Isamu

This is the correct thread. It has to be some words that don’t seem too fake and seem to plausibly suggest forward progress. There has to be some plausible support for decisions, that someone can point to, in order to make a decision. Taking ownership of a decision means having a paper trail where you can deny responsibility for something gone wrong.

A pity that water isn’t being sold as an expensive supplement. Or is it?

Privacy is a natural fit for Apple in that they make money on discrete devices, but services have grown tremendously. That’s where the erosion of privacy happens.

So once there’s a profit motive for violating your privacy, the justification for eroding your privacy will proceed. It’s really the inertia of Apple starting out as privacy-compatible that makes them hesitant to throw that away.

The page does give a pointer to Wikidata, I for one would love to see your example included.

Absolutely. I think “open” can be used as a cudgel to force an agenda that is ultimately about the benefit to some small group. Nobody should feel obligated to support something that is open, they should be wondering if it’s a benefit to society in the long run.

Thanks for the discussion.

This argument boils down to X is good, therefore more of X is good.

No, I only argued that it was a moral good, the kind of good. I actually may disagree with others about whether you should pursue a good just because it’s good.

says who? Why?

Good question, it’s just a common framing that I see in classical discussions. I didn’t intend for it to be exclusive, I think there’s moral good outside of that.

don't confuse this for a principle that is actually examined

I hear you, I think this is a simplified version suitable for an online comment. In particular I’m not saying that if you do something other than a moral good then you are doing something wrong. There are many actions that are morally neutral. Also it is possible to construct artificial situations where you may violate some moral good in pursuit of another.

I’ll take a swing at it. Open Source is a form of sharing with the wider community. Closed Source is not sharing. Moral good is based on doing good outside of your own benefit (the opposite of selfishness.)

Ergo it’s a kind of moral good.

And I’m not even an advocate for open source.

She’s not known for the concision of her videos, true. The Feynman one is interesting to me because I also read the books about his exploits and enjoyed them.

As a reader I think you should be aware of the strong human tendency to THINK you know the character of the person you are reading about. But you should resist this temptation, because ultimately it will be a projection of your own making.

If you enjoy Feynman stories, go ahead. You don’t need to defend him or get caught up bro culture or alternatively you should be careful about denunciations of historical figures that are performative.

You should be clear about what your morals are and not base them on some historical character that you may not understand completely.

I guess I object to defining “creator” as specifically “online content creator”. Maybe there was some golden age in the past, but I think that was always aspirational and there was always a nearly power-law distribution of success. Making a living from online content was always a struggle except for the winners that made it look easy.

Needs to be 3,300 bags of something I care about. Otherwise you are talking about nonsense or voodoo.

Well if AI can accelerate the slopware -> abandonware lifecycle then maybe net gain? We can move on more quickly after setting fire to a zillion tokens.

Broadcom will produce advanced radio frequency components — including FBAR filters

Thin-film bulk acoustic resonator

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Thin-film_bulk_acoustic_resona...

Trends to utilize RF spectrum more efficiently with higher frequencies than roughly 1.5–2.5 GHz and in some cases also simultaneously with increasing RF output power have supported FBAR technology to become one of the key enabling technologies in telecommunication realisations. FBAR technology complements and in some cases competes with surface acoustic wave (SAW) technology and FBAR resonators can replace crystals in crystal oscillators and crystal filters at frequencies more than 100 MHz.

I tried tofu dogs for the first time on the grill, they were pretty good.

I did read the article, all the way to the end. I liked the article the more that I read.

And I didn’t imply Mr Bourdain was unpleasant or anything else. My point is that you cannot conclude much accurately about a person based on their works.

Maybe controversial, but I think it’s always a mistake to idolize people instead of strictly something that they did. That’s enough, you enjoy their work, you don’t really need to turn it into an obsession about the person. You can just let the person be who they are and not some projection of your imagination.

I was looking for an explanation of how you deal with the fact that quad rotors are under-actuated, and therefore you lack the complete control authority to do any arbitrary motion in space. So path planning has to take this into account, but how is this described?

When I see “boffin” in a title I think “The Register” so kudos I guess.

I absolutely believe this, it attracts developers that can see the idealistic potential. It is worthwhile to do your part for an ideal future.

The fact that you your vision is undermined by a determined group of profiteers doesn’t diminish the value of what you can accomplish toward an ideal future.

it'll take more than one swing

That’s the crux of this story. There is an expectation that, if you can chop something down in several swings, then one really big swing will do it, right? No. They don’t make machetes and swords like that, and also you are drastically underestimating the force required, or overestimating your strength, or both.

An alarming number of people seem to build their intuition about the world from fictional sources, without even realizing it.

A friend of mine had a machete that they destroyed when they took a mighty swing at a tiny tree. You could put your hand around this tree but still, do you expect to chop through a baseball bat with your sword like Conan the Barbarian? Too many films depict unrealistic swordplay.

I think this is part of an anti-climate change agenda, which is about protecting fossil fuel investments. Not sure that it is broadly anti-science, except maybe in the sense of being against public funding broadly.

China has multiple reusable rocket programs, the reuse will become key to driving down costs.

Actually knitting pasta sounds pretty worthwhile.

Best comment I’ve seen today.

Wake me when they bother to define consciousness in a non trivial way.

If a machine has to learn to understand humans to complete text, then that is what it has to do.

A language model completes text based on the overlapping patterns of the training data.

There absolutely was thinking involved… in the training data. Same as when you read a book, you engage with the thinking behind the text. The book isn’t thinking, and the author may be dead and gone, but there’s absolutely the traces of thinking in the text.

Language models produce mashups of texts they were trained on, and there’s absolutely the traces of thoughts behind those mashups.

Wow, such a great text only page with news reporting, I thought these were extinct!

AI investment and spending is frequently cited as one of the few bright spots in the economy, I wonder if the continued over-optimism is mostly about keeping the bubble inflated. If you are a tech CEO, would it be a disservice to your shareholders to express skepticism about AI?

Not quite lines of code.

The person who takes a business problem and proposes an expansive solution that requires a big team that they lead to victory, that person climbs the ranks.

The person that takes the same business problem and carefully simplifies both the problem and the solution, and delivers it themselves, is rewarded but not at all like the team leader.

And there was a definite shift from sharing toward evangelism.

For example C was shared, C++ was evangelized. The difference is the effort put into convincing people to adopt your stuff.

Java for instance was mega evangelized, Sun thought it might reverse their fortunes.

Linux was initially “here you go, hope it works for you” but then it attracted many people who decided to create an ecosystem around it.