ndriscoll

In the original, the last zoom out in the final level was after 0.8 km, and you could roll up clouds, tornados, rainbows, and eventually the landmass the game takes place on so it's just ocean.

Wasn't there a study about childcare facilities where, after a fee was introduced, late pickups actually increased? Putting a specific price on things can actually make people behave worse than just "be reasonable, please."

We left a bucket out while we were out with the kids. No issue. Had too much at the end of the night, and had to tell the last stragglers to just take handfuls when we got back. Maybe that's a good, quick temperature check on whether your area is high-trust/low-trust.

I would think that Android applications also don't really benefit from uring anyway since human-facing applications tend to not actually do all that much. Like for networking, they're not trying to process millions of connections/flows at 10s of Gbit/s. They'd be processing 1-20 flows at like a few Mbit/s. The types of processes that might benefit tend to also be relatively controlled (e.g. a database or application server).

Alternatively, there has never been a worse time because why bother? The model knows every language and can maintain legacy code just fine (indeed, knowing this stuff and being capable of maintenance is a prerequisite to a successful rewrite), so COBOL and JCL and random mainframe stuff is just not an issue, and a rewrite is highly likely to not be exactly the same in some important way.

On the other hand, models a few years from now will be smarter and more likely to have a track record of success with this task, so being one of the first to do it makes no sense even it had advantages.

So there's no urgency to rewrite; it's all risk with little to no reward for a problem that will probably be much easier to solve if you defer it a little longer. Like, first at least get to 100% AI automatic development for all new products/services, and then for all maintenance, so you know that it actually works.

You know that compilers can elide checks if it's a provably impossible case, right? So they could have checks in both places in the source code. Or I know that I was using static_assert in C on sizes of buffers/messages in my parsers for fibre channel firmware at IBM 10 years ago, and I'm like 99% certain clang static analyzer would do that kind of "what if this is too small" analysis across functions back then. You can also use e.g. phantom types or just like... structs/classes to enforce invariants (e.g. that it's been checked; your check four layers up could've been an inlined constructor of a trivial struct doing validation) purely at compile time. You can't infer what the actual source looks like at all based on disassembly.

Not mass consumer, but pretty well within the reach of mass affluent, who regularly spend more on e.g. a fancier car.

Depends on what "upper crust" means to you. Political class? Perhaps not. But it still offers some peer selection that's important for life outcomes for most people (e.g. lower chance of divorce).

> Disables tracking dots

> Only person to do this, creating a unique signature

What problem does 128 bits cause? Just that you don't like :: for a run of 0s? Do you need to care about ipv6 addresses in your work? Because I can tell you that when I'm trying to design simple, efficient routing and firewall rules (with e.g. 100s of thousands of endpoints across different datacenters on different continents), it's really nice to be able to subnet things the way I'd like instead of the way I must to squeeze things into the space I have, and not have to worry about backing myself into a corner later because I gave the wrong number of bits to various dimensions. And worst case, if you somehow got it wrong, just give yourself an entire /64 or more to try again, with it being compatible with what you did (no need to do a phased migration that requires reclamation as you go along).

Like I only tangentially interact with this stuff, but I can't imagine how a network operator wouldn't prefer we live in an all ipv6 world.

You can't just make up an identity, claim you have a PhD from a well-known university, and appear on someone else's (e.g. the university's) website. I asked ChatGPT:

> The author of https://vertex.degree/ claims to have a phd and taught courses. Can you find evidence from the named institutions?

And it gave me links to .edu sites corroborating the claims (e.g. he's on a registry of PhDs[0]). I asked if the institutions link to this site, and it said his personal site links to this site[1], and that CMU links to his personal site[2]. If anything it's far easier to check this stuff now. Took me 30 seconds.

[0] https://www.cmu.edu/math/grad/phd/past-recipients.html

[1] https://misha.fish/

[2] https://www.math.cmu.edu/users/math/mlavrov/

How does 192.168.0.1 talk to 192.0.0.0.0.168.0.1? Like, literally, how does it make a packet with that destination address?

The entire ipv4 space is already mapped to reserved subsets of ipv6, by the way. e.g. ::ffff:0:0/96 (i.e. 0.0.0.0.0.0.0.0.0.0.255.255.w.x.y.z) or 64:ff9b::/96. v6 devices can already "talk to" v4. The problem is the ipv6 space is obviously not a subset of ipv4, so v4 doesn't have a clean way to talk to or even about v6.

Well, this person claims on their website to have a PhD in math from CMU and to have taught the topic at multiple state universities. You could dig some into whether that's true, and then rely on the reputation of the named institutions if you don't know anything about them.

Just like reputation already worked. People have associations with each other. People endorse each other. Endorsements carry some transitive weight (I suppose you could use graph theory to model this). This has nothing to do with AI. Yes, Amazon is full of constantly changing "brands" with no reputation. That is different from a person or company that does have a consistent reputation that you can look up, even if you hadn't heard of them until today. Even Amazon also has e.g. Samsung or Asus if you don't want to buy AHIKJASFDIUHER.

That doesn't really answer anything though. There are tons of human cranks out there too who are perfectly willing to spend tons of time on their "theories." Humans make errors too. If you don't have a way to evaluate the source material or some endorsement from someone you have a reason to trust, then AI doesn't change that. If you do have an endorsement (e.g. Terence Tao says some AI book is extremely well done, or puts out his own book that he openly used AI to write), then why would you discard it because AI?

What do you mean "the" or "our" current system? That's entirely your interpretation, and we've always had a sliding scale of "non-authorship" from editors to ghostwriters. AI models are the same; you can use them in a heavily directed way (basically, as an editor, or in an outsourcing capacity for e.g. illustrations), or in a hands off way that you just endorse.

