HN user
Yes, this is what I'm complaining about.
coopt: to appropriate as one's own; preempt.
The term existed for some time before programming if that's your source of confusion. Now it is a twisted and ambiguous version of itself.
A tensor is nothing but a flat array of numbers
I'm so very, very tired of tech coopting rigorous mathematical terms.
To simulate a proton you need to solve a strongly coupled highly relativistic SU(3) gauge theory (naturally non-abelian i.e. the force carrier field itself carries charge and is self-interacting at tree order) problem with constituents that have masses orders of magnitude below the relevant energy scales (i.e. you have many matter AND force particles that can pop in and out of existence and they all strongly interact with one another).
To simulate a water molecule you do so with a weakly coupled SU(1) gauge theory (light does not interact with itself at tree order) problem where the masses of all constituents are orders of magnitude above the relevant energy scales (you can think of it as the electrons and nuclei and particles coming in and out of existence are contained in a renormalization scheme).
We have "good simulation models" of both, but the former is extraordinarily complicated compared to the latter for the reasons stated above.
Not in the sense that the electrons would be orbiting "outside" the star. Neutron stars are already a conglomeration of particles, including a sizeable fraction electrons that are effectively "squeezed out" of neutrons to have equivalent fermi energies. Any additional charge you add would immediately grab an "orbiting electron" into the existing system.
That's a fundamentally different problem and a terribly unfair comparison.
Can we stop the "drop how at the start of a title" auto editing? I suspect this was to fix some flood of problems long ago, but every time I encounter it it modifies the title away from true intent of the author.
I appreciate the commentary, but there's some irony of this being hosted on a github.io space.
The engineer knows the tech but doesn’t really understand what it takes to keep the business afloat.
This is assuming there IS a way to keep the business afloat. It's this framing of thinking that has caused more suffering, frustration, and bad will in all the places I've worked at which are just reskins of this article.
A business is entitled to it's model but it is not entitled to success. This story which is more than just a strawman or anecdote gets it right: The engineers are doing their job the best they can with unreasonable expectations set by people who do not feel they need to be constrained by reality and just have dollar signs in their eyes. The engineers do not share the same type of blame as everyone else at the company. Their failure was enabling nonsense and greed.
Is that not already the case today? Everything on the play store is verified. Anything outside of that is not by google and you are shown something.
The whole point out of this outrage is alternative stores (like f-droid) can wholly and entirely be shut down on a whim without recourse.
Because as designed they have to live under whatever google puts into Android because they have inordinate control over the whole ecosystem? I'm not sure why or how you would possibly describe that as "childish".
Banking has slowly been transitioning in this direction as they close brick and mortar places. I'd have to drive 20 minutes to cash a check (which is still sadly common in the US in certain industries).
Your argument might carry some weight if you added any kind of argument past "lots of new productive output" and then silence.
Weird that AI is supposed to be able to enable all this and yet all we get is news about how it's really just burning out projects that have limited resources making them more expensive and companies having to hire back devs they laid off.
If changing definitions and adding dimensions are fair game, try it for a damped oscillator and tell me where whatever dimension sphere is in there.
If you understood what you were trying to push now you'd recognize that adding in your time dimension to force an argument involving a circle is just a matter of the sign in the 2nd order differential equation. This also falls apart if that sign changes and you get hyperbolic solutions. and I'm sure you'll just say that's just another kind of sphere with negative curvature
It's also telling with all the comments of "just wait a few months the models are getting so much better" which has been said for years and will continue to be said for years. It's the same with any other scam with tenuous value (see cryptocurrency).
At some point you just call it failed.
It's their project, they can run it how they like. If they lose out on valid contributions that's their loss.
People are never entitled to their contributions getting accepted to someone else's code base.
Most of your submissions seem to be to solely grab attention for yourself, but the guidelines clearly state
https://news.ycombinator.com/newsguidelines.html
Please don't use HN primarily for promotion. It's ok to post your own stuff part of the time, but the primary use of the site should be for curiosity.
Don't solicit upvotes, comments, or submissions. Users should vote and comment when they run across something they personally find interesting—not for promotion.
If I follow you, that's not strange. That's exactly how Lagrangian mechanics are formulated (minimizing the action which has exactly the kinetic energy as a term to be minimized against a potential energy term) which rests on well-founded symmetry principles.
Every time in physics you see quadratic, you should think sphere.
Not sure how I reconcile that for systems with linear symmetry that don't admit a sphere such as a 1D harmonic oscillator (i.e. a spring). You're confusing the fact that spheres require quadratics but quadratics are not sufficient to admit a sphere.
Why not take the absolute value? Nature hates those
And yet inverse distance laws for potential energy for gravity and electric fields use the absolute value because they require an unsigned distance and how you treat the singularity at zero is extremely important to the structure of those interactions
Very upset this didn't rely on doppler shifting of the car colors
I will not be called to action by a page with a big slop image at the top.
How do you square advocating for the "Open Source Resistance" which touts "stop asking for permission" to do software and then saying "we need everything on MacOS to be signed and will be dropping packages that don't get Apple's permission"?
I'd consider donating, but I find that behavior to be part of squeezing free computing and participating in and advocating for the corporate erosion of ownership of one's hardware environment.
An ant traveling at constant speed on a "scrunched up section of a table cloth" will still take the same amount of time following the same path to get from A to B. Any material analogy requires some kind of stretching or compression.
Consider that since an LLM is really just an large encoding of data, the "proof" is in there already. All further work on it is effectively only rearranging words. Then all math an LLM is capable of is "done" and we have the "proof" in the LLM which by your definition is now "MUCH easier to understand" and this work is somehow sufficient.
Do you see the problem with your reasoning?
But the agent could be trained on sensitive data that could leak which could enable a different attack.
Saying it's safe to "ignore" anything that exposes information is dangerous. You might as well claim social engineering isn't real as long as the person doesn't have direct access to the thing you want.
A+ name, no notes
What's more is yt-dlp already has plugin support for 3rd party interpreters. They're just saying they don't want to deal with supporting bun themselves and the infrastructure for anyone else do use whatever they want is already there.
This is just the standard misguided entitlement people feel towards other people's projects supported by other people's time and effort. It's continually outrageous to me how people feel they can just volunteer other people's time and effort to support their own wants. The people who do the work are entitled to make their decisions and if you don't like it fork it yourself. This has been the way of this ecosystem since it started.
yt-dlp is surprisingly hackable as is.
We received digital confirmation of data destruction (shred logs).
This is shockingly naive
My friend, you have invented management.