> R is perhaps the closest, because it has data.frame as a 'first class citizen', but most people don't seem to use it, and use e.g. tibbles from dplyr instead.
Everyone in R uses data.frame because tibble (and data.table) inherits from data.frame. This means that "first class" (base R) functions work directly on tibble/data.table. It also makes it trivial to convert between tibble, data.table, and data.frames.
I'm saying it's egregious to expect all users to know the fact that an HTML document, for some reason, uses an enormous amount of context in an LLM designed specifically for working with code.
Gptel has been working great for me. I'd be interested in checking this out but I only have so much time to set up and test new tools. What features would make it worthwhile to switch from gptel?
You don't "switch" from gptel as this package solves a problem of a different dimension. Gptel is still great for tons of other things, even though it's not suitable for "project context-wise" LLM workflows.
The package define a list of tools that gptel can use to inspect and edit a project. The tools are packaged as a preset so all you have to do is add "@macher" to your prompt to include the tools & update the system directive.
I'd be interested in tests involving tasks with large amounts of context. Parallel thinking could conceivably useful for a variety of specific problem types. Having more context than any specific chain of thought can reasonably attend to might be one of them.
If you throw some data at a clustering algorithm, the clustering algorithm is guaranteed to give you clusters back. So I'm not convinced about the results suggesting a precise pattern of rapid aging.
Anecdotally I feel I noticed a very fast ageing speed between 38 and 40. Suddenly got white hairs, feel more tired, more wrinkles, way harder to keep VO2max up (I run a lot), muscle sores after training suddenly lasting up to 3 days instead of 1, face looks older, etc.
I feel like that all happened real fast around this age.
I'm 38. We had three kids over a period of 8 years. Looking at old pictures I seemingly held on for a long while, until something hit me at 35-36?!
It's like there's two versions of me now, the one who was somehow moderately fit by biochemical decree, with a healthy amount of flesh to his face, voluminous dark blonde hair and a pleasant complexion...
... And the grey haired, weathered, lined, dessicated mummy I see in the mirror. I love my kids dearly but the constant caring really takes something out of you. That and the whole getting older thing in TFA.
I keep telling myself I'll get a gym membership soon to reclaim some of my dignity.
Like you I have kids, and it really takes a toll, and I definitely see myself aging in the mirror. But I cannot recommend training enough. I started working out regularly three years ago, after a long hiatus due to kids. And I feel stronger and fitter than ever as I approach 40.
The kids still need lots of care (they are 5–9 years old), so finding time and motivation is still a challenge. For me the trick is to do training I really like. That helps so much with motivation. So, find something you like!
What I happen to like is bouldering and hiking. I have a fixed day of the week for bouldering, just after work, and I never miss it, because I know if I start skipping I might fall off my training habit.
Then the rest of the training is motivated by getting better at what I love. I do pull ups to better my climbing etc…
I will fight hard to keep at it through my 40s, because it is such a quality of life improvement. I also attribute the fact that I haven’t been really sick the last few years to my exercise.
Thanks for writing this. The youngest is 1.5 years old, and going from two in the same age range to three (where the youngest throws you back into diaper world) has been pretty intense.
The oldest go to bed later and later & I also like to hang out with my wife for a few hours each week... finding the energy and motivation for "me time" has been tough indeed. I should just do something I like, and stick with that on a regular schedule. It's as simple as what you write.
Exactly. As a regular at a non-hardcore gym, I had never appreciated it until I saw the gym sell 12mo membership for the price of 4x 1mo, and then I tried to remember how many people sticked around for a meaningful period. Very few men. No women.
The nearest gym is truly the best gym for 90% of people, as everyone seems to look for excuses not to go. So just go, people there will not bite you or shame you.
Gym I go to is near to a university so always filled with college age kids. I find it super motivating. Lifting more than them has become life affirming for me :)
Spotted an 18 year old the other day that hit a PR at 315lbs on bench. I bench 405lbs and at that exact moment I decided I have to hit 495lbs. 405 had been my goal for decades. I went from I've hit the most I will ever need to "the journey continues".
"people there will not bite you or shame you" I have found the gym to be filled with the most grim looking people that transform into the kindest, happiest people as soon as you say hello. No one is there to judge anyone. You are 100% right
Im 46 now. I had my kids in my early 30's. I gained 30+ pounds over their first 10 years of life. Kids are hard :)
Now that they are older I have more free time. Once they get to the point where they can stay home alone things become much easier. For me that was around when they hit 10. I'm 46 now and in the best shape of my life. Keep pushing through, there is light at the end of the tunnel
Looking back at pictures from really not that long ago (less than 5 years) to before kids or the first year of the first kid and one of the overriding comments both me and wife have are "We look so young!". We have two aged 3-to-5, and its been hard but not that hard, especially now that there are no nappies/diapers and they sleep 10-11 hours straight overnight and we pay for gardeners, cleaners etc and pretty much do our usual 9-5 as we did before kids.
