Devrim Yasar

@rogerdickey reply “investors” i’ll dm you 👇

a great source of current VC email addresses is investor updates where the founder forgot to BCC

@rogerdickey they saw you can do xe/xir and thought why nöt? 😄

can we please invade Turkey and force them to change their name back? americans should not be subjected to unusual letters and spellings like this

@LenSeaside this becomes dimensionless (per hour is the added dimension)

@devrimyasar Pi isn't like alpha though. Alpha is directly observable and through our theories and measurement of the other universal constants. Pi is a mathematical ratio. You can have universes with different alphas but not with different pis.

@LenSeaside alpha is a rate not a ratio is my point. i think you’re missing the point we really didn’t define anything just took meters, kelvins joules etc out. instead of saying 60 miles per hour we can then say 50 nano-c (per hour is no longer necessary)

Also on your point about velocity becoming dimensionless. It can't. Velocity was defined by Newton and others as the distance something travels by the time taken. If you start redefining the original building blocks then you just end up making physics just circular and philosophy. For example the Lambda term in gravity. Some phycists try to argue it's not actually part of gravity. But it must be part of gravity because it defines the motion of stars and planets. To redefine what something is because it fits nicely with a new theory and the difference is something else just means your physics is wrong and you can't admit it.

Alpha is already dimensionless. Like pi. That actually exposes the limit of this framework. Setting c, G, or ħ to 1 is just a unit choice removing conversion factors. But dimensionless constants like α are pure numbers describing real relationships in nature. They can’t be normalized away. The E = m confusion comes from pushing the unit argument too far. When we set c = 1, we choose units where time and distance share the same scale, so velocity becomes dimensionless and E = mc² simplifies to E = m. Nothing about the physics changes. Mass and energy remain conceptually different; the unit system just hides the conversion factor between them.

@devrimyasar And if you think you can change all fundamental constants by changing the frame of reference please explain how you will do this with the fine structure constant. α ≈1/137

@ivanburazin x.com/raminnasibov/s…

Jaguar rebranding moment for Ferrari interiors

A new chapter!

still very much in r&d but one of my fav projects being worked on at lucky is these agents that make creating the scene and what you actually want the robot(s) to do faster, just such a cool concept.

Lucky has a great team and are building a simulation from the ground up for robotics learning, something we've badly needed for a long time

@Sentdex welcome to the team! 🚀

I’ve joined Lucky Robots as director of eng & AI to help build the robotics simulator I wish we had right now. If you’re someone who likes to make robots do cool stuff or want to shape a sim being built from ground up to make training robots way better for real tasks, join us!

We’re building a new kind of robotics simulator, stay tuned.

@erenbali on the same note, businesses get to write off office costs pre-tax, but regular people can’t do that with their homes, rented or owned. if you’re paying taxes, the same rules that apply to businesses should apply to you too. we all are income generators for the government.

Hot take: Children are future revenue sources for the government so their expenses should be full deductible as investments.

@wanyeburkett someone doesn’t feel bad is prob results in more agency —if anything, lower iq is linked to more of that, which tracks with higher crime rates. also psychopaths aren't running the world. real intelligence shows up in restraint; included but not limited to, morality...

How bad you feel when you do something, “wrong“ is an aspect of personality that varies from person to person and so far as I can tell, people who feel pretty bad when they do something wrong try not to do things that they themselves consider wrong, because it makes them feel bad. On the other hand, people who do not feel all that bad when they do something wrong tend to do more things wrong, because there is less downside for them personally. If this were true, you might expect this particular personality characteristic to be associated with intelligence. And I’m sure you’ll be surprised to learn that it is. But then if that’s true you’d probably expect criminality to be associated with intelligence. And I don’t wanna blow your mind or anything…

yeah i get it’s about gender specifically—but OP said “innate gender differences” i was just pointing out that the idea of innateness isn’t a strawman, even outside that scope. helps ground the conversation imo.

@devrimyasar @wanyeburkett I mean maybe this is simply a difference in reading comprehension but to me it seems clear he is not implying it as a separate debate, it is the specific topic at hand. The entire list is premised as relating to gender differences, not a comment about innate behavior in general.

Reminder that there are 3 positions on innate gender differences: 1. It’s entirely genetics. Literally nobody believes this position. It exists only as a strawman. There’s nobody on earth who thinks that behavior is not to some degree socially constructed. 2. It’s some combination of both. This is obviously correct. There’s no longer any serious debate about this. If you don’t know it, then you’re just simply not up-to-date on the state of the science. All of the arguing should take place from this baseline. 3. It’s entirely socially constructed. Unlike with the 100% genetics position, a surprisingly large number of people actually believe this, but it’s basically flat earthism today, given what we know.

@ChrisOfTheFens @wanyeburkett obviously nothing exists in a pure 100%, but for position 2 to be meaningful, the influence has to be more than negligible. sure, individuals can be pressured, and parental influence matters—but no one becomes straight if they’re truly gay. that doesn’t happen. that’s innate.

@devrimyasar @wanyeburkett “saying “literally nobody” believes in innate behavior is just wrong” That’s not at all what wayne said.

@wanyeburkett agree—biology sets the stage long before culture enters; pretending gendered behavior is purely social ignores both evolutionary history and cross-cultural evidence. form of neo-marxist blank-slatism, which probably explains why so many of its proponents also lean communist.

We have these ridiculous debates and people go back-and-forth like it’s totally reasonable to believe either position, so it’s sometimes good to pause and set a baseline. Men murder more than women in every society on earth, in every human society that has ever existed, in primate societies. The idea that this behavior is socially constructed is beneath intelligent people. It’s not even a little bit plausible. There’s obviously a lot of room for debate about specific behaviors, but the notion that all gender differences in behavior are socially constructed is facially absurd. Believing otherwise is deeply discrediting at this point.

@DrunkBokonon @wanyeburkett ok

@devrimyasar @wanyeburkett Unfortunately , position 1 requires believing "behavior is not to some degree socially constructed." So what you're describing would be position 2

sure, but the point is about innateness. if we’re asking whether any behaviors are biologically hardwired, then examples outside gender still matter—they show the concept isn’t a strawman. if hardcoded behaviors exist at all, it’s not crazy to think some might relate to gender too. whether you agree that gender-linked behaviors are innate is a separate debate—but calling the whole idea a strawman just isn’t accurate.

@devrimyasar @wanyeburkett You're bringing up generalized examples outside the scope of the specific topic relating to gender.