Category: Thoughts

Decoding Dog Signals: What Does the Ironing Board Mean? | December 17 2025, 01:55

Help decode the signal being sent into the universe by a dog. The same gesture towards the refrigerator means wants treats, to the door – open it (outside or inside), to the knee – pet me, to the cat – a complex indecipherable set of emotions. Question – what could it mean towards an ironing board?

I have tried everything. Gave food. Poured water. Took for walks. Opened the backyard. Played with a ball with him. Definitely petted him. Only thing that worked was leaving the room. But then when you come back – he returns to playing at the foot of the ironing board. You turn around – he looks and waits for something.

Apparently, he concluded that to get everything at once, he needs to do it with an ironing board

Preserving the Essence of Soviet Animation | December 13 2025, 15:05

In Soviet times, there was a great school of animation that led the world for many decades. If you search on YouTube for “Vovka in the Land of Far Far Away”, it almost exclusively shows restorations 🤮, and at the same time, it shows the same disgusting restorations of heaps of other cartoons, all made in the same style (vectorization, black outlines). If you go to Wikipedia, it will display a screenshot from the restoration, not from the original 1965 cartoon. The original can be found, for example, by searching “vovka in the land of far far away madina gazieva”, but searching “vovka in the land of far far away soyuzmultfilm 1965” shows nothing at all.

They really broke the internet.

P.S. By the way, “two of a kind, fulfilling wishes,” and “good enough” resonate very much with today’s ChatGPT 😉

Stages of Understanding Scientific Papers | December 10 2025, 19:38

As I periodically read scientific papers on my topic, I will try to articulate the levels of understanding the truth.

Level 0: “Read Later Folder” Downloaded the PDF, the title sounds genius, the abstract seems like the solution to all my problems. The file is forever buried in the ~/Downloads/Papers/ToRead folder.

Level 1: “Sumerian Cuneiform” Don’t understand anything at all. Random symbols, the Greek alphabet is over. “Orthogonal extrapolation of cognitive entropy within a quasi-stationary discourse inevitably induces a bifurcation of transcendental synergism.” Such materials really lower self-esteem. Most often from this level, you either fall back to zero, or gradually move to the second level.

Level 2: “Illusion of Competence” The Abstract is clear, the Introduction reads like a good detective story. But as soon as the main section starts, the text turns into a pumpkin. I can’t paraphrase it in my own words, only in general phrases: “Well, they trained a neural net… kind of.”

Level 3: “Formulas where needed and where not” The Abstract is clear, the first half of the article is also okay (architecture, pictures). But then comes formula (4), where “magic” happens. I take the authors’ word for it that equation (3) leads to (4) because, of course, I won’t check it. Beyond that — sheer horror and belief in a miracle.

Level 4: “Goldfish Effect” While reading — everything is crystal clear. The logic is solid, conclusions are obvious, the authors are smart. I close the tab, someone asks me, “What was the article about?” — and I freeze. My mind goes blank. If you take away the paper, I can’t reproduce even the idea because there essentially isn’t an idea, there is a process.

Level 5: “Armchair Expert” Everything’s clear, I can retell the essence over a beer. I know that Input transforms into Output, but the “black box” inside is still black. Give me a computer, I wouldn’t be able to reproduce even the skeleton because, it turns out, the article lacks half of the important stuff.

Level 6: “Critic-Practitioner” Everything is clear, I can recount, understand how to reproduce (even without their code). I see where they cut corners. I definitely know that the “state-of-the-art” result is achieved only thanks to a lucky seed or dataset and this strange trick in preprocessing, mentioned in the footnote on page 12.

Level 7: “Deconstructor” Hooray, I’ve understood everything and implemented it myself. It works worse than in the article, but I know why. However, I understand this work better than the second author (who just made charts). I see that all this complex mathematics over 5 pages boils down to two paragraphs in the middle.

Level 8: “Nirvana” The article is trivial. The idea is secondary, it was all in the ’90s with Schmidhuber, just named differently. Formulas are overcomplicated for importance. I can write the same in 10 lines of code and it will work faster. Reject.

If anything — I’m stuck somewhere between 2 and 4.

Why Snow Clings Only to One End: A Light Moment on a Heavy Day | December 05 2025, 20:28

Imagine how hard it is for me to live. Walking with the dog and you can’t easily and quickly answer your own question, why is the snow only on one end of the twigs. And yes, they all look in different directions.

Yuka’s Nostalgic Snowy Morning | December 05 2025, 13:43

Wow. Morning. Sleepy Yuka came in, looked out the window at the first snow, looked at me, sighed, and went to lie down in the little circle he loved so much in early childhood, but hadn’t noticed at all for the last few years.

