I went back about 2 years ago and speed ran all of them. Somehow the sequels seemed substantially better than I remember them. In fact, on the first watch I was _so_ disappointed with 2 that I didn’t even watch 3. 20-odd years later, I had a very different (positive) experience. Not sure why. Maybe I was in a good mood.
I don’t know for sure, but I believe those larger models must be run on nVidia hardware (CUDA), while Deepseek-V4-* can be run on Huawei chips. My assumption is that there is less demand pressure on non-nVidia chips.
There are multiple mentions of him being motivated by wanting to shoot deer for meat. It is a through line via the article.
> The article is about someone in Scotland who took up marksmanship as a hobby.
I wish it were so. With a bit more self awareness the author could have said “initially picked up a rifle to learn to hunt deer, but doing so i learned how targets are scored and become interested in automating that process.” There is nothing wrong with that. But pretending that someone is doing all this coding to get better charcuterie is where it becomes frustrating yak shaving.
The guy is clearly an obsessive hyper-perfectionist- he's telling (or boasting) of taking a culinary obsession from reproducing fine-dining dishes (when most people are content mastering a few decent recipes) to building automates curing chambers and butchering whole animals. It's kind of obvious that this personality leads from any random objective to into the deepest of the rabbit holes where everything is studied and annotated with the utmost precision. Funny as a clinical case, not sure I'd like to be around someone like this though :)
Point is that sub-millimeter precision when measuring rings is doing absolutely nothing to further his shooting skills to take down a tasty deer. To the contrary. Time is limited, and every minute spent perfecting this automation was not spent improving shooting skills by, you know, shooting. In other words, this may well have made him a worse shooter than he could have been. Nothing wrong with it, but let's call it for what it is.
A perfectionist defines a goal and then finds the perfect path to get there. He was just giving in to distractions and "perfectionist" is the wrong label.
It's not about submillimetre precision (OP here), it's about knowing if you can shoot well. The most common deer stalking certification in the UK (DSC1) involves three shooting tests from 20, 70, and 100m - if I don't care about 8/10 vs 9/10 shots from 25 yards, there is no way I am putting a shot within a 4" circle from 100 metres.
> every minute spent perfecting this automation was not spent improving shooting skills by, you know, shooting
I mention in the post that I had access to the range only 1-2 evenings a week, so there was no way I could improve my skills outside of these few hours.
> if I don't care about 8/10 vs 9/10 shots from 25 yards, there is no way I am putting a shot within a 4" circle from 100 metres.
Totally with you there. Though isn't what counts in the end how close you were to the center? If you look with your eyes and it looks like it was in the 3rd ring, what does it matter whether it "technically" wasn't because half a millimeter was in the next ring? It was surely much better shot than fully in the next one, unless you actually want to go to the olympics or are otherwise competing in the sport.
Don't get me wrong, I totally respect the challenge of automating the counting but that this actually helped your progress still seems doubtful to me.
> I mention in the post that I had access to the range only 1-2 evenings a week, so there was no way I could improve my skills outside of these few hours
Ok, fair. Though we can surely agree that even though the automation-building that you did during all this extra time improved your skills, it was coding skills rather than shooting skills? (Which, again, is fantastic!)
Maybe it’s just that I identify so strongly with the author in that way, then - I saw that, but didn’t see it as a rationale for the rest of the article. It was just “here’s the path that led to my picking up marksmanship as an interest”.
No, that's fair (OP here) - I went to the range to learn how to hold the rifle in the first place, but indoor shooting with .22 from 25 yards in a stiff shooting jacket is as far from shooting a deer with .243 as it gets, so I stayed for the fun of it and the community around it.
I would definitely get to the point of stalking deer faster if I were to book a few 1-1 sessions at an outdoor range instead, but "faster" was never the point.
Without going too far into the weeds here, IMO this experience is representative of gun rights, zoning, and all sorts of other differences between urban and rural.
Rural kids are put into situations where they are expected to rely fully on themselves, with life-or-death consequences, from a young age. When your pre-teen is driving a machine on their own that could easily kill them or those around them, giving them a .22 rifle is just... normal. It's not at all the same situation as a kid the same age who lives in an apartment and who may have never been in a place where no one would be close enough to hear them if they screamed for help.
I can't wrap my head around the idea that a large number of people who live in cities seem to want to extend childhood through age 25. My daughters are 12 and 17, and between them have over fifty animals directly depending on them for survival. It's just... foreign.
