ekunazanu

That's a you problem. I shutdown my machine when I'm not using it.

"We designed the antennas correctly, you're holding the phone the wrong way."

This was openai’s entire breakthrough. Making this particular model architecture larger leads to emergent capabilities

Basically, the bitter lesson: https://www.cs.utexas.edu/~eunsol/courses/data/bitter_lesson...

The difference is that water vapour is a greenhouse gas. IIRC the net warming effect of clouds is a function of altitude.

Agreements aren’t worth the paper they’re printed on.

Pretty much. They are only as effective as the body trying to enforce it. The entire point of being a sovereign nation is nobody can force you to do anything. Now it is in a nation's self interest to not violate agreements and get along nicely, but sometimes the calculus changes and the punishment may not outweigh the benefits.

Yup, the trefoil knot is one

Depends on your definition of knowing. Sure, we know it is predicting next tokens, but do we understand why they output the things they do? I am not well versed with LLMs, but I assume even for smaller modles interpretability is a big challenge.

I usually use this: https://yqnn.github.io/svg-path-editor/

Is a Tesla any worse than you at spotting booby trapped roads

That would've been been the case if all laws, opinions and purchasing decisions were made by everyone acting rationally. Even if self driving cars are safer than human drivers, it just takes a few crashes to damage their reputation. It has to be much, much safer than humans for mass adoption. Ideally also safer than the competition, if you're comparing specific companies.

Oh I was referring to the response of the cones itself (not the response after the opponent process). I was under the assumption there's no measured curves for the responses after having gone through the opponent process in the neuron-layer(?), so the graph and caption were conflating the response of the cones with color matching functions.

This contains a nice introduction to biological colorspace

Looks like an interesting read, thanks for sharing!

> yielding this spectral response: [graph with negative values]

That's what I gathered from spectral response. Usually spectral response in this context refers to the responsivity of the cones. Even when accounting for 'brain subtracting green from red' (which I assume comes from the opponent process theory) the following graph has nothing to do with it. The captions too read 'Yes, this results in red having negative sensitivity @500 nm', implying the red (L) cones have a negative sensitivity to cyans — which, again, is not really the case.

Because there’s a lot of overlap between the red and green cones, our brain subtracts some green from red, yielding this spectral response:

No, cones do not produce a negative response. The graph shows the intensity of the primaries required to recreate the spectral colour at that wavelength. The negative implies that the primary was added to the spectral colour to match it with itself, instead of adding it with the other primaries.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/CIE_1931_color_space#Color_mat...

If Linux software starts widely adapting more dark patterns it will probably impact users across all distributions

What is preventing people from just creating a fork?

To address this concern, the team at Google has agreed to apply their subject matter expertise to build a safe, performant, compact, and compatible JPEG-XL decoder in Rust, and integrate this decoder into Firefox.

I was not aware of this. Also judging by this and the sibling comments, it looks like the momentum didn't die despite Google's apathy. Hopefully the fact that their own team is now developing the rust port, as well as the growing support in other platforms, is enough to make Google reconsider its choices.

JPEG XL had so much going for it. Kinda sad it was killed off just like that.

How else does science get 'out of the lab'?

Everything on the site seems high quality, very much looking forward to the upcoming articles

For me, there's a certain aesthetic to 1-bit bayer-dithered images, as well as images with visibly big coloured-halftone-dots, that makes it feel both retro and modern at the same time. I want to call it neo-retro, but I feel like that term already exists.

I don't know if it's the colours or the composition (or both), but some of the pictures look absolutely gorgeous

I wonder what you think of Gabe Newell then

AFAIK Germany (and most European countries) has civil law, so court rulings probably won't have as much of an impact as it would in countries like the US

The discontentment arose because it was extremely poorly planned, and failed to address the very problems it was 'trying' to solve. It is very unlikely for a state government to implement a local currency and introduce more friction to an already painfully bureaucratic system; it is a politically disastrous move.

Monetary policy is government policy. The ruling party is seldom uniformly popular across their entire domain.

If by monetary policy you are referring to fiscal policy, you're pretty much spot on. There's always in-fighting between states and lots of complaining about the central/federal government favoring certain states over others.

I once read that diffusion is essentially just autoregression in the frequency domain. Honestly, that comparison didn’t seem too far off.

I got my driving license at the age of 27 and I lived in multiple dense cities.

This gives off "I have experience, so I must be right." vibes. There's no reason you can't be, but this goes against what most other urban planning experts and studies have to say.

Go on, think about it and actually investigate your assumptions.

I feel like _you_ are the one who is only addressing the points that are the easiest to argue using unverified numbers and hypotheticals that would never be practical, just to support your claims, instead of addressing the argument as a whole.

OK. Drop 10 random points in a city and then map routes between them using transit, cars, and bikes. You'll find that cars are around 3 times _faster_ than anything else on average. Even in dense cities. I'm going to call this "Cyberax's constant"!

