davidivadavid

And you ask Claude to read it for you. No way I'm reading past a couple sentences of that level of slop.

I think what it boils down to is that in my experience physics education lacks a clear historical component about how the current state of the art is a gradual process of proposing new models and rejecting old ones and figuring out the gaps between reality and the model. Instead, it feels like a God-given set of equations (that lots of people consider "the truth" for some reason), that you apply to cookie-cutter problems you must learn by rote. Though I understand the practical concerns (but then let's call it "physics for engineering"), as far as I'm concerned, you couldn't treat physics in a worse way.

Also, physics (the discipline) is also a construction by and for humans.

My point is precisely that I was often taught physics as if it was mathematics, where there is in fact a profound ontological difference between the two.

Lagrangian / Hamiltonian mechanics, the principle of least action, always seemed neat, in L&L and other places I encountered it, until I tried doing exactly what you're saying: gaining an intuitive understanding. At that point it just never made sense to me and seemed like a gratuitous deus ex machina that happens to work beautifully but for no apparent reason. You won't be surprised to learn I dropped out of my STEM program shortly after, though I keep a keen interest in the topic.

More than twenty years ago, I quit a program that taught math/cs/physics (the notorious French "classes préparatoires") ~almost precisely over this: I felt like I was being taught physics like it was an axiomatic system where the tricks should not be questioned, they just work so "shut up and calculate" (and you don't even need to be doing quantum mechanics for that).

I just felt like we never got to the heart of the matter of why the models work and how to approach developing them, it was all about learning a bag of tricks.

Meanwhile, math and CS being a lot more axiomatic by nature, they also made a lot more sense to me.

That being said, that specificity of physics, the unbridgeable gap between reality and the models we build to describe it, in retrospect, is what makes it more interesting to me today (it's not just a "closed" system in the sense that math is — of course the relationship between math and physics is itself fascinating but that's yet another topic), but I still feel like I haven't found the right pedagogical approach to make it fit my mindset.

True, though those things don't have to be mutually exclusive.

2 inches / sec * 60 sec = 120 inches = 10 ft ? It also doesn't seem like it scans your head from what I've seen.

That's definitely an important point to consider, in fact something I think everyone in these conversations should be cognizant of, and also why it makes me believe the actual conversation should move to whether the device improves false positives/negatives rates or not (or at least has a chance to), which then might warrant wider access/use.

That's basically the only thing I'm interested in reading about this. Based on my complete lack of radiology knowledge, I'd say the images look... a bit blurry or something? So, what would be an example of something this would not allow a radiologist/doctor to see?

Without those kinds of details, radiologists just expose themselves to: oh so you're telling me this doesn't work as well as the machines you paid ~millions of dollars for and are currently charging your clients a lot to use? Mmm I wonder why.

That book cover goes so hard.

"There are more subsets of a set than elements."

Right. Because something is reducible, modulo a bunch of stuff you're not looking at, to a simplistic model, doesn't make it "just" that. Use of the word "just" is often a good tell you're about to read something naive.

Fun book that covers part of that, Machine Decision is Not Final: China and the History and Future of Artificial Intelligence. [0]

[0] https://www.urbanomic.com/book/machine-decision-is-not-final...

A similar confusion exists in French, but we have an extra locution, "en huit", to clarify when necessary. It's far from widely followed, however. Too bad, I would love it if "next" could just mean "next."

https://www.antidote.info/fr/blogue/enquetes/quand-est-ce-le...

French and English are roughly on par for how terrible they are at this.

Relevant concept here is: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Orthographic_depth

Source: native French speaker and professional translator.

If you want something a bit more "serious" on this, check out The Dark Forest Theory of the Internet by Bogna Konior. [0]

[0] https://www.politybooks.com/bookdetail?book_slug=the-dark-fo...

Looking at Youtube videos of Barbican apartment visits for 15 minutes will tell you this poster is projecting quite a bit.

The number of tech or tech-adjacent people that have completely torched their reputation in the last few weeks is staggering. I hope they get publicly shamed.

"Bible of design" might be a bit excessive. It's a good design 101 book. Definitely longer than it should be, and kind of fumbles the explanation of "affordances", which the author had to clarify later. It's representative of "design thinking" as a historically well-situated concept in design, but that's not necessarily a good thing in itself.

It really depends what you're looking for. If you want something deeper, more abstract, I would recommend going straight to something like Notes on the Synthesis of Form by Christopher Alexander, which I think typically appeals to the more abstraction-oriented part of the mind of engineers. If you want to get more actionable, practical day to day recipes, Refactoring UI as suggested somewhere else in the thread is a decent suggestion.

It is sophistry because that's not the point. Of course there are things that matter more than awards. But pretending like there's some world where we're trading the integrity of awards to solve important problems is a laughable fantasy.

Works now! Another free suggestion: when you drag a bit fast, since the animation is a bit slow, sometimes the boundary between before/after will barely move before your cursor makes it to the edge and reset to the middle, which is a bit jarring / doesn't let me really see anything. Should either make the animation faster, or put the reset threshold outside of the container somehow.

It is sophistry. Common problem around here is that a lot of tech people are too busy thinking they're incredibly smart and always need to be playing 5D chess instead of being decent human beings. I hate to blame Paul Graham for that, but holy shit that /r/iamverysmart shit needs to stop.

Concept seems fun, and I'm expecting we'll see a bunch of those in the next few weeks/months. UX of that specific page seems broken, however, as the container for the explanation of each "function" doesn't scroll along with the rest of the content (stays stuck at the top) and makes it impossible to see.

I'm not intimately familiar with the UI/UX principles behind Liquid Glass so I could be wrong, but the main difference I see here is that in the second screenshot, on the Reeder app on the left, the "floating" section is used for emphasis on the main content area (right hand side), while in the Finder screenshot on the right, it's the navigation menu on the left that is floating, and brings unneeded emphasis to itself.

Looking at it for 30s, I still don't understand what Apple was trying to do. What am I supposed to believe happens to the table as it goes under that floating menu? It clearly doesn't seem to continue all the way to the left edge of the window. Why not? If not, why bother with that whole floating menu concept if the underlying content arbitrarily stops at the menu?

The most surprising part to me is how people keep calling that nonsense "skeuomorphic" when it doesn't replicate any kind of physical intuition known to mankind. It's just made up physics that looks dumb.

The point is that "normal users" don't care about niche hobbies in general either.

So the proof for your claim is two counterexamples?

edit: *to remove.

Truly infuriating.

So instead you get a sophomoric meta-ending that has absolutely no originality and shits on decades of storytelling? The ending is trash and an insult to the fans' intelligence because the author can't accept he's "just" writing adventure fiction, as if that's beneath him and instead needs to make some philosophical point about the nature of aging, thereby completely stepping out of his skill set. Go read Proust, Ron Gilbert, and leave that silly ambition to rest.