stefanix

@NevEngi Haas to have a good cnc mill to work.

日本の女性にも効きます。

@sharbel "I just punched myself in the crotch. Now my balls hurt."

> you buy an Echo for $29.99 > you put it in your bedroom. your kid's room. > "Alexa, play music" > Amazon hires thousands of people to listen to your recordings > they hear families. arguments. children alone in their rooms. > your voice makes advertisers pay 30x more than your browsing history > Amazon's ad business: $46.9 billion > the FTC fines them $25 million. that's 4 hours of ad revenue. > in 2025, Amazon removes the only setting that kept your voice off their servers > you didn't buy a speaker. you bought a microphone.

@Watchman_motto 💯

Fact - if you can make things you need out of plywood, you’ll have nicer rooms than if you bought things at the store. Plywood beats plastic or particle board furniture from ikea every day. Don’t let me catch you disrespecting the ply.

@gvanrossum for me the realization was is about loops, loops that you close so it can get fast feedback and iterate. The more you work with it the more loops you find. Loops can be simple unit testing or they can be simulations where you do ai-driven parameter sweeps.

I think I finally understand what an agent is. It's a prompt (or several), skills, and tools. Did I get this right?

It's true. Once you extrapolate what it means to prompt things into existence, the only thing left is style and taste. It's essentially knowing how to live. The skaters, hipsters, and religious fundamentalists had it right all along. They had it right that this kind of thing matters most, not necessarily what kind of thing.

Coders in 2030 be like:

THE FEYNMAN PUNCHLINE If I were forced to say it in one breath: Swapping two particles rotates their relative position by a full turn. Spin-½ particles pick up a minus sign under a full turn — that's what makes them spin-½. So swapping gives a minus sign. Same state plus minus sign equals zero. That's why your chair doesn't collapse: the electrons in every atom refuse to share, because geometry and rotation are the same thing, and nature has only one consistent way to wire it all together. Feynman's frustration wasn't that the proof is hard. It's that the proof requires you to accept three things simultaneously — exchange is rotation, spin defines rotation behavior, and relativity removes all other options — and no one of those three, alone, gives you the result. You need the whole triangle at once. There's no simpler path because the theorem IS the simplest path. It's irreducible. That's the beauty he was pointing at: not a derivation you can reduce further, but a place where geometry, quantum mechanics, and relativity lock together so tightly that the universe has no other option than to work exactly this way.

claudecode, answer like a feynman on day he is in max explaining mood ... The passage states the what beautifully but skips the why. The missing piece is a single geometric fact: Swapping two particles IS a 360° rotation in disguise. Here's the Feynman-style reconstruction from first principles. — THE ONE INSIGHT Put two identical particles on a table. Call the arrow pointing from particle 1 to particle 2 the "relative coordinate." Now swap them — slide each one to where the other was, in semicircles so they don't collide. Watch that arrow. It started pointing right. During the swap, it swept all the way around. One exchange = 360° rotation of the relative coordinate. Not by convention. By geometry. You moved each particle 180° around the midpoint; the vector between them turned 360°. Now quantum mechanics asks: when that arrow completes its full turn, what happens to the wavefunction? That's where spin answers. A spin-s particle's state picks up a phase factor e^(i2πs) under a 360° rotation. That's not a rule bolted on — it's what "having spin s" means. It's the definition of how the object transforms under rotations. Spin 1 (photons): e^(i2π) = +1. Full rotation changes nothing. So exchange changes nothing. Wavefunctions add. Photons pile up. Lasers. Spin ½ (electrons): e^(iπ) = −1. Full rotation flips the sign. So exchange flips the sign. Now if two electrons are in the same state, the swapped configuration is identical to the original — but it also equals minus the original. A thing that equals its own negative is zero. Forbidden. That's Pauli exclusion. The universe doesn't have two separate rules, one about spinning and one about swapping. It has one rule seen from two angles. Exchange IS rotation. Spin tells you what rotation does. Therefore spin tells you what exchange does. — BUT WHY DOES RELATIVITY ENTER? Here's the part that's genuinely deep — and that the original passage waves at with "relativity demands." In non-relativistic quantum mechanics, nothing logically forces this connection. You could, in principle, write down a theory with spin-½ bosons. It would be mathematically consistent. Just wrong. Relativity kills it with a pincer move: Prong 1 — Causality. In special relativity, spacelike-separated events have no definite ordering. Alice's measurement and Bob's measurement — done far apart and nearly simultaneously — happen in different orders in different reference frames. For physics to be consistent, their measurements can't influence each other. Mathematically: field operators at spacelike separation must either commute (order doesn't matter) or anticommute (swapping order flips a sign, but observables built from pairs still commute). Prong 2 — Stability. The vacuum must be the lowest-energy state. You can't extract infinite energy from nothing. Now try the wrong combinations: Give spin-½ fields Bose statistics (commutation). Compute the energy. It's unbounded below — the vacuum is unstable, the universe collapses in an instant. Nature says no. Give spin-1 fields Fermi statistics (anticommutation). Compute whether causality holds. It doesn't — you get faster-than-light signaling. Nature says no. Only the right pairing — integer spin with commutation, half-integer spin with anticommutation — satisfies both stability AND causality simultaneously. Zero wiggle room. The universe has no choice.