The Maddening Ambiguity of Mathematical Notation | December 02 2025, 15:30

If someone tells you that mathematics is an exact science, don’t believe them. Since I’m currently into data science as a hobby, I’m studying all sorts of things from different books and my brain is exploding at how this can happen in a science where every little detail should fit into a system, otherwise it goes by the wayside. Until it gets to notations. It’s a complete mess there. A set of dialects.

Take, for example, common logarithms. The “standard” for how to denote a logarithm depends on which room of the university you are in. In calculus and number theory, log(x) almost always means the natural logarithm ln(x) with base e. The derivative of e^x equals e^x. It’s “natural”. They’re too lazy to write ln. Yet, where decimal logarithms might appear (like in computer science), log(x) suddenly becomes decimal, and ln(x) is based on e.

The expected value E has an argument in square brackets. Meanwhile, the same square brackets in computer science are used for the step function 0/1.

Or if you see a vector – is it a column or a row? In classical mathematics, a vector is always a column. To multiply it by weights, we write T after the vector and then w for the weights. But in many papers, vectors are thought of as rows. And if you see y = xW+b, then x is not a column, because otherwise the dimensions wouldn’t match up. x here is a row. But in the next paper they write Wx+b. And there x is a column 🙂

Angle brackets . For the dot product, the symbol “â‹…” is used, but it is hard to see, especially on a whiteboard, and I very often see that mathematicians use angle brackets for dot product. In general, angle brackets are used for the generalized concept of inner product, where the scalar product is a special case. signifies a certain abstract way to multiply a and b and get a number. Meanwhile, in quantum mechanics this would be written as . And for the scalar product, some use a circle with a dot or x in a circle.

And just for the sake of it, in Russia tangent is tg, while in the USA it’s tan. There’s also tan^-1 and arctan, which are the same, though x^-1 generally means 1/x

Navigating Complexity: The Challenge of Wikipedia’s Expert-Driven Content | November 26 2025, 01:06

Wikipedia has one big problem. Well, or we have it with Wikipedia. If you go to almost any Wikipedia page about a relatively complex mathematical or physical concept, you often suddenly don’t want to read it any further. Formally everything is correct there, but the explanation is given through concepts, often even more complex than the concept being explained. Besides, there is often a lot of unnecessary information — what is formally/academically/taxonomically part of the topic, but essentially “pollutes” the first impression.

This problem arises because the authors of Wikipedia (often mathematicians) prioritize rigor and completeness rather than didactics and comprehensibility.

In the English-speaking environment, this is sometimes called “Drift into pedantry”. Articles are often written by experts for experts, not for those who are trying to learn the subject from scratch.

Let’s take, for example, a “tensor”. Imagine a student who has heard that tensors are used in machine learning (Google TensorFlow) or physics and wants to understand the essence.

What the reader expects (intuition): “A tensor is a table of numbers (or some sort of data container) that describes the properties of an object and correctly changes if we rotate the coordinate system”

What Wikipedia provides: “A tensor (from Latin tensus, ‘strained,’ as per the classical layout of mechanical stress at the sides of a deformable cube, see illustration) — is a layout (arrangement in space) of numbers (components), used in mathematics and physics as a special type of multi-index object, possessing mathematical properties.” The article immediately starts listing ranks, covariance and contravariance of indices. This is formally correct but it “pollutes” the first impression.

The illustration at the very top is captioned like this: “Mechanical stress, deforming a cube with faces perpendicular to the coordinate axes, in classic elasticity theory is described by the Cauchy stress tensor, which links 2 indices: the normal vector to the face with the stress vector T (force per unit area); there are 3 directions of normals and 3 directions of stress components, which gives a 2nd rank tensor 3×3 — consisting of 9 components.”

Formally — not a single error. In fact — it’s a wall of text that requires knowledge of linear algebra just to read the definition.

It’s as if you asked “What is an apple?”, and you were responded with: “An apple is a fruit of plants from the subfamily Amygdaloideae or Spiraeoideae, featuring an epicarp, mesocarp, and endocarp, often participating in Newton’s gravitational experiments.”

On one hand, it seems like with the emergence of LLM, Wikipedia is no longer necessary. There are conditional LLMs like ChatGPT, which essentially paraphrase everything that is in Wikipedia in the required form. But they do it because they were trained on Wikipedia, and undoubtedly Wikipedia was given much more weight during training than other internet junk. If there was no Wikipedia in the training set, it would be much more difficult. Meanwhile, Wikipedia is constantly edited, and LLM and Google use it exactly when answering questions.

Therefore, on the one hand, it seems to me that it is high time for Wikipedia to transition to generating on the basis of expert-curated data and packaging knowledge in the required format, for example, in the form of questions and answers. On the other, the whole idea of encyclopedia master-data for LLM/RAG is lost.

The paradox is that LLM is, in essence, the only “interface” that was able to read these pedantic definitions of Wikipedia, “understand” them (through thousands of examples of code and articles) and translate them back into humane language. Wikipedia has become an excellent database for robots, but a poor textbook for people.