I think you're generalizing too much. Rural communities take gun safety seriously. Farming communities take farming equipment seriously. Kids grow up internalizing the seriousness of these things, which is communicated expressly and tacitly their whole lives by countless people around them, including their friends. Plus they encounter walking examples of what can go wrong, like a missing finger, burn scars (not careful around bonfires or burn pits), or bullet holes (I knew at least 2 or 3 kids growing up with scars from shot). But put those same kids or adults who are careful with those machines in a similarly dangerous but novel situation, and they'll do dumb shit like anyone else. I'm tempted to argue they're more likely to do something dumb because they have a false confidence from their experience with other dangerous situations, whereas suburban and city kids may be more likely to be too scared to play around with any dangerous machine or situation.
I lived on a farm for a year as a young kid (farmer rented a couple of trailers on his land). I remember one day I was hanging around the hog pen watching the giant hogs mill about, probably contemplating trying to pet one. Mr Austin came by and sternly told me to not to reach through the fencing, then knelt down and showed me his ear, which was missing a big chunk.
On the flip side, plenty of Rural and Suburban people are terrified by the city, which kids growing up in the city shrug off.
Rural folks might learn to respect a PTO or the varmint rifle by age 10, but city kids learn how to navigate the bus routes and subway. They learn how to walk on crowded streets, how to live among a lot of different people, including dangerous people(and how to avoid the conflict).
It's all quite interesting. Different kinds of toughness, different kinds of mental fortitude.
I think that there's a major difference in the resulting mindsets that the two types of experiences form, though.
The first learn that nature is always present and doing its best to kill you / wreck your harvest, and that it is only through man's intelligence and social bonds that we thrive. I would argue a corollary of this is that one cannot tolerate malicious or grossly neglectful people around.
The second group learns that other people are a liability and that bad actors are just a fact of life to be tolerated and worked around.
Both approaches are clearly optimal for their respective environment. The former seems like a stronger foundation for building a civilization on, though.
This is becoming such a weird romanticisation of rural Americana!
Your civilisation is being destroyed because a largely rural constituency is able to clean a rifle in 60s but appears to have no critical thinking skills when it comes to a certain New Yorker.
Yes it’s good to learn how to be resilient in nature, but it’s also important to learn how to get along with and manage relationships with larger groups who are not always to be trusted.
The point missing from this discussion is that because of hysteria over stranger danger (not supported out by any real evaluation of or changes in risk) and because we allow cars to dominate our urban spaces, city kids are being denied opportunities for independence they previously had.
That’s the real change that’s happened … and we’re replacing real urban experience with corporate attention economies.
City kids can get on the bus or urban rail in actual big cities. Even in places like urban philippines or mexico where there is [often] no public transport, collectivos take up this niche. Kids abound in these places even in places like Manila where traffic is way worse and way more homicidal, and they take the jeepnee to go to the next barangay.
It's really mainly in the suburbs where neighborhoods are choked off by bike unfriendly freeways and no for-hire transit.
> The first learn that nature is always present and doing its best to kill you
> The second group learns that other people are a liability
Sounds like nature is simply survival + entropy and sometimes that leads to mixed incentives. Rural folks also understand people are dangerous. Per capita violent crime and murder is higher in Rural areas.
That's why I find it interesting, they're different expressions of common survival needs.
I grew up in a city, my wife on a ranch that was several sections large. We have lived in large dense cities and we currently live on a "smaller" ranch. I have taken densely packed subways to work on one hand and walked home on my own property more than a mile after running out of gas. Here is my observation. Neither camp typically has a clue about why the other might be motivated by a different opinion.
Take your .22 rifle. Many truly rural families would feel that this tool was essential. Same for having knife on you. We have lived where there are rattlesnake and coyotes as an almost every day thing. Not so much rattlesnakes but certainly coyotes. In fact bear and cougar were not out of the question. The idea that I would allow my kids to wander on the property without a .22 in their 4 wheeler seemed risky. They were expected to know how to shoot just as they were expected to know how to ride a horse, and drive a tractor unsupervised. We taught them to be safe and could not have run our ranch without our girls taking on some big dangerous responsibilities.
We have also lived in big cities where the idea that many of the liberties we enjoyed in the country were insane in the city. The idea that any random teen should be allowed to drive a 80hp tractor around or carry a gun or a fixed blade knife was insanity. Just as allowing my kids to run down the sidewalk or play unsupervised in the park after dark was insanity. On our fist day after moving my eldest daughter ran down the sidewalk and was hit (but not injured) by a car coming out of a driveway.
