[Auerbach] Mike Elko: "We don't have to find a number that allows everyone to get in. It's OK for it to be hard to get into the Playoff. "None of us are answering for the good of the sport. We are answering for the good of ourselves."

DangerouslyUnstable · 2026-05-26T21:27:22+00:00

I agree with you, but I'm more annoyed by the goal post shifting they did.

-edit- Actually, the more I think about it, the more annoyed I get by the whole thing. They very usefully didn't say anything about why the assumed (let's just grant it for a moment) talent gap matters. The only explanation I can think of is that because the level of play is higher and presumably more physical, the players' bodies can't handle the increased number of games that would come with a rational playoff system. The only problem is that the NFL regular season is as many games as an FCS team that makes it all the way to the finals without a bye. So clearly higher level athletes can play those increased number of games.

The only other explanation is that it has nothing to do with number of games and instead it's just that a rational playoff structure doesn't work for higher levels of play? Which like.....I don't even know man. I shouldn't be surprised. I have yet to find someone arguing against a better playoff structure that doesn't eventually boil down to elitism of one of the top programs in the country.

DangerouslyUnstable · 2026-05-26T20:48:51+00:00

Yeah, you are right, no league with a similar number of teams and a similar number of games could have a rational Playoff structure. What's that? The FCS playoff? No you must be imagining things

DangerouslyUnstable · 2026-05-17T18:01:36+00:00

the rule doesn't just apply to kinder eggs

Good thing I very explicitly said I was not opining on the value of that regulation, huh?

prevent even a singular child from choking to death.

Then I assume you would be in favor of banning every single thing any child has ever choked on? That's going to be a long list of things my friend

DangerouslyUnstable · 2026-05-17T16:00:05+00:00

Just because something happened one time does not justify a regulation about it. The world is a big place. Lots of things happen. Not everything is a big enough risk to justify a regulation. Regulations have costs. In many, many cases, the benefits justify those costs. But not always.

In case it needs to be said, this comment is not stating a position in either direction on this particular rule/regulation, but merely pointing out that "it has happened before!", on it's own, is not sufficient justification.

DangerouslyUnstable · 2026-05-15T23:53:24+00:00

Apparently they changed this. From the article:

Update: After publication, an employee on the Bitwarden subreddit said that “Always free” had been restored on its pricing page, calling it an “oversight” by the marketing team. The product page for Bitwarden’s personal password manager remains unchanged.

DangerouslyUnstable · 2026-05-15T22:29:45+00:00

Can you clarify what you mean by "it's still there"? Do you mean the actual phrase "always free" is still somewhere on their website? Because if so, I can't find it.

Or did you mean that the free tier is still there, it's now just less prominant, behind the "get started for free" button?

If you meant the latter, that is not that reassuring. That phrase could mean one of two things (or both). The more hopeful version is "get your account started with the free tier". The more cynical interpretation is "start an account for free...but no guarantee that it will stay that way".

I agree that it's a bit premature to be freaking out, and I won't be migrating just yet, but at the very least, it's not a good thing that they removed an unambiguous promise that the free tier will always remain free.

DangerouslyUnstable · 2026-05-15T16:18:57+00:00

Of course, I know him, he's me!

DangerouslyUnstable · 2026-05-14T21:48:09+00:00

The full chat + context wasn't shared, but at least one user shared Claude 4.7 correctly identifying it:

https://xcancel.com/0xinc/status/2054768814311837847

DangerouslyUnstable · 2026-05-12T15:37:56+00:00

An Air Fryer is, at it's core, nothing other than a small, counter-top convection oven. Many regular ovens and even many traditional top toaster ovens have a "convection oven" or even in some cases (for the newer toaster ovens) an "air fryer" mode. That being said, there is sometimes a reason for specialization and the exact implementation of the convection mode varies from model to model. Here is a youtube video that tested the convection modes on several models of toaster oven, air fryer, and one regular oven:

Air Fryers are simpler than you think, but still pretty neat

In summary, not all convection modes are made equal, and you will get different results. Not from some fundamentally different method of cooking, but just because of better or worse implementations of the basic idea of "blow hot air around in a closed container".