I would like to see you prove it. Even if true, no one is actually going from a random point to another random point. Most people have overlapping commute routes, which are anything but random. It is proven mass transit reduce collective travel times, and which is why I mentioned the least amount of time for _most_ people, which you conveniently didn't account for.

This means that bikes are right out, they're horribly anti-human. And transit is barely OK.

Again I never argued for _only_ bikes, you're dragging your own assumptions and hatred for bikes into the argument. I also don't know why you think bikes more anti-human than cars. Anyway, how is a city that needs cars to get around better than a city that doesn't, better in terms of accessibility? And again, "transit is barely OK", but you conveniently did not mention about the accessibility of cars.

So, EVs are perfect? They are quieter than buses.

EV buses have all the advantages of being an EV and none of the disadvantages of being private cars (aka more efficient, cheaper, and more accessible). Idk why you would use EV for cars, but not do the same for buses when comparing them (if not just for pushing your agenda). If anything, I would guess the percentage of EV-to-ICE ratio for buses is higher than for passenger cars in most high-density cities (except for the US, ig idk).

People are. By economic forces. Japan is a GREAT cautiounary tale here.

Economic forces will always end up pushing for more and more density. Pushing for car dependent cities may mitigate this to a point, but it does not create better cities. Good zoning laws have a much higher probability doing that.

No, they make it more inescapable.

As mentioned, I fail to see how good public infrastructure is stopping a person from leaving a city more than other economic forces, if it is so insufferable.

Wrong. A Tokyo without transit wouldn't have become so dense.

Great point. It would have become LA. Where your ideas (at least from what I understand about your ideas) have already been implemented. A place known for zero traffic, that consistently comes on top for best cities to live.

I think I am done with this, have a good day bro

AlphaFold uses transformers. That is definitely not from the 70s and 80s.

Progress for me includes both small iterative refinements and big leaps. It also includes trying old techniques in new domains with new technology. So I think we just have differing definitions for progress.

Why is your (failed, btw) idea of infrastructure is called "human-centric"? What makes it _human_?

Great question. No strict definition as such for me, but in the context of transportation, it loosely means that it must be 'easy' for most people to get from point A to point B, using the least amount of time. Ideally it must must be accessible for all people (so teens without a licenses, legally blind people, or anyone without the means to get a car etc). From a non-transportation context (just adding, not very relevant to the answer), places with no loud traffic noise and just a nice general atmosphere of people around. Think streets with trees, and lively public spaces for people to hang out.

If cars lead to better outcomes (and they do, once self-driving is deployed), then why not? Why force people into densified anti-human hellscapes?

No one is being forced. If anything, these measures only makes the cities with high urban density more livable for people. The 'hellscapes' have more to do with the housing crisis and zoning laws than transit infrastructure.

Idk why most people think urban density is a problem to be solved (using tech like self driving for eg), because it ultimately always circles back to the fact that density is the only sustainable way for cities to develop and grow in the long run. Even if it is not perfect.

I fail to see anything human in dense cities like Tokyo or Manhattan.

It would be even more dystopian if Tokyo didn't have a great metro and people had to wait in traffic for hours. Imagine the increased stress, lesser free time, and lower quality of life from all the noise and pollution.

Yes. And once people can, they opt out of transit as well.

When exactly will most people have the option to opt-out, and how likely and how exactly will it happen?

I also feel like you're arguing just for the argument's sake. If not, we probably have fundamentally different views on what's 'better' and I don't think any amount of convincing will change either of our minds.

Winning two Nobel prizes wasn't enough progress?

When given a choice between grade-separated level bike lanes, and an equally good road network, people overwhelmingly prefer cars.

Bikes are a freaking _miserable_ transportation mode. Try biking in subzero temps, or during rain/snow.

Your entire argument seems to revolve around car vs bikes. I am arguing for prioritizing human-centric infrastructure over car-centric infrastructure. This simply means not prioritizing cars above other modes of transit. For urban environments (high density areas) cars are sub-optimal at best and other alternatives like rail, buses, bikes, and trams are simply better. Granted, sometimes cars are appropriate, but I would not use those minority of cases as an argument to justify having a city designed around cars.

Another example is China, it had bikes as the main transportation mode in many cities, but it abandoned them as soon as they could.

Because Chinese cities now have better public transit. Just look at the size and ridership of their suburban rail and metro networks.

And humans prefer cars.

No. People who do not have access to other modes of high quality transit, and are already used to cars, prefer cars.

not sabotaging it with bike lanes and road diets

If done right, human-centric infrastructure can create much better urban environments than car-centric ones.

I don't disagree, but I still feel that JS has a relatively low attrition rate and people there are more than competent to know the limits of their tools — that it ends up being a net positive in the long run. I wish there was a way to quantify if/when the benefits outweigh the costs.