She just had no clue about how cars in a dense city moved. There just are different life rules that apply in different situations. Guns can be critically important in one environment and absolutely insane in a second. Same goes for driving a tractor that could kill you or a family member or going to a park after dark.
Unless people understand that a different environment might require a different set of norms or even laws we can't have a productive urban/rural conversation. Of course I can drive my ATV along your fence line. You probably can't even see it from your home or hear it. Though you can bet my dad asked your dad for permission 40 years ago. Try running your unregistered, unlicensed ATV through your suburban neighbor's yard and you will find out why there are important laws preventing you from doing what was perfectly fine in the back country.
I don't "want" to extend childhood; but where I live makes it a little difficult to let my kids roam the way I did. Go too far one way and you're heading into busy highway traffic hell, go too far the other way and you're heading into hobo territory.
Wish I could move; I could sell this overpriced place and almost retire.... not under my control
Family, yes. Nothing bad or negative, I like where I live a lot. It's just busy, and not super safe for wandering children, at least until they're a bit older.
People can have different lived experiences and it's OK; they are differently valuable and beneficial. I'm a certified unc, easily double the age of your oldest, and I have 0 animals depending on me for survival. It means, among other things, that I can simply decide to leave town for a week and don't need to arrange for replacement humans to take care of other living beings -- and this is a valuable freedom to have.
The phrasing of "gun rights" in the context that's really about gun responsibilities is a big part of the problem. And I say this from an unusual position; I'm a Brit who was taught to shoot at school (cadets). The urban gun control question is not so much about responsibility as about malice. There's not a huge number of people with murderous intent, but there are enough. And the resistance of rural America to the questions of either "do you actually need a gun?", "are you a responsible person?", and "no, you can't bring that into the city" result in thousands of deaths every year in the city. If they were willing to allow separate rules for different areas, this wouldn't be nearly as heated.
> a large number of people who live in cities seem to want to extend childhood through age 25
This is not great, and a more complicated problem of percieved danger.
Ive never heard a rural person talk about wanting to bring guns into cities, they generally avoid cities in general. I do hear lots of talk about urban focused gun regulations wanting to be passed nation wide without any exemptions for rural folks or even the slightest nuance or knowledge about guns and existing gun laws.
America's biggest obstacle to meaningful gun control is the groups and people pushing gun control the hardest have no idea what they are legislating. That's how we got nonsense bans on stuff like slings and bayonets, or trying to specifically ban AR-15s while functionally identical guns would remain legal.
And the second obstacle, which isn't far behind, is nobody trusts the US government enough to want to disarm themselves. We already got a police state and the largest military in the world and absolutely zero reasons in living memory to trust the government to look after its people instead of abusing them.
And frankly, I think any gun control measure in America is completely worthless and will only do more harm than good if the majority of gun owners don't trust the government enough to protect them all the time and aren't willingly turning in their guns. US citizens have enough guns to arm the entirety of themselves 100x times over so even if you could seize 95% of guns with magic, that's still enough blackmarket guns for 100+ years of insurgency with zero additional production. Personally I think we would do better to focus more on improving the lives of average citizens so they don't want to blast people randomly.
Maybe 'city' folk should offer something in exchange then. I would trade megamillion 'city' sovereignty on 'gun control' in exchange for stopping application of the NFA and GCA in the 'country'.
Right now all 'city' offers is a shittier deal and pray they do not alter it worse. Obviously that's not politically viable way to get agreement and part of the reason why gun control advocates think "nothing changes."
That's not what was done. The GCA and NFA was imposed on the entire country and none of the gun control advocates are offering to give that up in exchange for more local control. That was the "compromise." (oh yes, we did get an act allowing exemption from prosecution for merely travelling though a restrictive jurisdiction with an illegal weapon, but surprise surprise, places like New York just ignore that anyway and jail you until you can appeal it to federal court) It was always more and more regulation on people in the 'country' with nothing in exchange to offer them for having to give something up. And then, on top of that, the 'cities' added more on top of that (but refer to next paragraph for more).
When the 'country' finally got sick of it then you wound up with state pre-emption against local control being passed in most states because it turned out that bargain was a fraud.
So what I would propose, is if 'city' really wants to loosen up the gridlock, they should bring something serious to the negotiating table. Like ending the GCA and NFA in 'country' and in exchange state pre-emption gets nixed so 'city' can pass tighter laws there.
So to answer your question:
> Cant you all just pass some laws that apply to your place only? Why does it have to be a trade.
