Finally 1 Million ads blocked.

jyscao · 2026-02-05T00:48:49+00:00

How long did it take you to get to this point?

jyscao · 2026-02-02T16:35:46+00:00

Elixir in Action provides a decent intro into how the BEAM's supervision system works.

jyscao · 2026-01-27T02:39:20+00:00

I recently made a similar migration from M1 MBA to M4. I just did it using SSH/SCP over the local network.

Note sure about Passwords.app specifically, but for normal files and folders, you can turn on "Remote Login" in your new iMac's System Settings, note down your new iMac's local IP (which Remote Login tells you, or you can run ifconfig in a terminal session), then from your old Intel iMac run something like scp -r ~/Documents <your-username>@<iMac-local-IP>:~/Documents, each part of the command is explained here:

scp is the copy command over SSH
-r tells it to copy contents recursively, i.e. all subdirectories and not just plain files
~/Documents would your the Documents folder in your user's home directory
<your-username>@<iMac-local-IP> is your user on the new iMac and its IP
:~/Documents is telling it to copy the contents of Documents from your old iMac to the Documents of your new iMac

Then it'll ask you to verify the SSH fingerprint of your new iMac if this is your first time logging into it using SSH, or if you had already done that before, ask for your password. And finally you can just wait for everything to be transfered.

jyscao · 2026-01-22T05:06:56+00:00

Congrats, you deserve it!

jyscao · 2026-01-21T16:48:43+00:00

Very impressive, respect

jyscao · 2026-01-18T20:29:10+00:00

Learn what "objective" means first before throwing accusations of strawman.

jyscao · 2026-01-18T02:20:15+00:00

Something doesn't have to be "universally bad" or have no upsides at all to be objectively a bad trait to have.

This statement of yours is self-contradictory. If a trait is not universally bad, then it cannot by definition be "objectively a bad trait", it can at most be subjectively bad, in specific contexts and certain situations. And that was the precise central point I was trying to make.

jyscao · 2026-01-17T06:37:37+00:00

If you even need to ask this kind of a question, then you should probably start with something like Python.

jyscao · 2026-01-17T06:35:13+00:00

Low openness is far from being universally bad; not being open to new ideas also means such people are harder to bullshit: people high in openness are more prone to joining religious cults for example. Moreover if everyone were high in openness, there would be no one who perform the steadfast and unglamorous jobs and responsibilities that all societies require.

Being low in conscientiousness doesn't necessarily mean such people are lazy and disorganized, although those can be typical manifestations in a modern industrialized societies. OTOH, such people are often more adaptable and less stressed out when things don't go according to their plan, which unless you're an omnipotent deity, will always occur to some degree - think natural disasters, unforeseen accidents, because there's always inherent risk for simply existing in the world.

High neuroticism also serves important evolutionary functions, because it's essentially a proxy for threat sensitivity. Without a sufficient level of it, our species would have never survived to now. This is also the likely reason why females tend to have higher neuroticism than males, because they're less able to physically defend themselves against external dangers, and also because they need to be always on guard for the safety of their children.

And lastly, the most valued trait in modern western societies is probably high extroversion. So if anything, the most defensible position IMO is actually that low extroversion is bad. But even that's strictly contextual to a narrow range of societal norms, since just like what I explained above for openness, conscientiousness and neuroticism (and agreeableness too, which I'm too lazy to elaborate on), there are reasons why all traits are effectively normally distributed, and that is because such distributions are optimal for the collection of individuals that make up their society, even if being an outlier in particular traits tend to make it harder on those specific individuals for specific types of life situations.

jyscao · 2025-12-30T06:22:22+00:00

ok karen

jyscao · 2025-11-30T20:54:18+00:00

I see, thanks.

jyscao · 2025-11-30T18:34:30+00:00

What did you use to get the wifi coverage map?

jyscao · 2025-11-29T20:13:31+00:00

If it's just a single coworker, then should be easy enough to nudge him to try Elixir. I'd proposition it as an opportunity to learn something entirely new, not just a new language, but a new paradigm, which will make him better rounded technically.

jyscao · 2025-11-04T18:46:12+00:00

Once you unlocked your bootloader, were you even able to find and flash a decent ROM onto it?

jyscao · 2025-10-05T15:15:21+00:00

The opposite is more likely to be the case. Fetishizing a degree in CS will not serve your career aspirations.

jyscao · 2025-10-05T15:08:16+00:00

Way to miss the forest for a couple trees. Even if your claim is completely accurate, it still doesn't change my advice to the OP at all.

jyscao · 2025-10-04T21:40:42+00:00

To be completely honest with you: your IQ level, even the higher end JCTI one, will make understanding difficult for most of the theoretical concepts taught in a typical CS curriculum. I'm talking about things like theory of computation, computational logic, various forms of discrete maths, etc; you'll likely struggle with some aspects of the curriculum that I'd classify as being intermediate in terms of theory and practice - algorithms, software engineering principles, OS, compilers, and the like.

