rf15
rf15 on Hacker News
I've seen another poster successfully updating their Kernel from Ubuntu's "proposed" branch which already has the fix. God knows why they don't merge it into stable.
coming from europe: in my experience "fancy names" are either blue blood wealth OR regular people wanting to look like blue blood wealth. So I feel you both have a point here.
For that it's too sudden. Yes, people flip, but not absolutely everyone and their mom flips within a week.
alright alright, what's going on? This doesn't seem to correlate with a big model release? (or does it? Claude Haiku 5.5 is in the vicinity) Is this just Anthropic/OpenAI causing this trouble by themselves to validate their existence? Is this related to Anthropic's IPO?
I agree, it seems downright easy to pick up. It also falls (at least here in europe) at the beginning of the colder half of the year at a time when summer events are winding down, with christmas still almost two months away. It's a pretty good thing to fill the gap. (Doesn't mean you should indulge overpriced decor though)
I don't know why you got downvoted, your sarcasm implies an insightful point that shows why it spreads the way it does.
No no, this is a genuinely new and unrelated thing few people have seen so far.
I know it as dogs-with-ball syndrome, and rather used that analogy to teach my son what not to do when learning to play football.
Government getting a strongly-worded letter from Netflix is a hilarious concept.
Supporting poorer countries, can there be a more moral course? /s
Crypto is also a hard lesson for those who thought it could liberate if only everyone was using it: the amount of storage needed for ever-increasing record-keeping made it completely unrealistic to use individually, forcing you into the centralisation that they advertised you could escape from.
I found this by accident because I wanted to speed up a part on my Pebble watch face, I didn't even know the history of past attempts. The floor variant was born out of a particular rounding optimisation attempt that felt like it could be easier if I just use floor/ceil and moved it into a large int-multiplication space. (this is very tempting because certain constants for rendering and angle calculations are based around large integer constants on that platform, kinda doing half the work towards this idea by creating this particular constraint)
> As you can see, the technique is so simple that I'd expect that somebody has done this before, but I've looked around and not found it documented anywhere.
I'm one of those people I suppose. Yes, if you want to play with microoptimisations and part of a calculation are known, you can flip a division into a mult (and shift).
This might seem somewhat useless at first, but you can use this to e.g. speed up calculations in nested loops, where you can precompute this for relevant loop-layers.
This is about wealth inequality, i.e. how far the scale is leaning. This has, as the website explains, some funny effects: looking from the top, you are effectively starving the people that pay you and your descendands. That might work for a few years, but if everyone's hungry it's gonna be heads on pikes no matter how many bunkers you build and how much you pay for personal protection.
> It's still the hardest material we have measured.
Can't believe this statement hasn't caused other nerds to crawl out of their holes to correct it yet, so here I go: acshually...
We know about Lonsdaleite, which packs its structured in hexagons rather than the usual cubic forms of diamonds.
... too bad its natural occurance is always somewhat spoiled and it doesn't reach its full potential in nature in any meaningful size, as far as we could observe.
... in pink on yellow too, if you add a color picker.
That's sadly impossible, because the brain, as a limited number of cells, cannot store infite data. The problem lies in the people observing them, but you have some fun mechanisms (and a few of the commonly known fallacies and biases) at work here, that can all contribute to that perceived effect/illusion. Consider the following ideas:
- people can be slightly better than a given random observer, because they learned and prioritise to pay attention. They are better at recalling memorable and minor details, especially in short term memory and in memorable situations that a lot of people share long term. They will still forget long term information that is irrelevant.
- any such person and also observer can easily talk themselves into the belief that their skill must be absolute, especially since the observer will largely only test from his own inferior dataset.
- once the belief takes hold (because people love a good story), observers tend to look less for flaws and more for further confirmations to keep mythologising people.
Yes, both asked for it. Didn't stop Jair's son to call it "unprecedented"
No, it's the lawnmower analogy again: Zuckerberg has no political views, he just thinks that Trump will restrict him less/allow him to make more money/is easier to exploit.
Washington Post moment, I'd expect. The information space around the next election will be crazy. State of emergency and president for life, anyone?
Ah, Heinlein. There's not much energy up there, and the energy question is a big one. It's now 2026 and we are still at the point where we can only move a fraction to actual space of what we originally start off with down here. Our fuel is still not anywhere close to what we'd need in terms of energy density and throughput.
additionally, probably strong overlap in training data
This is from Robert Reich, former secretary of labor under Clinton. He is still very much politically active.
> Ease is irrelevant because you only need expertise once and then everyone can reuse the result.
Not if your LLM relies on existing code and you collectively create a million repos with hallucinated broken implementations that do not work before a good public exploit exists, which later LLMs rely on. LLMs are self-defeating that way.
Yes, but the same is true about LLM output. Guess there's actually no way around this than to go look yourself.
> they store the data in the user home folder.
that's a very dishonest or at least inaccurate depiction considering the multiple, semantically confusing places app data can be stored on win/linux
That also kind of implies to me that they had the foresight to know that this is probably not a good investment on paper but still wanted to surf the hype wave
No, I assert that the concept as defined has a reasoning behind it that accepts certain tradeoffs for certain benefits. I think its perfectly valid to disagree with them, but I am curious about improvements to the current solution to the problem of extending types that really should not get extended (e.g. from the standard lib)
Yes and no. You either accept that your code and the environment is final (in which case there's no problem and you can just blindly use the exhaustiveness check) or you accept that your code is a living thing that can change in part (including your edits, its dependencies, and its standard library), in which case you must be prepared for changes but can still make use of the exhaustiveness check by temporarily removing the default case.
I feel this is fundamentally a perspective issue. If this is a problem, also consider why people want sealed classes in the first place. It's always a tradeoff and you can also always fork or propose your own improved version of the concept and see if it has enough merit to gain traction. There's a million other footguns in the language that needs similar scrutiny, I'm just happy java isn't C/C++.