Here is where we are at. State pre-emption stops 'city' from passing stronger local control. And federal law stops 'country' from passing weaker local control. To break that gridlock 'city' and 'country' have to have something on the offering table for each other. That is why it has to be a trade.
>Rural kids are put into situations where they are expected to rely fully on themselves, with life-or-death consequences, from a young age.
come to the city, farm boy, and we'll give you a corner you can sling the brown from and we see how you do. we find something fo yo daughters to do too*
*i have absolutely no street smarts, country or city, but I do watch Law & Order and know how to pound a nail and know what to grease the maitre d' to get into the hottest restaurants in town. and beyond that i got friends, some of these guys know people who know people, just sayin
Perhaps one difference is that it seems to be considered good/normal parenting to expose your farm kids to mortal dangers, but it's definitely not considered good parenting to expose your city kids to mortal dangers (despite the city having no lack of mortal dangers).
I'm not sure why you'd say sexual orientation is a choice; it's not, any more than race. Religion is a choice. Politics are a choice. The operative word of "earnestly-held belief" is "held" -- you can let them go if you want. There have been a few MAGAs changing their minds. I have a friend who was a Democrat until he went MAGA. If you suggest those must have not been "earnestly held" beliefs, I'll have to remind you about true Scotsmen.
That's exactly my point, though - who gets to decide?
I've arrived at my political positions through evidence and reason. Outside new information coming to light, they are both immutable and inherent. They are not "choices" that I've made in any framework that makes sense to me.
... which is entirely consistent with his statements.
Here are more of his own words from the same letter:
> And what country can preserve it’s liberties if their rulers are not warned from time to time that their people preserve the spirit of resistance? Let them take arms. The remedy is to set them right as to facts, pardon and pacify them. What signify a few lives lost in a century or two? The tree of liberty must be refreshed from time to time with the blood of patriots and tyrants. It is it’s natural manure.
The blood of patriots and tyrants. He never expected rebellion to go unchallenged, he was advocating that we should maintain the spirit of rebellion as a guard against tyranny.
Sure, but this is only tenable as a technical position that aims to reduce all forms of centralized power. It completely fails as a political position applied to the nominal "government". Politically, pushing in this direction seems to only ever play out as reducing the power of governments over corporations, while often even increasing the power of government over individuals (spurred on by corporations looking to wield that power through the government). Whereas for it to achieve its intended individual liberty, the complete opposite would have to happen - decreasing the power of governments over individuals while holding or even increasing the power of governments over corporations - otherwise unrestrained corporations simply step into that nonconsensual role of government and we're back to step #1.
Would you believe that I agree with what you wrote completely?
I’m pretty much a pure anarchist in terms of principles, but I’m a pragmatist in practice. I’d describe my approach in politics as “What do you wish the government would stop doing? Let’s focus on making that happen.”
You can’t change a culture by changing the political system, but my hope is that you can change a political system by changing the culture. I want to be as independent of the state as I can possibly be, and I want to encourage others to do the same. My hope is that this sort of cultural shift will eventually lead the shrinking of the state. I don’t expect to live to see that happen, but I hope my children and their children do.
Aside from the above, just don’t harm others. That’s it.
I would. My own views had to come from somewhere, right?
Responding to what you've said, my unfortunate experience is that culture always ends up going sideways. As movements grow in mindshare they tend to attract people focused on power/expedience, only applying the initial precepts towards those ends. And gaining control over some existing centralized power structures is much more lucrative than a given person's share of the distributed wealth that would be created by successfully constraining them.
Which ties right into the problem I saw with your original comment. A statement like "Government should be so powerless as to be unattractive targets for corporate influence" lands in the political/partisan context by default. And while perhaps that's a symptom of how [unfortunately] inured in centralized politics we are, it's still a fact. So even though we can both take a step back and lay out the context where that can be an agreeable productive statement, the overwhelming use of similar statements is actually to attack individual liberty by getting people to overfocus on the nominal government while giving a pass to another primary contingent of the centralized power structure.
If you’re interested, see my response to a sibling comment of yours for a more complete description of my mindset.
Specific to this, though: there’s a big difference between a stateless society and a failed state. You’re describing failed states.
I also very much agree with you about the result of a power vacuum. I argue that a power vacuums exist not because of the absence of a state, but because of the absence of a state where the populace expects and relies on a state to be.
I didn’t say we should get rid of it all tomorrow morning :)
It’s only “scientific” because it’s new, not because it’s too difficult to understand.
reply