treyd

don't fool yourself if you think this won't come to the Linux world.

I'm curious what you mean by this. I'm not necessarily rejecting the point, but I also don't see how this could happen without substantial shifts in the industry first.

Consoles made sense as a product category where specialized graphics hardware was not generally available for consumer PCs.

We have this now, every PC has some kind of graphics hardware, and has for many years. Consoles have been riding on their momentum of their brands, but the technical justification for their product category hasn't existed for 15+ years now.

Can you elaborate on what causes that reaction specifically?

I've used phrasing like this from time to time before, like when trying to compare two ideas that are unalike but have some fuzzy similarities. I wouldn't use it to describe functions but "problems", "solutions", and other fuzzy things.

You can load multiple card identities onto the same SIM and select the one you want to use.

Sounds like he was frustrated he lost and thought the program was a lot more clever than it was. :)

This IPv8 document is not a serious proposal. The entire family of documents was published by a single person without collaboration from anyone else at IETF, and there has not been any work to integrate feedback from other IERF contributors (last I was aware of).

Anyone can publish an IETF draft document, it doesn't mean it's a serious proposal under consideration or will ever actually be implemented.

On mobile the whole page text is aligned center which makes it really hard to read.

The plan is the same as it always has been. It's no different than running an open FTP server.

I wonder if you could coax cells from the testes back into stem cells to then re-specialize into ovarian cells.

Ugh. People already trying to find ways to gate keep radio by raising the financial barrier to entry before we've even been able to capitalize on cheap communication. I'm sure RCA and the others will be against this until suddenly, they're not, when they realize they're one of the few that can even afford to pay it.

(RCA is a bad swap-in in this example but I'm struggling to think of an apt analogy for this era.)

Delta Chat does that but it's a bit janky.

They literally say in the opening text crawl that replicants are genetically engineered from humans. A major theme through the movie is that they're like humans, are built to have the thoughts/emotions of humans (even if experienced in the context of implanted memories), but they can never really be humans because they're synthetic and engineered to have the traits they do and die an early death.

Robots and AI do not experience and interact with the world in a way that's comparable to humans. We don't yet have the epistemological framework to reckon with what it means to consciously experience reality in a non-biological entity, but we do know that it will be alien and unlike human cognition.

Replicants have the same biology and cognition as humans, so we can relate to them and them to us, which puts the scenario in a different context.

I don't think you understand the workflow. Terrence Tao has done a lot of work using them in conjunction with LEAN.

You aren't having the AI check the proof, you interactively work on the same LEAN proof, handing off between the AI assistant and having LEAN check it and provide feedback for both of you when there's a mistake.

Game GCs are interesting because you know that the execution is structured like this and you know how much time you have left before you have to switch back to application code for the next frame/time step. There's interesting optimizations you can make around this and could almost completely avoid user-observable GC pauses.

If you look at the texture demo with the zeros, it looks a bit like lipid membranes merging/splitting as they stabilize more or less around a particular size.

It'd probably still be worth it to make tokens cheaper. Jevons paradox [1] seems to apply here, where making compute cheaper unlocks use cases that were previously priced out, increasing overall demand.

[1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jevons_paradox

Meanwhile the federal minimum wage is still $7.25/hr.

This is even easier with the thiserror crate:

   #[derive(Debug, Error)
   enum AppError {
       #[error("io: {0}")]
       Io(#[from] io::Error)
   }

This is awesome. I rotated some ideas like this in my head a while ago but never had the motivation to put it together. Happy to see more types of protocols like this.

This was addressed explicitly in the video. It's far less efficient end-to-end, even though the gearing is theoretically simpler. Trains do it because diesel engines just can't produce the torque you need to move a train (at least, in the form factor of a locomotive), so they need to use electric motors.

They keep doing negative things that influence the industry and infringe upon the freedoms of hundreds of millions of people. Yes we should keep dwelling on that.

That IPv8 proposal that was circulating a few weeks ago was not a serious proposal (written entirely by a single person with no substantial involvement in IETF before then) and has no roadmap to any kind of adoption.

Anubis is actually a jackal.

The Nintendo Switch runs a custom operating system codenamed HorizonOS.

I really wish people would drop the GHA model because it's so bad and insecure by design. GitLab's CI is miles better and easier to use.

Agreement IBM had to make with the DoJ/etc in the 80s to open the PC platform to avoid antitrust prosecution. That was the key event.

This is very cute. I don't think I'd ever thought of having a cellular automaton where there's some global state that can change that influences the local cell rules. Would be interesting to add more control/energy variables like for collecting resources/food.

Keyword generics are probably not happening because it's kinda a hack.

Algebraic effects are the way forward, but that's a long way off.

Studies have shown that natural human languages are all more or less equally expressive in terms of bits per second while speaking. There's lots of different ways they can be structured but they tend to follow common rules that have been well-characterized by linguists. They can be used to describe formal mathematical statements, but are not rigorously formal languages themselves.

Programming languages, in contrast, are constructed and vary much more in their designs. They are formal languages, making them closer to math than spoken language. LLMs being able to describe concepts more thoroughly and precisely through more expressive semantics obviously makes some languages more suitable than others.

The type system of a language is just one aspect of it that allows the language to provide guarantees to the LLM (and the user) about correctness of the code it's writing.

I am not speaking about specific types in specific programs. I am talking about the ability to describe complex constraints that LLMs (and humans) end up using to make writing correct code easier and more productive. Some programming languages absolutely are more effective at this than others, and that's always been true even before LLMs.