HN user
JS, C#, HTML, language implementation.
Every optimisation like this increases the chance of other optimisations/vectorisations being able to usefully fire, and sometimes these very specific cases are themselves from optimisations or type/range restrictions.
Do you posit that there are enough examples of 30x8 ellipses encoded in braille online for ChatGPT to learn from but not 31x7 or 31x9 ellipses? That seems unlikely.
They lost me a little before then - Claude Code's regressions were so very obvious and there's no sign they've learned their lesson in this article or in the comments of those who work on Claude Code on HN. They'll continue to tweak and generally mess around with a product people are using, altering the behaviour without notice in ways that can severely impact use, for months! GPT5.4 has been remarkably consistent and capable, as a replacement. I've cancelled my max plan.
In the video in question, he doesn't seem able to choose a good scoring function for the stochastic solver (even over multiple weeks), seemingly choosing a linear sum of distances (see 8:50) between simulation and reality. That's a mistake that not even an undergraduate should make. He needs some domain experts.
Partly, it's simply that words matter. An interpreter is not a compiler, even if partial evaluators and Futamura transforms are very cool. Posting about them in a context that isn't a confusion about what interpreters are may have been more fruitful.
Yes, that's another great example of the same kind of thing - creating a JIT from an interpreter. It remains true that interpreters do not directly generate machine code.
That's a partial evaluator, not an interpreter, and it converts an interpreter into compiler, which are different things.
This is still incorrect. A bytecode interpreter, as its name indicates, interprets a bytecode. Typically, compiling a bytecode to native machine code is the work of a JIT compiler.
It has DEFLATE code, Snappy code, LZ4 code, ZSTD exploration, and describes many involved sub-algorithms, with diagrams - what more were you wanting?
I wonder why most of the "g" characters are cropped.
True, but that’s using “effects” in a broader sense than people seem to mean here. The discussion seems to be about the visible effects the audience experiences as effects, and whether those age well, not invisible digital cleanup, compositing, or set extension.
Even with high effort, the adaptive thinking can just choose no thinking. See bcherny's post they were replying to: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=47668520
Steganography is (hopefully invisibly) hiding information in an image, not creating an image that so obviously encodes information.
A common misconception is that git works with diffs as a primary representation of patches, and that's the implied reading of "stores diffs". Yes, git uses diffs as an optimisation for storage but the underlying model is always that of storing whole trees (DAGs of trees, even), so someone talking about it storing diffs is missing something fundamental. Even renames are rederived regularly and not stored as such.
However, context would matter and wasn't provided - without it, we're just guessing.
Yes, once you use 'unsafe' to bypass the safety model, you don't get safety.
Edit: If you reply with a reply, rather than edits, you don't get such confusion.
The comments on this site (HN) may be what most people are talking about. Youtube comments are too easily censored, so they probably will never manage to stick around.
I would probably see text quality issues on that setup. It depends on how far away the monitor is. PPI on phone screens tends to be much higher than PPI on laptops which tends to be higher than PPI on monitors, because each is typically used at a different distance.
If you're not using text around 9 pixels tall, as in the article, you're probably going to be okay. On a 27 inch screen at a typical office screen distance, I'd probably want 6k, but 4k is pretty good and 1080p is terrible.
In my experience, it seems to. My astigmatism (or other eye stuff) seems to move different colours different amounts, leading to wider RGB pixels and making things like Cleartype so much worse. So people were enjoying Cleartype and I was hating the obvious colour-changes and fringes that somehow they weren't seeing. I assume some people are lucky enough to have aberrations that actually make cleartype more pleasant.
It's not like the Cleartype tuner actually does what the pages claim - you can go through and use the magnifier to choose the grayscale-only outcomes and still see Windows doing RGB stripe cleartype throughout. People literally have to install third-party tools like MacType or GDI-PlusPlus to get solid font rendering. So blaming users for using it wrong (especially when they're not even on Windows) is odd.
Also, many people can see and are bothered by particular non-rectangular pixel layouts - it doesn't require doing odd things.
I had the same experience (Z Fold 4, screen protector at hinge broke at the five month mark - I replaced it with a third-party one to avoid a long repair period and another such breakage - the screen itself is now faulty at just beyond the two year mark).
If anyone were to buy a modern Samsung folding phone, I'd suggest you make sure you get the two-year coverage for the screen and assume it will break soon after that, so treat it like you're going to buy one every 2-3 years. But remember that warranty repairs sometimes involve sending the phone away for weeks, and Android's phone transfer story is still incomplete. That's merely my experience, of course.
The inhibition of movement via eddy currents works best while the needle is moving fast, so you can still end up with smaller oscillations for a while - the apparent jump-cut to a stationary needle could be hiding that.
It's far easier to just use a compass with a needle brake - manually dampen the oscillation using the brake (and let go to ensure you aren't holding an incorrect reading) and you get a reading quickly.
Your site still says "HOW TO ADD ALMOST EQUAL TO IN HTML? Use an HTML entity, a decimal code, or a hex code."
That is incorrect. As you say, you should just write the character in your HTML and ensure it's served with the correct encoding. If it's just for legacy cases, debugging or such, say so on the site.
A simpler way: You can avoid sampling neighbours by clamping the ray-march step so it never moves further than the current cell's boundary (plus a tiny epsilon). That way, you only cross into adjacent cells at the edge and avoid the 8 to maybe 26 extra SDF samples. (This only works if the geometry is entirely contained within each cell.)
This sort of stuff is actually doable just with just video chat and OBS.
If what each person is hearing is 100-400ms delayed from what each person is producing, how can they possibly mutually react or even get their music in time? If B plays in time with what they hear from C, C hears what B did 200-800ms later - that's far too much and will sound terrible.
Jamming would seem to require incredibly low latency audio just for the rhythm to work between two performers.
You could post that comment on every article. (Please don't.)
garbage collection, I just link the Boehm GC. Not ideal, but good enough
It's worth noting that on 32-bit, the Boehm GC can have consistent issues [1] [2] [3] that make it worth avoiding for anything long-running. The Mono team implemented their own GC due to this. If a runtime is aiming to be useful on such systems, it may be worth implementing or using a less conservative GC.
[1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mono_%28software%29#Garbage_co...
Try to notice how you're avoiding answering the points I raised and jumping at any chance to defend the Amiga (it was only 4-channel 8-bit built in and nobody achieved 14-bit sound before 1991). The Amiga vs X wars were decades ago at this point - you could just let it go.
I don't think there's intentional dishonesty in it - the author is just biased to seeing everything Amiga very positively.
Stereo 14-bit sound didn't really happen until the 1990s and needs quite a lot of CPU time and careful hacking, as Amiga sound chips are 8-bit, 4-channel. 4096 colors via weird hold-and-modify modes was never useful outside of demos and vanishingly few games. Nobody used 640x400 because interlacing was far too flickery, and such resolutions certainly didn't support 4096 colors.
The Amiga was ahead of its time in many ways, and the pre-emptive multitasking was fantastic, but claiming it was some paragon doesn't help anyone. If you wanted a fun home machine attached to a TV, it was great. Even a fun home machine attached to a monitor. If you wanted a business machine with a monitor, it wasn't the safest or best choice, if only due to a lack of software.
That's great, thanks. I've also independently verified the 25,309,575 using similar techniques.