cbzbc

There are some leaders who are extremely good at convincing you about the importance of belief in a particular thing to the point where you avoid even thinking up those questions - if they are ever cornered (and they rarely allow it to get to that point) they will wriggle endlessly rather than responding to a line of inquiry that bursts the collective bubble.

Do they know? It's hard to argue about their internal motivations.

https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=46452907 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=46452841

There may have been less pushback if this had been expressed up front. But also, what is it ? Is it to "test the architecture applied to nats" or is it to be a fully fledged NATs replacement (as per the impression given by table at the bottom of the website) - which becomes much harder if AI has significantly re-written the authors original code (and commented it badly).

The website being AI coded I can take or leave.

That's with simple high beam assist. The matrix ones you refer to actually have another feature which makes things even worse; they progressively dip the light in parts, but combined with the first effect this means that you have a few seconds of being blinded before all of their component leds have been dipped.

Not to mention that they are only reacting to something directly in front of them for the most part -- meaning you can be blinded on curves, or when turn around and looking at them off axis (say as they wait to turn into a road).

They becoming popular on the back of Diva, and Hans Zimmer using Zebra (he's very fulsome in his praise whenever mentioning u-he in interviews).

"If runsvdir receives a TERM signal, it exits with 0 immediately"

I don't think this is necessarily the case, because the operations may have completed in a different order to how they are recorded in the intent log.