcoming social anxiety and shyness by Butler was one of the books that was pretty good.

Could you please explain why? I'm trying to think how is it depressing and can't come up with anything.

Because we don’t believe it’s equal quality to our job, so we see cheap competition arriving with swathes of bad products, but no way for customers to distinguish what makes quality. Plus we all create bugs anyway.

It's not really that. The quality of these tools will probably increase, and I'm fine with more competition, and with less experienced developers being empowered to build their own products.

What is depressing to me is that the products showcased here are essentially cookie-cutter derivatives built on and around the AI hype cycle. They're barely UI wrappers around LLMs marketed as something groundbreaking. So the thought of the web being flooded with these kinds of sites, in addition to the increase in spam and other AI generated content, is just depressing.

I find that part depressing as well, like who would even listen to gen AI podcasts? Not even vetted by a person but just pumped out as filler like it’s some kind of soil fertilizer. There is already so much good human made content on the web for nearly free if you only look. No doubt this AI slop will get in out way even if we don’t want it, but think of the effect this slop is going to have on younger generation.

Is there any evidence that calcifications of pineal gland influence sleep?

I dunno about any credible. This (both the problem and the solution proposed) is a direction to explore. The problem and its supposed consequences are a pretty widespread "conventional knowledge" (if not a "city legend") and this way cringe to mention with a serious face without a good reason. So there is likely to be at least some ground.

Does viable transcranial doppler for poeple without fontanelles actually exist?

Through the temporal bone of most people you can catch some sparse doppler signals with average hospital gear.

The fontanelles enable good ultrasound imaging on an entirely different level. A highres greyscale image vs a few sparse blobs of doppler from major vessels.

Do you have 150000 lines of Swift in YOUR context window?

I know how to find the context I need, being aided by the IDE and compiler. So yes, my context window contains all of the code in my project, even if it's not instantaneous.

It's not that hard to have an idea of what code is defined where in a project, since compilers have been doing that for over half a century. If I'm injecting protocols and mocks into a unit test, it shouldn't be really hard for a computer to figure out their definitions, unless they don't exist yet and I was not clear they should have been created, which would mean that I'm giving the AI the wrong prompt and the error is on my side.

It's really easy to verify that this claim is pure nonsense - we still have very real, astonishing scientific progress.

But is it proportional to the investment of time and people participating in it. If you take the amount of money/people invested into the sciences at a point in time , lets take: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Solvay_Conference

And then, put the number of contributors and the rate of progress against one another, my guess is that you would see a massive slowdown of progress, so massive actually, that explenations about the slowdown abound. There is the "all easy apples have been picked" theory, the "only life&death systemic competition forces contributors to produce good science" theory and a ton of others. All basically trying to explain the same phenomena- which could also be explained by: "hackers, hacking hackers, hacking processes, leave no financial substance behind to have people who actually do the scientific leg-work."

That's interesting take, personally I'd say that graduate-level math is orders of magnitude harder than significant majority of programming. And I mean that it's inherently harder, i.e. not due to lack of background.

It's not a proof at all.

Indeed, NPG could easily pay professional reviewers and still turn major profit each year.

Please note that this initiative does not support pillorying authors. Pointing out errors increases quality of research, and as a scientist your most important guiding principle should be attempting to find the truth. The only people who do not benefit from finding errors in their work are the ones which have wrong incentives or are aware of their mistakes/malicious errors, yet for some reason do not want to acknowledge/fix them.

Incentivizing looking for errors will not improve the quality of science. Rather individuals will use this power to take down articles they disagree with. The road to hell is paved with good intentions.

But you can look for errors in articles and contact editors even right now. It appears you either do not understand what this initiative is or how scientific process work.

I'm guessing you don't have a clue how research works.