You use abstractions every day. Interfaces are abstractions. Perhaps you are simply being flippant, or rather abstract with your words.

i have no idea what that has to do with anything - i use a toilet every day as well.

I thought it was an aposite joke. A, "you're local weirdo, or you, might count in a foreign language".

Yes, really. The concept GP is alluding to is called the Sapir-Worf hypothesis, which is largely non scientific pop linguistics drivel. Elements of a much weaker version have some scientific merit.

Programming languages are not languages in the human brain nor the culture sense.

That's your right; I consider myself a very curious person but I never watch YouTube (I have watched less than 10 minutes in 2026).

I prefer to read news and information. What little exposure to YouTube personalities and editing styles I've had annoys me to no end.

I swear I just set up enterprise and org level ignore paths.

Yeah, it's a Copilot Business/Enterprise feature

Until you invariably end up dealing with sampling rate disparities and other bugs that lead you to hear crackling or make you sound like a robot.

That is a bold claim contrary to the consensus of evidence I could find. From what I've read, masks were generally effective at reducing the spread of COVID, found mostly through observational studies, but backed by some random trials as well.

You should either cite evidence or amend your claim.

I've worked at three very different companies where at least one member of the software team had to essentially negotiate for their project's budget and scope (and tacitly their jobs in some cases).

My wife uses a OnePlus 8t (about as old as your phone) daily. It's survived drops, tubs, etc.

I still have one of those lying around in the draw. It's the backup phone and every time I or my partner needs to use it I am surprised at how well it still works.

Sad that it is Chinese one.

I read through this entire article. There was some value in it, but I found it to be very "draw the rest of the owl". It read like introductions to conceptual elements or even proper segues had been edited out. That said, I appreciated the interactive components.

It started off nicely but before long you get

"The MLP (multilayer perceptron) is a two-layer feed-forward network: project up to 64 dimensions, apply ReLU (zero out negatives), project back to 16"

Which starts to feel pretty owly indeed.

I think the whole thing could be expanded to cover some more of it in greater depth.

I think the big frustration I've had in learning modern ML is that the entire owl is just so complicated. A poor explainer reads like "black box is black boxing the other black box", completely undecipherable. A mediocre-to-above-average explanation will be like "(loosely introduced concept) is (doing something that sounds meaningful) to black box", which is a little better. However, when explanations start getting more accurate, you run into the sheer volume of concepts/data transforms taking place in a transformer, and there's too much information to be useful as a pedagogical device.

I tried to include tooltips in some places that go into more depth, but I understand there's a jump. I'm not sure what will be the best way to go about it tbh

I liked the tooltips. You should define each term the first time it shows up (MLP for example).