FWIW though, I would say that you don't need a gym membership. I try to run/jog/saunter a couple of times a week - its free and easy to do. Getting started is as easy as putting some shoes on and stepping out your door - no set up, no memberships, no travel to get to the place to do the running etc. You don't need to go buy special shoes or anything - just something vaguely appropriate will be fine to get started with for short distances and steady pace.
Its what your body has evolved to do, and I think there is a good mental-health aspect to just going out on your own and running and letting the mind wander. I personally don't especially "enjoy" running, and it is sometimes hard to persuade myself to actually go do it, but once I have started and I am 5-10 minutes in, it's quite nice.
I'm well into my 40s. I've noticed aging in almost all my friends and work colleagues my age as well as those up to 10 years younger than me. I haven't noticeability aged myself yet though. Don't have any grey hairs, no wrinkles, don't look older than I did in my 20s.
It's not just my perception either, other people assume I'm early 20s.
I can't really relate to the physical stuff though because muscle sores after training was always 3 days for me and it was always difficult to keep VO2max up, even in my early teens. So I guess I just started out in middle age.
I said I was skeptical of there being a precise pattern of rapid aging. I never said I was skeptical that rapid/non-linear aging can occur. If you did experience rapid aging in the way the paper measured this from 38-40 that is more evidence in support of my point that there is some broad random distribution of when rapid aging occurs and this paper and blog post overintepret the data to mean rapid aging occurs precisely in your mid-forties and at 60.
Sounds like something someone < 40 would say. To anyone over, I feel like this study is pretty obvious. I'm in my early 40's and whatever change this is, has been discussed multiple times with my peers, active lifestyle or not, wealth or not, married or not, physical career or not. Everything starts to feel a little harder, whether it's exercise, problem solving, memory, sleep, sex drive, appetite, fuckin everything. Things change in your late 30s, for sure.
All young people think they are special and age is just a number. The rest of the population knows that isn't true. Spare me your weight lifting 80 year old, or "my grandpa worked the farm til he was 90" stuff, we all know those are extreme outliers.
Turning 44 this year and none of this has hit me at all? Still staying up all night on weekends, working harder than I ever did (not more hours, though), feeling more motivated to take on both paid and unpaid work outside of my job. And my sex drive just as strong (and just as unfulfilled!) as in my 20s and 30s.
Sometimes I can't believe how low discussions on HN can fall. Did really nobody in this thread bother to check this? Are we fine disparaging research solely based on the fact that they used a method that gives bad results with bad inputs (which doesn't?) and their incentives could be misaligned (whose aren't?)?
If there are well justified concerns about the method or data then by all means let's talk about it, but please let's all try to keep low effort anti intellectual conspiracy theories away from here.
I read the paper before I made my original comment. They fit a clustering algorithm and then hand waved at intepreting the clusters. 'Omics papers get away with a lot of hand waving. Yeah they did some peak detection and found peaks, but you are going to find peaks in a random walk.
They didn't test the theory that rapid aging occurs at those two specific time points in an independent hold out set.
Most importantly even if these peaks exist this paper does not prove they are biological. They could correspond to common socially driven changes in behavior
> I read the paper before I made my original comment.
That's good, now I'm wondering about the others in the thread.
> 'Omics papers get away with a lot of hand waving
Making assumptions and interpreting results is part of any type of analysis, especially for unsupervised learning approaches like clustering. Or maybe I am missing something: how do you not-handwave the results of a clustering analysis if you don't have any supervision signal?
In any case, I agree that omics in particular take many more liberties than usual with their interpretations. And yet, sometimes they come up with useful and important finding. Yes, a broken clock...2x a day, but maybe after working in the same field for many years one can gain some insights and intuitions.
> but you are going to find peaks in a random walk
I would hope so since a random walk has pretty obvious peaks, and it's not hard to test if the peak is significantly beyond the level expected due to chance.
Do you have actual concerns about the data and the peaks they found, or are we back at wondering about all the fallacies that they may or may have not committed?
> They didn't test the theory that rapid aging occurs at those two specific time points in an independent hold out set.
This is a glaring omission, I agree.
> this paper does not prove they are biological. They could correspond to common socially driven changes in behavior.
True, but it dot make this paper worth any less. If anything, it's a great question for follow-up work.
That's okay though; in that case it can just be cleaned off. Better, the residue probably protects it from UV damage, so the plastic underneath is probably not in terrible shape.
They did not mention research which is like the defining characteristic of a university. They seem to be condescendingly grouping research into the category of "status/prestige"
Sure but I think it's an oversimplification to say that universities are unfocused and that this lack of focus is a problem because 1) the alternative already exists (smaller colleges are typically focused primarily on education with less research and less sports) 2) Universities doing a lot of things (including offering undergrads connections to research labs) is one of the main reasons that they are an attractive option relative to colleges.
1) if they were effective then we wouldnt see millions of students jumping into 60k a year private institutions
2) I don't buy this at all, I think students mostly select based on prestige. Academic rigor and research opportunities are mildly correlated to this but def not what high schoolers and their parents index on
reply