← Back to context Comment by rnewme 8 hours ago This really doesnt read like llm to me. What part triggered you? 2 comments rnewme Reply fireflies_ 8 hours ago This is where I started getting that feeling:> The curse of dimensionality is not theoretical — it’s painfully practical. In high dimensions, naive distance metrics degrade quickly.>> Scaling and normalization are not optional details. They fundamentally shape the geometry of the space. rendaw 6 hours ago > GBMs are not “just models.” They’re systems.Rule of 3 lists, bullet points (with the bullet points removed from the formatting for some reason).
fireflies_ 8 hours ago This is where I started getting that feeling:> The curse of dimensionality is not theoretical — it’s painfully practical. In high dimensions, naive distance metrics degrade quickly.>> Scaling and normalization are not optional details. They fundamentally shape the geometry of the space. rendaw 6 hours ago > GBMs are not “just models.” They’re systems.Rule of 3 lists, bullet points (with the bullet points removed from the formatting for some reason).
rendaw 6 hours ago > GBMs are not “just models.” They’re systems.Rule of 3 lists, bullet points (with the bullet points removed from the formatting for some reason).
This is where I started getting that feeling:
> The curse of dimensionality is not theoretical — it’s painfully practical. In high dimensions, naive distance metrics degrade quickly.
>> Scaling and normalization are not optional details. They fundamentally shape the geometry of the space.
> GBMs are not “just models.” They’re systems.
Rule of 3 lists, bullet points (with the bullet points removed from the formatting for some reason).