The choice happens implicitly rather than explicitly. If Claude tries an approach and hits a wall, it'll try a different approach. If an API call keeps not working, it'll choose a different API. It a tool is broken, it'll use something else. If it can't find docs nor read the code, it'll try to implement functionality from scratch. If you give it messy tools with confusing docs, you'll notice Claude not calling them as you'd expect, and instead trying something simpler instead.
"something simpler/simpler approach" are terms I search for in evals because they almost always indicate the model going off the rails (assuming the input prompt was decent).
Yesterday I had it using an internal library without documentation or source code. LSP integration wasn't working. It didn't have decompilation tools or the ability to download them.
I came back to my terminal to find it had written its own tool to decompile the assembly, and successfully completed the task using that info.
Depends on what you mean by "improvements". Is it coordination? Is it sustained increased blood flow?
I would imagine that different bike exercise regimens could induce more variation in fitness than the comparison dance vs exercise alone.
One can always find positive and negative outcomes related to any intervention to a biological system. Fasting is no exception.
The question is when and where is it beneficial, and what are the trade-offs. I'm sure if one has a clean, healthy diet, and consistent sleep and routine, it likely does not matter in the long run at what time one decides to eat or not eat. If the effect size were noticeable we'd have seen it already in smaller samples.
If one is overeating, or eating garbage all the time, then I'd hypothesize fasting to be beneficial by giving the biological system a break to try and bring itself back to a better steady-state without so much forced external input.
My roommate as a postfix was a guy finishing his graduate work in fluids simulations. He was also a former competitive swimmer. He's the first to tell me about fast and score pools.
According to him the answer is no.
Which makes sense, really. The generated surface waves alone are impossible to simulate, never mind the turbulent wake.
But he explained that shallow pools can be also be fast for fluid reasons, and not for psychological ones (better coupling of the arms for propulsion by using by viscous coupling to the floor?)
Nice. Love vim too, but letting go of org mode is too much of a negative to justify a switch.
I know I could use Emacs just for org mode, and vim for everything else, but that seems like even more overhead.
I appreciate that people are looking into this, and I think more research of this kind should be funded.
However, one needs to be cautious when claiming an "impairment" in fear regulating regions from a measure of cortical thickness with MRI. For once, there is no evidence that a slightly thinner or larger cortical thickness means better or worse regulation of any kind.
Second, morphology studies are susceptible to many sources of biases which are not really addressed in this study. For example, anything that affects hydration levels or causes a redistribution of blood and cerebral spinal fluid volume can lead to significant changes in measures of cortical thickness, since they will change the contrast between gray and white matter that drive cortical thickness measurements.
Changes in thickness have been found even when comparing people scanned in the morning and in the evening [1]. Any drug intervention could be expected to cause physiological changes that could act as confounds.
Also, in the discussion one reads: "Interestingly, no lasting effects of combined oral contraceptives (COCs) use were detected when comparing the four groups."
This suggests that the changes could be driven by physiological changes instead of permanent changes in brain circuitry.
It would be great to see a follow up study controlling for potential confounding effects (for example, measuring baseline perfusion, blood pressure and controlling for time of day effects and usage of other drugs), and expanding the study with functional tests that involve fear regulation.
Pretty much everything you'll read online says that it was because of the high risk of injury, but in my opinion that's only a small part of the story.
Not denying that risk was part of it, but it was the first move where a gymnast stood on the bar. I think a lot of gymnastics folks felt that it disrupted the overall flow of the routine, and it basically just wasn't what uneven bar routines were supposed to be about.
Things like this happen from time-to-time in gymnastics: someone finds something that is a bit "outside the lines", and then it gets banned. E.g. several years ago a gymnast did a floor routine wearing "cat-like" makeup (Maybe her music was from Cats? Can't remember) and then subsequently the FIG banned "theatrical makeup" in routines.
