JaneLovesDotNet
JaneLovesDotNet on Hacker News
I kind of assumed it would rotate automatically based on where the person is speaking from? isn't that a missed trick? or too hard to get right?
The tone of that comment does sound a bit "dick-ish", but I can't be totally sure without knowing his history with that CEO. Thanks and I'll keep an eye out for more evidence like this. In videos he seems pretty nice to me, although it could of course be a facade.
Can you share a public video that demonstrates this? I've never seen it. Not saying it can't be true.
I think it's very close to landing into the release version. I've seen people discuss it working in the testflight/beta release on iOS
I haven't compared performance, as it's not a bottleneck for me. A 70mb file took a few seconds. Localsend could very well be faster, being a native app.
That's not a value proposition. That's more of a definition :-P
I'm thinking things along the lines of privacy, security, speed, etc
What's the value prop of running your own instance vs just using pairdrop.net infra itself?
https://pairdrop.netI've tried all the options in this thread but only discovered pairdrop 20 minutes ago (thanks to this thread) and it's by far the best option.
I've been using localsend, mostly without issues. This thread has made me discover pairdrop.net and I have to say it's miles better. I've switched all my devices over now. The iOS integration with the provided shortcut + permanent pairing, in particular, is really good.
I must be in the minority here, but I feel YouTube provides enough value that it's worth paying for to get rid of ads.
Right, in which case passkeys would be equally secure. But if you DO memorize the password (for example for your most sensitive account), then it feels like traditional 2FA is more secure.
That being said passkeys win if you also take convenience into account. I've updated my original comment with convenience scores to reflect that.
Correct me if I'm wrong but isn't it fair to say that passkeys secured on your phone are more secure than 1FA (password) but less secure than "traditional" 2FA?
Passkey 2FA: unlock your phone and the passkey on your phone can log you in.
Traditional 2FA: remember a password AND unlock your phone (where your TOTP is stored) and you can login
If I were to rate all 3 methods on a scale of 1 to 10, for convenience and security, I'd say:
Password only: 4/10 --- 2/10
Passkey 2FA: 9/10 --- 8/10
Traditional 2FA: 6/10 --- 9/10
Fair?
Would this work as a tool to sync a central server's DB to your distributed webapp backends, as opposed to all the way to user front-end. i.e. nodejs instead of the browser.
Or is there a better tool for that?
I wonder if there's been a scientific study that tries to correlate the tone of a statement, with its reliability.
My gut feel is that such emotionally charged statements are likely inversely correlated with accuracy.
I'm surprised this is the twitter account of a reputable organization.
I have found LLMs quite useful in fighting procrastination.
For myself, procrastination is usually caused by the fear of how painful it is to get up and running on a new project or task.
Asking an LLM to start the work gets the annoying bits out of the way.
Even if it does most of it incorrectly, at least you've built momentum, and then you can take over from there.
There is something comforting about how ChatGPT never becomes overly emotional. I'm not surprised it outperforms humans in bedside manner except for occasions where the human is particularly adept.
Based on those two, I'd recommend the Jim Keller ones.
I think he's an excellent interviewer. My favorite podcast series by far. And even if he wasn't, I wouldn't express my disdain in such a harsh way. It's entirely unnecessary.
It seems unclear to me which level of expertise will be most affected by AI becoming a defacto tool in the software development process. Most people are assuming senior/proficient devs will still be needed to spot errors, and junior ones less so...
But you could also argue AI code generation could be a great equalizer and mediocre programmers could be as effective, if not more effective than more skilled programmers since the skillset will change from the ability to write good code, to the ability to understand specs, and use the tooling.
So start learning how to use GPT in your workflow and maybe you'll be pleasantly surprised by where all of this leads!
Is there any free software out there that can accomplish the same thing, i.e. remove banding from images using AI? I'd like to try it.
I feel like someone should lean into the fact that twitter is going insane and make a carbon copy of it, instead of trying to innovate on the concept/UX. Maybe even use a similar name, like bitter, xitter, etc.
Innovation is usually the way to overthrow incumbents, but in this case a carbon copy might be more effective.
Dumb questions from a programmer who is weak at math.
1) Is there a theoretical minimum assymptotic speed for sorting?
2) Some of these newer sorts seem to have arbitrary parameters in them (e.g. do X if size of set is smaller than Y). Are we likely to see more and more complex rule sets like that lead to increased sorting speeds?
Programming is nothing like Math. And programming competitions are nothing like every day programming.
I think you'll find most programmers become better over time well into their 40s, as making the right architectural/structural decisions easily trumps any minor loss you may experience in "fast thinking".
Do you think they plan out that far in advance? If so that is very impressive.
Right. It's very commital, which I find a bit surprising.
Anyone surprised by the Island notch software/hardware design? I don't mean the idea of a pill shaped notch. But the fact they're pouring so much software resource into it (even building dev tools) when the shape/size of that cutout should in theory change in the future when technology allows for smaller (or non-existent) cutouts.
They will either feel commited to that hardware design and stick to it longer than they should, or they will have to abandon a lot of software.
I meant it would be dishonest only if it was a made up page with no progress made towards building it. Happy to hear that's not the case.
You know, it hadn't crossed my mind when I first browsed the page, but now that I've read your comment, it seems very likely that this is entirely an art concept with 0 progress made towards making it a real product.
And I agree about your conclusion that this level of detail making it close to dishonesty, rather than faking till you make it.
Hopefully you're wrong.