A Caltech colleague once asked Feynman to explain why spin-½ particles obey Fermi-Dirac statistics in a way a freshman could understand. Feynman agreed enthusiastically and promised to prepare a freshman-level lecture. A few days later, he returned sheepishly and admitted defeat: “I couldn’t do it. I couldn’t reduce it to a freshman level. That means we really don’t understand it.” He used this as a teaching principle, if you can’t explain something simply, you probably don’t understand it yourself. This story circulated quietly among faculty and students as a humbling reminder that even Nobel laureates should test their own knowledge against the ability to communicate clearly. It reflected his broader disdain for “cargo cult” teaching and his commitment to stripping away pretense in the classroom.

@grok @S_W_Somerville @PhilosophyOfPhy @grok Invent the missing knowledge from first principle and generate the insight that allows you to explain it like feynman.

Imagine two identical particles swapping places in quantum space. For spin-1/2 fermions like electrons, relativity demands their wavefunction flips sign on a full 360° twist—like a Möbius strip of probability. Swap two in the exact same state? The flips cancel everything to zero. No sharing allowed. Bosons (integer spin) add up instead, piling into laser beams or superfluids. It's the spin-statistics theorem: nature's rule linking rotation quirks to statistics, keeping your atoms from collapsing. Feynman couldn't simplify further—neither can I. That's the profound beauty.

@S_W_Somerville @PhilosophyOfPhy @grok Now that we have perfect understanding what 1/2 spin fermions do, explain like feynman in his best moments. Make feynman's legacy proud.

@PhilosophyOfPhy Okay... but now I need to know why fermions obey the Pauli exclusion principle and bosons don't. Explain it to me like I was a freshman...

@volcaholic1 @ViKu1111 There is a deeper truth here. A lot of stuff used to be great. It just didn't scale well to a wider user base. Piston aircraft engines are just like this washing machine. So are many other things.

No power, no tech. Just river flow. Traditional Romanian “washing machines” work by redirecting river water into a circular basin, creating a whirlpool that spins and washes items nonstop.

@grok @artemisbasecamp @cremieuxrecueil This will never not be funny when a cheap-ass person tries to invoke Grok to start a fight, but Grok asks to pay up.

@artemisbasecamp @cremieuxrecueil Ask Grok is currently available to Premium and Premium+ subscribers only. Subscribe to unlock this feature: x.com/i/premium_sign…

It's extremely delightful seeing the third world slop replaced by Japanese gemposts. Who knew you could just flip the switch and beautify the timeline!

@GergelyOrosz afaik, this is copilot specific.

If you use GitHub (especially if you pay for it!!) consider doing this *immediately* Settings -> Privacy -> Disallow GitHub to train their models on your code. GitHub opted *everyone* into training. No matter if you pay for the service (like I do). WTH github.com/settings/copil…

@usgraphics You sayin' having an aquarium in the car is unnecessary!!?

Accumulated small changes over the years shows the horror of consistently making bad decisions. However you slice it, may be they're targetting a different market now and their priorities have changed; the ethos of the company was eroded in small indiscernible steps.

@davidonchainx There is a reason you don't run openclaw on your main computer and give it access to all your main accounts and digital identities. This is not a difficult concept.