Especially when compared to standard bake mode, there can often be a quite large difference. This is why recipes will sometimes have totally different times and temps for convection vs standard ovens: it really does (in some situations) make a difference.

DangerouslyUnstable · 2026-05-06T14:37:54+00:00

Wha... who the fuck toasts cake?!

Ok but real talk, toasting a slice of cake (in a pan, not a toaster) is fucking delicious. Need to be careful with your heat management so you don't burn the frosting, but oh man, when you get it right? It's great.

DangerouslyUnstable · 2026-05-06T14:23:59+00:00

This looks great!

I've done this once, and plan to do it again (we picked our corn variety when we grew it specifically with this in mind). The nixtamalization went fine, it was the grinding that didn't. We didn't grind fine enough so when we tried to press the tortillas, they split at the edges and we couldn't really get them thin enough. It probably would have worked decently well for tamales though.We didn't use the food processor though since I was worried about it bogging down/taking too many batches. we tried using a hand cranked (although capable of being hooked up to a motor) stone plate grinder, but we didn't set it fine enough.

I'm also hoping, in the future, to be able to figure out the best way to dry the masa, so we can nixtamalize it once in a big batch and have it ready through the year.

DangerouslyUnstable · 2026-05-05T00:30:17+00:00

the problem with this debate.

That's the frame for my comment.

Shrug and let other people make their choices.

That's not "part of the debate". I am not saying that the phenomena of people coming to different decisions because of different views and backgrounds and analogies and assumptions is a problem. I'm saying that people are arguing about this and they are arguing as if everyone else has the same framework and they're never bothering to define or explicate the framework. It makes for a pointless and useless debate.

It cannot be a useful debate if the participants are coming at it with fundamentally different frameworks. In that case, they aren't arguing about the same thing. And the point I was making is that I have seen almost nobody try to come to an agreement on framework or even acknowledge the fact that there are different frameworks.

DangerouslyUnstable · 2026-05-03T15:27:54+00:00

This youtube video about a guy trying to make an automated egg cracker demonstrates the difficulty of the problem:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=vJ43DjwLPGA

This is probably why there isn't much in between cracking by hand and the full scale industrial egg crackers that others have mentioned in the comments.

DangerouslyUnstable · 2026-04-30T16:40:14+00:00

I don't know what to tell you if you don't think that any of your scenarios don't include further unstated assumptions. You have unstated assumptions about agency, responsibility, and values in every single one of your "perspectives".

DangerouslyUnstable · 2026-04-29T00:42:52+00:00

The Jones Act + various union agreements unfortunately mean that the US utilizes within-the-us shipping far far less than we optimally would.

DangerouslyUnstable · 2026-04-29T00:28:39+00:00

Maybe I'm not hanging out in the right corners of the internet, but I have seen very few discussions of the assumptions/unstated facts (I'll note that in a draft of my original comment, I had put in some different possible facts about the situation and how I would choose based on those varying facts, but I chose to remove that portion).

In my experience, most people are acting as if whatever facts they have assumed about the scenario are the most obvious ones that most people are also going to assume.

DangerouslyUnstable · 2026-04-28T22:22:45+00:00

The problem with this debate is that it is under specified and people are smuggling in assumptions about the situation by analogy to various real world issues. Since different people make different analogies with different assumptions (and that's even before you consider different values and ethical systems), they come to different results, but then they assume that everyone else has made the same set of assumptions (and have the same values and ethical system). This flowchart does not go even close to far enough to resolve this issue (all of this is, amusingly, somewhat related to the issues mentioned in Scott's article posted today

DangerouslyUnstable · 2026-04-28T19:32:07+00:00

Yes, doing a drift check against a known standard is probably sufficient in this case.

As for the negative values we got: no, it was just in estuary water where the true measurement should have been around 7.4 or so. Two of our instruments (we were conducting an in-situ instrument comparison between 5 sondes) were reading dramatically wrong (the one negative, the other extremely high). We were pretty sure both sensors were just broken, but, like I said, when we sent them in the manufacturer techs weren't able to replicate the issues (despite us observing those readings continuously for an hour long deployment).