Well, if we're going to have the conversation: so what if it were AI? Shouldn't the question be around correctness and good pedagogy? Shouldn't the question always be about vouching for those things? If it's actually done well (e.g. they were able to generate better illustrations than they otherwise could've), why exactly should someone think twice?

The author put his name and reputation to it. If it's excellent work, it's excellent work. If it's slop, it's slop.

Assuming they allow it, post your thoughts in the language you form them in. Browsers have local translation built in now. The Babel Fish goes in your ear, not your mouth.

Sour grapes is when you can't have something, so you say it must be bad as a cope. I am successful in tech. It just took until my mid 30s to be a millionaire working on infrastructure instead of my late 20s working on surveillance, but I am perfectly happy with that. I have everything I could want, and didn't need to make those compromises. I say the thing is bad because it's bad.

I might be lucky (in a sense I am, but in another sense "all" I've done is work boring normal jobs and have low expenses), so maybe my path is not perfectly reproducible, but that's kind of the point of temptation: it has to be tempting. And quick, easy, sure money is the bait. You'll never even be held accountable. The only cost is looking around at the bad things in the world and knowing it wouldn't have been there without you.

Personally, the only reason I have to continue working these days is to give my kids a better future, so creating a hellscape for them to inherit would defeat the purpose.

If you had been paying any attention at all over the last year, there were 32GB AMD cards at like $1200-1400 and Intel at a little over $1000. I actually hadn't yet noticed they've gone up in price and had last checked only a couple months ago. But even at like $2000, that's still comparable to the nominal price of a mid 90s consumer PC for actual magic.

In my experience, those "alignment meetings" are to convey what the outcome is supposed to be, and e.g. how important it is as a revenue source, and then people work to figure out the how and when vs competing priorities.

You don't have to hide what's happening from people that work in ads. There are tons of people who willingly work at e.g. Facebook or Google knowing every single thing they will do is about ads. They might not use the word "spying," but only because they delude themselves into thinking people want the spying and propaganda (e.g. you don't have to look much to find people on this forum asking how else people would know what to buy. Nevermind that a significant portion of the population takes active steps to block them). Like they completely unironically think "you know, I am like a Big Brother. Why would anyone not want a Big Brother? "

I'm actually doing quite well economically and am generally quite happy with my career!

My idea, as I've repeated multiple times, is to blame everyone, and yes, I think they should all be criminally liable. You're the one who seems to think only business people can do wrong, and are perfectly willing to go to bat for the people who actually design and build these systems.

We're not limited to a bounded amount of blame to divvy out. We can blame the mob boss and the hitmen.

I think you'll find that I'm the only one in this thread that's not excusing anyone. There is no "instead." They all deserve 50 million years of prison. They all know what they're doing.

Maybe not the engineer who designed a microphone, but certainly the ones who integrated it into the spying platform. The TV doesn't accidentally send that data back. The data doesn't accidentally store itself, and it doesn't accidentally send itself to partners or feed into an ad model. The CEO is also probably not personally working the sales funnel. There's an entire line of people who all knew exactly what was happening.

Okay, but if you have a 120Hz panel, as you said, you can just hold your 24Hz signal for 5 frames. And a minipc and TV can happily negotiate a 24Hz HDMI signal. Flicker fusion also has nothing to do with this unless you have like BFI or something.

If your source is 24Hz, it will never be 120Hz end-to-end. It's already 24Hz. You can just send that to the display. If your panel can't cleanly display that, it's not going to be able to with a built in app either. The app is also getting a 24Hz source video.

Whether you were well compensated for your wrongs doesn't affect whether you did them. They are all responsible.

It makes plenty of sense: they made the devices spy. They collected and stored the data. They built everything. It's like saying it doesn't make sense to go after the gangster shaking down store owners. Yes it does. You go after the boss for ordering it and the person who actually did the bad thing for doing it.

Don't excuse your peers' actions. Engineers are smart people. They know what they're doing. And C levels aren't putting anything together as a product. They are giving direction and paying others (engineers) to do that.

Everyone involved is to blame (including management), but it is an engineer somewhere that actually makes these things. Devices don't magically start spying because a business person makes a deal. The data doesn't magically end up in the hands of their 500 partners. There are large datastores to scale and integrations that require work to build.

And even if they're never held accountable (I expect they won't be), you should at least be acknowledging that they have no ethics and shunning them, not defending them for actually being the ones that built surveillance hellworld.

My minipc has no issue outputting at 24 or 23.976 or 30 or 29.97 or 59.94 Hz either. And again that big brother series on the smart TV app is going to be garbage quality anyway. It's like setting up a 4k240 OLED and 5090 to run an N64 emulator to play games with a 20 FPS limit and prerendered backgrounds with no texture replacers or anything.

And for "other uses like gaming" you are using an external computer over HDMI, not smart TV apps.

Executive class? I expect there was at least one engineer involved that should be facing millions of counts of wiretapping, so a few million years in prison.

No streaming app is giving you a video feed with 48Gbps of data (more like 5-15 Mbps), and no one produces 120 or 144Hz video (most movies/TV are still 24Hz aren't they?), so there's no point in sending that kind of signal to a TV (you'll just have a crisp, high refresh signal of the low refresh blurry compression artifacts), but even ignoring that, cheap n100 minipcs can do 4k60 or 1k240 just fine (I use a minipc as my desktop with a 4k240 OLED).

Definitely not with a TV remote vs a keyboard/mouse.