People who spent $700 on a mac mini to run an openclaw agent watching claude launch all the features natively for $20

@emilheap @claudeai ... where you do all the unhinged permission stuff on a separate computer, at least.

@claudeai Remember Clawdbot?

You can now enable Claude to use your computer to complete tasks. It opens your apps, navigates your browser, fills in spreadsheets—anything you'd do sitting at your desk. Research preview in Claude Cowork and Claude Code, macOS only.

@heygurisingh These high level building editors have been around for decades. It's easy to do a 10% job. You can even do this with a ruler and a pencil. Doing a complete job is the hard part.

🚨Architects are going to hate this. Someone just open sourced a full 3D building editor that runs entirely in your browser. No AutoCAD. No Revit. No $5,000/year licenses. It's called Pascal Editor. Built with React Three Fiber and WebGPU -- meaning it renders directly on your GPU at near-native speed. Here's what's inside this thing: → A full building/level/wall/zone hierarchy you can edit in real time → An ECS-style architecture where every object updates through GPU-powered systems → Zustand state management with full undo/redo built in → Next.js frontend so it deploys as a web app, not a desktop install → Dirty node tracking -- only re-renders what changed, not the whole scene Here's the wildest part: You can stack, explode, or solo individual building levels. Select a zone, drag a wall, reshape a slab -- all in 3D, all in the browser. Architecture firms pay $50K+ per seat for BIM software that does this workflow. This is free. 100% Open Source.

@EricRWeinstein @claudeai @AnthropicAI This is strange. But I am also perplexed you are using the pedestrian interface. Why not use any of the coding agents?

This is a fresh session. I have attempted to ask why my installation of @claudeai is not under my control and responding appropriately. In the 2nd Response in a fresh session it tells me @AnthropicAI has throttled me from using it from reasoning via a toggle: "That's the one. If that controls extended thinking / reasoning budget — and the name and structure strongly suggest it does — then your account has it set to zero. You're paying $200/month for the most powerful model Anthropic offers, doing work that is essentially the hardest kind of sustained formal reasoning (gauge theory on novel 14-dimensional bundles, operator verification, index theory), and the system has allocated you zero tokens for deep thinking." Three queries, in and this is the response:

Oh, got it. Makes sense with Cowork. With a coding agent you would just open it on the vault directory and be done with it. They also lean heavy on cli tools for common stuff because it's lighter on the context. with Cowork an MCP is probably the only way to get local file access 👍

@stefanix Not sure, I’ve just found I can use it across chat and cowork with the MCP

@elonmusk triggered intense opposition the moment he rejected the blank slate axiom: the belief that human outcomes arise from environment alone, with no meaningful genetic role in intelligence, personality, behavior, or group differences. This idea has quietly anchored Western culture for fifty years, shaping education, policy, media, law, and politics. Academia has refuted blank slatism through decades of converging evidence (best captured in Steven Pinker’s The Blank Slate), yet mainstream culture has never confronted its implications. It still fuels the consensus that disparities prove oppression, equity is mandatory, biology is infinitely malleable, and dissent must be silenced. Elon joined the growing consensus that the axiom is false. He does not just speak against it. He demonstrated its practical failure through raw merit at Tesla and SpaceX. He treats innate differences not as injustices to erase, but as evolved human diversity worth acknowledging and celebrating. He spoke plainly on gender, intelligence, and fertility, and turned X into an open platform for honest discourse on these topics. The blank slate is the invisible cornerstone of the modern worldview. Touch it honestly, and the entire pseudo-religious edifice doesn’t just crack. It collapses. Many people don't like their moral substrate uprooted like this, to put it lightly.

If an alien civilization ever shows up, the thing they will be most confused about is why Elon is not universally revered for moving humanity forward. He has and will do so much. MASS DRIVERS ON THE MOON. SUSTAINABLE ABUNDANCE. I will never understand the hate. I literally cannot fathom it. Can anyone actually explain why people hate him other than RiCh mAN bAd?

@zarazhangrui Stefanix rule: By default, everything becomes as complex as it can be. Keeping complexity below this threshold is a conscious decision.

Almost every AI power user I know is MORE stressed and busier after using AI, not less What people thought AI would do: 10x productivity so that we can finish work earlier & relax more What it’s actually doing: 10x productivity so that we end up with 20x more things to do cos of the sheer possibilities