> Acronyms are abbreviations for meaningful names.

I think often words are added to allow for a memorable name, such as crispr

> When Mojica and Jansen struck up a correspondence, they began tossing around catchy names for the patterns, and on Nov. 21, 2001, they settled on CRISPR—an acronym for Clustered Regularly Interspaced Short Palindromic Repeats.

https://nautil.us/the-unbearable-weirdness-of-crispr-236685/

That's not the point of the article. It's about Claude/LLM being overconfident in recreating pixel perfect.

All AI's are overconfident. It's impressive what they can do, but it is at the same time extremely unimpressive what they can't do while passing it off as the best thing since sliced bread. 'Perfect! Now I see the problem.'. 'Thank you for correcting that, here is a perfect recreation of problem 'x' that will work with your hardware.' (never mind the 10 glaring mistakes).

I've tried these tools a number of times and spent a good bit of effort on learning to maximize the return. By the time you know what prompt to write you've solved the problem yourself.

What is the difference between "storing carbon" vs. "trapping carbon"?

In the first case the carbon dioxide is already concentrated, and in the second it has to be extracted by processing (at least) 2500 tons of air for each ton of carbon dioxide obtained. There are easier cases for carbon capture, when CO2 can actually be captured at the point of release (steel and cement plants, landfills) but atmospheric extraction is hard. Of course, plants can and do process lots of air (by it blowing over the leaves) but massively increasing plant growth is also hard.

probably mostly pedantry, but a lot of things can naturally store carbon, so maybe trapping carbon is specifically the unnatural capture of it?

Do you mean cause Thiel says he based the core of his beliefs on Schmitts teachings, a fervent nazi? Don't get the connection otherwise.

I recommend to read the source:

https://www.theguardian.com/us-news/2025/oct/10/peter-thiel-...

This supports my initial reaction. The "antichrist" indicators he points to are things like authoritarianism and homogenization, not burning bushes and bints with swords.

The flow diagram for yes/no attend meeting is missing to weigh the estimated impact you can make against other meetings.

Even if I can contribute real value to 20 meetings which I am invited to, I can't attend all of them.

> Who's to say there isn't something out there we haven't discovered yet

Occam's razor? We should work with as few assumptions as possible to get a model with the largest scope. Otherwise we get stuck with a hard to falsify mess.

Occam's razor is just a search heuristic when we try to find something in the woods at night blindfolded. It's a rule of thumb that says "when there is so many possibilities to explore, start with the simplest ones first, otherwise we'll surely get lost." But it's a mistake to use the Occam's razor as a law of nature and think that if we can't see anything in the dark over there, then there must be nothing there.

Yeah, but "we've been discovering new things for all of history, so there's likely more to discover" seems to a pretty fair assumption.

The point I made a few comments up is that often we start to identify the need for a new science based on observations we can't explain with our current understanding. Hydro-dynamics and electricity are examples given in the comment I replied to - but we could see those and go "wait, we can't explain this well, yet". Quantum physics, X-rays, wave-particle duality of light, and so on - we observed something and could not explain it.

My point was I don't think that's happening with neuroscience yet. We might not have a complete map yet, but we know where thoughts come from in the organ, we can watch them. Or can we? It's an open question, if people think there is more science to be done to sort out fundamentals, and we're not just in the stage of iterating on our base assumptions more, I'm OK with that, but it's not my understanding today.

AI bubble wrap or AI insulating foam?

The bubble will pop eventually. So bubble wrap it is. Insulating foam doesn't really "pop"

> I’m not charging. No paywall. No “freemium” trap. Just pure value.

This had me drop out of the article..

Where does this style of writing come from? It’s pretty distinct and makes it so easy to detect.

LinkedIn, although I'm not sure LinkedIn was the originator, itself. Self-absorbed overly-dramatic writing like this has plagued LinkedIn forever. There's even a subreddit that makes fun of its authors: /r/LinkedInLunatics.

Now you're just seeing it on this blog post.

And here on HackerNews, in my post.

Why, you may ask?

Because my intent is to leave you breathless in anticipation for "engagement." With short sentences. That don't let you rest and take in what you read.

I bet we could draw a throughline of the overly-dramatic writing style to TED Talks and all the way back to Steve Jobs' presentation style. The pregnant pauses. The short sentences. The holding back on making point for effect. All traced back to early-2000s product launches.

We gotta add in the "and here's what B2B Enterprise SAAS sales taught me"

We’re not just using words. We’re writing them. Unless we’re not. #slopfest2025

linkedin posts. it's practically the house style.

I dropped out at the same sentence.

> They only upstream some bug fixes that would be too onerous to keep in their private fork.

Are you arguing that more good things would go upstream if it were licensed non-permissive or are you giving an example were it works well enough?

They're privatizing their profits and socializing their losses.

It's not healthy.