CyLith

I feel like if the logic in git were just a bit more sophisticated, many of these issues wouldn't even arise. Most of these are because someone foolishly (usually me) merged in the wrong direction for convenience's sake, and now I have a duplicated set of commits. It's not like Claude is doing anything very sophisticated; it's just looking at commit hashes and seeing what the unique changes are.

These days, I am leaning heavily on Claude to deal with all the git issues that I never wanted to be bothered with. A rebase that can't just fast-forward? That's a job for Claude. A merge conflict that really shouldn't be a problem? Claude deals with it. These are things I never wanted to have to learn in the first place, and I don't feel like reserving a part of my brain to remember how to deal with these things is worthwhile. In almost all cases, there is no actual decision that needs to be made, it's purely a mechanical process.

Former Google employee here. This is exactly the kind of shit-for-brains action I'd expect from Google executives. Bravo on further dragging your image through the mud.

This article captures so much of what I have felt but been unable to put into words about GA. I come from a computational physics background, and when translating theory into numerical algorithms, the dimensional analysis and units are very important (you have to be able to relate the simulation to something in the real world!). GA dispenses entirely with any notion of meaningful units, making the dimensional analysis and error checking extremely difficult. The geometric product has always seemed like some strange mathematical trick or coincidence that happens to maybe have some useful properties. Almost like how "new math" is perhaps easier to learn or understand at first, but you really just need to sit down and understand algorithmically what is going on with the basic arithmetic operations.

I wouldn't trust any engineers I know of with their "taste". At best it's a highly skewed view of the world. At worst, it's outright opposite to genpop.

You missed the best part: analyzing what to do around knots. There's a skill and artistry to it. Those who are good at it make it look absolutely effortless: https://www.youtube.com/channel/UCsIFvStf9Oz99GMitW4vD_g

DABM writes everything in MS Word.

Optical engineer here. This is what they don't tell you about continuous/transition/progressive bifocals: optically they don't work. The lens design is an overconstrained optimization problem and the solutions they come up with end up compromising a lot on everything, to the point that it is practically useless.

Does this use integer coordinates or floating point coordinates?

Add to that that they are (at least perceived to be) supporting AI, which the majority of people do not want, and data centers are physical faceless embodiments of big tech corporations, which people are increasingly against.

Yes. I see the 6 and I think: pretty tall, just a bit taller than me as a baseline. Then the 3 indicates another bit more. At no point am I adding the quantities to achieve a total. It’s two pieces of information in something akin to a binary search.

I do woodworking and framing and approach is similar. Measure out to 6 feet first, then move out 3 inches more. It’s iterative refinement. To measure lengths I always do a few bisections like 3 feet, 2 inches, and 3/4 plus a sixteenth. I can remember a sequence of 3 or 4 integers for about a minute, long enough to transfer the measurement. Give me something like 135mm, and I’ll forget in a few seconds.

I strive for a “simple” lifestyle not because I believe it will be enjoyable. Quite the opposite. A simple lifestyle is much more laborious, arduous, and mentally taxing in terms of all the minutiae I need to worry about to achieve even modest levels of comfort. E.g. Do I have enough wood stored for the winter?

I strive for a simple life because it gives meaning to life, and a connection to the earth and other living things. It keeps me resilient in the face of hardship and less reliant on other people. It also provides a connection to the past and our heritage.

Because I don't want to deal with a hundred of anything, and I don't want to deal with decimal points. I want everything I measure to be near single digit numbers. Hence, inches for common dimensions like a "2x4". I can handle something being 5 1/4 inches. How the hell large is 133 mm? Humans are not good at intuiting numbers far from unity.

Miles are great. The typical highway speed limit is about a mile a minute. You can easily lower bound how long it will take to get somewhere if you know how far it is in miles.

In cooking, I often need to halve quantities in recipes, hence pounds and ounces. Watching cooking channels give metric quantities is absolutely baffling to me. You see things like 175 mL. That is 2 sigfigs too many.

This is really neat, and I think I can use it in some of my projects as a simple front end to physical simulation tools. One question I have: do you have true 3D bindings? I see there is ImPlot3D, but right now I need to render meshes in OpenGL (or WebGL as the case will be). Is there a way for me to define shaders and feed it triangle soup?

This is the single reason I have not upgraded from OS 12.x. Postscript is key to many of my workflows.

Yes

And anyone implementing numerical algorithms is thankful for the tremendous amount of thought put into the fp spec. The complexity is worth it and makes the code much safer.

Perhaps the solution is to rethink the role of the fridge in the kitchen. It could be designed to be a part of a kitchen island, or have cabinets placed above it. In conventional kitchens, a chest does not make sense. But it could be well integrated if we start with the assumptions the fridge will be a chest.

My house is plastered, and it is substantially more soundproofed than drywalled houses in the neighborhood. It is not a function of the construction method, since my house is stick framed just like my neighbors.

Perhaps he should reflect on why they deserve this violence, instead of giving people more reason for violence against him.

I have had a similar experience; my preferred material to work with is wood. However, as I got more into tinkering with electronics and vintage computing, I'm finding more instances where wood does not achieve sufficient strength-to-weight ratio, especially for small parts where wood grain and anisotropy becomes a significant factor to consider.

I was in the room and personally witnessed that. It definitely changed my opinion of him and not in a good way.

My extremely out of date never updated site: http://victorliu.info

My also out of date but slightly less so page: https://victorliu.neocities.org

Maybe now I will be inspired to actually update these.

When sorting eigenpairs of a dense matrix, usually tou end up with a Schur decomposition. The basic operation that you can do is swap two adjacent eigenvalues on the diagonal, so bubblesort is a natural candidate.

We are constantly losing technology as the treadmill of technological progress continues. Casette tapes, CRT displays, and perhaps photographic film are some examples. One can argue that there are "strictly better" technologies available now, but there are always niche cases where the new and obsolete technology are not quite fungible. What if for some reason a modern industry gets wiped out? Then we'd have to revisit the lost art.

As an immediate example, my wife's business needs p-channel small signal JFETs. These apparently are no longer fabricated, and with the way the semiconductor industry moves, they are likely never coming back in any appreciable quantity. So once the world's supply of obsoleted semiconductors dries up, the technology will basically be lost.

I don't understand why you believe Banach-Tarski to be obviously false. All that BT tells me is that matter is not modeled by a continuum since matter is composed of discrete atoms. This says nothing of the falsity of BT or the continuum.

Everyone ... outside of China is forgetting and losing capabilities.

To me this is the fundamental problem with the notion of intellectual property and its protection: so much of it is trade secret and undocumented (let's be real, we disclose as little in patents as we can get away with). Companies come and go, and in the process, institutional knowledge of how to do things is lost because there is no incentive to make it public for others to replicate. This also means that once lost, it must be rediscovered later.

The library only solves up to cubic equations, and the comments have a link to the following page: https://momentsingraphics.de/CubicRoots.html

For general polynomials, it matters a great deal in what basis it is represented. The typical monomial basis is usually not the best from a numerical standpoint. I am aware of some modern methods such as this: https://arxiv.org/pdf/1611.02435

For polynomials expressed in e.g. a Bernstein basis, there are often much faster and stable tailored methods working solving for the eigenvalues of a companion matrix of a different form.

Speak for yourself. Some of us see the difficulty in sustaining and maintaining this fragile technology stack and have decided to do something about it. I may not be able to do all those things but it is worth learning, since there really is no downside for someone who enjoys learning. I am tackling farming and cpu design at the moment and it is tremendously fun.

Why should it be scalable. I’m fine with forcing things to not be scalable. Let products be word of mouth in local communities first.