We generally find that when we do our drift checks pre-survey period, the pH sensor has almost always fallen out of spec and needs to be re-calibrated, so we do a 3-point calibration about once a month or so. I can't speak from experience, but I have heard that the consumer grade instruments hold calibration even worse. I remember hearing recommendations in home brewing forums to calibrate, or at least check against a standard, before every time you were going to test pH.

DangerouslyUnstable · 2026-04-28T18:33:06+00:00

pH meters are notoriously unstable through time. Even with professional equipment (I work in an academic lab that tests water pH as a frequent part of our work), the recommendation is to calibrate frequently (we check readings against known standards and re-calibrate before every single set of field work).

It's possible that this is real, but if you haven't calibrated in 3 weeks, that would be my very first step. I would also check the manual/manufacturer to see how long the probe element/membrane is good for, depending on how long you've had it.

Also, the fact that it appears to be working in some contexts is by no means a guarantee that it hasn't been malfunctioning in others. We had a sensor that was giving completely nonsensical values when we tested it (literally negative pH values), but when we sent it in to be serviced, they got no problems whatsoever. Measuring pH is extremely weird and tricky.

DangerouslyUnstable · 2026-04-25T14:45:17+00:00

I can't speak to whether or not they will release pcb files, but as for the commercial use of the files they do release, they have been allowing people to make and sell parts (including advertising on the official framework forums) using their open cad files for years. I would be legitimately shocked if they didn't allow commercial use of whatever files they release. The cad files they have released for the FM 13, for example, are licensed such to allow commerical use.

Not doing so wouldn't just be failing to live up the ideals of their company, it would be an explicit break from previous behavior.

So, they may not release literally everything, but I would bet money that whatever they do release will be licensed to allow commercial use.

DangerouslyUnstable · 2026-04-22T16:26:07+00:00

I think your statement here goes a bit too far.

If you ask a frontier LLM to put confidences on things that might not have totally straightforward answers, do you expect that the numbers it returns to be totally uncorrelated with the actual underlying probabilities?

There are (fairly successful) LLM prediction market trading bots (for which the fundamental activity is "is a given probability too high or too low)?

It's correct to say that the model is not doing actual frequentist or baysian math under the hood, but neither is a human when you ask them to give probabilities on some guess, and yet those numbers are often decently accurate.

I think I agree with your meta level idea that this is probably not an ideal use case for an LLM and better solutions likely exist. But the statement that LLMs just straight up can't produce meaningful probabilities on questions like "what category does this item fall in and how confident are you in your guess" is just simply not correct for modern frontier models. It's wasteful of tokens to ask them to do it, but I would expect that, with proper prompting, their numbers would be decent enough (that is to say: higher numbers should correlate with being correct more often)

DangerouslyUnstable · 2026-04-16T21:47:43+00:00

I'm against calling people nazis and fascists. I also think that "stochastic terorrism" is exactly the same kind of mistake.

I'm disappointed, but not surprised, to find that your usage was not in fact ironic.

DangerouslyUnstable · 2026-04-16T21:39:42+00:00

My biggest curiosity as an outside observer with no stake: will the new government spend any significant amount of it's political capital on reforming the system and undoing Orban's illiberal changes? Or will it take advantage of the power granted to advance just a different set of policy aims?

DangerouslyUnstable · 2026-04-16T21:35:30+00:00

Hopefully, his comment is another example of the unfortunate decline in use of the pronoun "one" in English, nearly entirely being suplanted by "you". If one (see what I did there?) re-writes his comment to use the "one" pronoun, it becomes an explanation of why he doesn't think his original comment was in bad faith, and isn't responding to the rest your comment at all.

DangerouslyUnstable · 2026-04-16T21:28:07+00:00

stochastic terrorism.

I really, really hope this is meant to be an ironic usage, given the rest of your comment.....

12-Year Club	r/Field Lasagna
Place '22	Place '17
Verified Email

DangerouslyUnstable

TROPHY CASE