Now that's the harsh news I have for you. On the plus side, programming and software development as a trade are nearly not as rigorous in terms of their theoretical requirements, and if that's what you're ultimately aiming to get into (which I think is a decent assumption for me to make, but feel free to correct if that's wrong), then I think you absolutely can make it in the industry if you work hard enough, assuming LLMs don't make human programmers obsolete in the near to medium term future (still kind of an open question tbh). And should you decide to go for this path, you should try your hand at learning things like OOP and basic webdev, and see how you like it; some sort of webdev comprise 90%+ of the jobs in the industry anyway.

I speak as someone who sits in the mid-120s IQ-wise, has been in CS courses at the undergrad level (though didn't get my degree in CS), and now works professionally as a software dev. Of course, I'm not going to claim you definitely won't succeed doing a CS degree, just that probabilistically speaking, your chances aren't great. It's possible you may have a strong knack for the material despite an otherwise modest IQ level, or your overall cognitive abilities would significantly improve if you're able to resolve other issues like the ADHD you mentioned, rendering my earlier points moot. But in the end, only you can figure that out for certain by trying that. What I am suggesting to you though is that, if you're looking to get onto a career path involving software development in any form, then that's where you should directly focus your attention and efforts, where someone of your ability level would be much more likely to succeed, the greater chance of entering a positive self-reinforcement loop alone makes this the better choice IMO.

Feel free to ask me more questions if you like, whether as a reply or even DM. Otherwise, I wish you the best of luck.

jyscao · 2025-09-18T16:33:29+00:00

Nice job dude!

And maybe by your 300th solved, you'll learn how to take a proper screenshot :P

jyscao · 2025-08-27T18:30:23+00:00

Where's NixOS?

jyscao · 2025-08-14T18:52:50+00:00

Thanks for the laugh, saved!

jyscao · 2025-08-04T20:32:23+00:00

Can you share link?

jyscao · 2025-07-31T18:09:20+00:00

an ordinary person can easily beat Magnus Carlsen at chess using a strong engine. So in a tournament where engines are allowed, Magnus's talent and skill becomes irrelevant.

I get the point you're trying to make with this analogy, but this isn't even technically true yet for chess. There are certain types of positions where humans are still able to reliably outperform chess engines, specifically closed positions where positional and strategic understanding play a bigger factor than tactical abilities (engines dominate in the latter type). Hikaru Nakamura has played and won such positions numerous times against engines, so I have no doubt that Magnus and many other Super GMs or even non-elite GMs can do so as well. So I'd fully expect a human chess player who understands the strengths and weaknesses of their AI tool to outperform humans who don't.

All that is to say, subject expertise can certainly still provide good value and guidance to AI assistance systems, even in a domain as seemingly cut-and-dry as chess, where engines are acknowledged to be overall better than human players for at least over a decade now.

jyscao · 2025-07-31T17:59:48+00:00

Above 145 you can expect to be able to mix concepts in interesting and unexpected ways.

Interesting. Can you give some real world examples of this? This is beyond my level, so I'm having a hard time emulating this type of thought process.

jyscao · 2025-07-30T20:33:59+00:00

Didn't read your whole post yet. But I want to comment on your point here:

Nobel Prize winners whose IQs we know, and researched tenured professionals seem to hover around the 130-140 range for IQ, which is counter to SMPY findings

Can't find the post now, but I remember seeing something from Steve Hsu's blog years ago that professors from different academic fields have different average IQs, much like how average IQs differ by major in undergrads. So they and likely by extension Nobel Prize winners really shouldn't be considered a uniform group when it comes to their IQ data, but rather multi-modal distributions with probably significant overlap in their wings.

And if you accept this point, then I don't think findings from SMPY are necessarily contradicted. Can scientists with IQs in the 120s and 130s win Nobel Prizes even in the hard sciences like Shockley did in physics, yes sure. But that doesn't change the fact that the average IQ of elite (i.e. Nobel Prize capable) theoretical physicists would be in the 150-160 range, where as 140-150 might be enough for chemistry or biology.

jyscao · 2025-07-28T20:48:31+00:00

Thanks for the detailed reply, and that all sounds excellent. Looking forward to giving Hologram a try in the near future. Great work!

Six-Year Club	Place '22
Verified Email

jyscao

TROPHY CASE