Lalabadie

> "Ring" means you are navigating linearly and circularly. Isn't it better to provide a list of links so users can choose where they want to go "next"?

That depends! If your goal is some optimal way of navigating, sure. But the shape of a webring means your site has two "neighbours", which is fun and uses spatial notions we don't see often anymore. It also means someone can remember Site Y as "the one next from Site X", which is also fun and creates more ways sites relate to each other. This relating to one another is usually the point of a webring.

"It really whips the llama's ass"

Archived soundbite: https://archive.org/details/youtube-LWKxtWEkS1c

It's also a financial optimization: Even with the very expensive RAM upgrade prices, it's way better to use the same memory chips to manufacture and sell four Mac Minis or two Mac Studios, rather than a single high-RAM unit.

Off the top of my head since it seems to be the quick info you're looking for: IIRC, with these two, the 27B is a dense model, meaning it's all active at inference. Meanwhile, the 35B is a Mixture of Experts (MoE), so only part of its network (3B?) is active at any time.

The criteria for calling a RNG "cryptographically secure" are incompatible with the game design goals here.

The game needs a RNG that's stable when seeded, for reproducible runs. I look for the same kind of qualities when doing generative art.

In comparison, a CSPRNG should be safe from oracle attacks, which is essentially the opposite goal.

Yep! That's why I thought it was important to mention the caveat on chained shortcuts. Two keyboard inputs can easily happen within 30-50 ms of one another when it's a learned movement. This is not a situation where a user relies on visual cues to move between steps, however.

Closed source, gated access, guzzling up all innovation budget from the country, diverting cities' limited water access, gaming the stock market and convincing leaders to cut jobs across all industries.

Truly we must protect these moral and ethical visionaries.

For UI purposes, sub-150ms animations can be very effective as "pro" interface behaviours. That's close to our best reaction time [1]. Good UI personality doesn't have to get in the way of pro-level efficiency.

One of the ways to achieve this is to not actually transition between states, but simply animate the "end bounce" of an introduced element, as if it was eased into position. So not actually slid from the left, for example, but rebounding the last few pixels from an imaginary slide. Our eyes just draw their conclusions to inform us of a movement, and in exchange the component is readable and usable immediately.

[1] ~100ms represents optimal reflex time in recent research. [2] Anything that requires user attention to interact after the component appears is very comfortable with a 150ms transition. One important note is that for components you can navigate across (i.e. one key shortcut invokes a modal state, another key runs a command in that modal), experienced users will "type" consecutive shortcuts in one go, and you must have the second behaviour responsive from frame 1.

[2] Some athletes seem to train down to ~80ms on very specific reflexes, which recently lead to race-start controversies when block timers disqualify sub-100ms reactions for runners.

  > I mean, how would you even write an em dash?

⌥ ⇧ +

It's been seared into my muscle memory for more than a decade. I keep using it, too. It's present in the popular training sets – and then in LLM outputs – simply because it's proper punctuation.

Love it! This feels very much in the spirit of Tom7's Harder Drive [1]

[1] https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=JcJSW7Rprio

Yes, having a performant CI server on premises would probably pay itself in less than three months.

Startups are usually resource-rich and time-poor, and don't want to allocate employee time to infrastructure unless it's core to their business, so arguments for efficient spending there are easily overlooked.

Tangential, but all companies are lifestyle companies, in the sense that they serve their owner's lifestyle choices.

It's just that lots of owners want a company that pulls them away from all other areas of life.

It's behavioral marketing, vs status/aspirational marketing.

A stated preference isn't necessarily current or situational (I will choose to run instead of watching another 45 minutes of Youtube videos).

A situational preference is often inertia, and behavioral marketing will directly hinder the meta cognitive processes that usually give us the agency to override our default mode choices (John has been on YouTube for the last 20 minutes, what next suggestion is not likely to keep him there?)

This can only happen if they have reason or motivation to trust the expertise, and an expectation that the relationship can be fruitful.

Like you said, they must at least be willing to listen.

Appreciate the correction!

Edit: My bad, with calcium it's the liquid filters that deal with it, not the air scrubbers.

Quoting an ISS astronaut: Today's coffee is tomorrow's coffee.

"Prompt more" is my default answer now.

Your 80% of the way there? Keep going!

If they're satisfied with the result, I save myself a reluctant client.

If they realize the difference, I save myself an explanation and we can start talking about good foundations.

The return of the leak was relatively sudden. They had done temporary fixes that brought stable pressure for a while, and when it reappeared, the leak jumped back to 1kg/day quickly.

Air filtration is one of the hardest things do deal with in space.

I don't know what solvents would do, but I remember that astronauts' bone density loss in space means there are challenges around managing the significant amount of calcium captured by the air scrubbers in the ISS.

Shortcat is the one I found I was willing to adopt without much effort: https://shortcat.app

I think they've made lots of great practical choices! 100% in agreement with running local models for these tasks.

My opinion is that, for end users, if you name your feature "AI" to market it, you kind of already failed to read the room. You're writing to VCs while hoping it convinces customers.

Name what the feature does, what it gains them. Call it "smart" if you must imply some black box treatment.

Naming AI as the selling point for everything feels a lot like that Android tablet ad circa 2010:

"Your wife will love the new dual core Tegra™ chipset!"

The whole first section: 9 features, 9 titles with "AI" in them.

I don't think their use of it is bad at all, I'm just tired.

(Designer here) I like checking up what a product looks like when it's pitched as "beautiful". Mostly there are two ways to really meet that promise:

    1. Masterful application of a trend (Stripe, Raycast)
    2. Strong and recognizable personality (!boring, Notion, OG Basecamp)

Option 2 is the most accessible to small teams, but it's not an intuitive conclusion to draw. Both need an experienced designer to succeed, but option 1 sounds like it's a safe bet instead of a leap.

Most claimed "beautiful" products result from work done without the experience & taste to tell option 1 apart from an attempt at option 1.

In reality, you can pull off a strong personality and a clumsy execution, whereas following a trend clumsily looks like failing to read the room, and leaves you looking dated almost instantly.

That looks pretty close in shape to the early Ace project Maggie Appleton demonstrated last month.

Edit: This short talk – https://maggieappleton.com/zero-alignment

  Location: Québec, Canada
  Remote: Yes
  Willing to relocate: No
  Technologies: React/Next/Vue/Nuxt, Svelte, lots of foundational web knowledge (HTML/CSS/JS+TS) that touch on layout, animation, canvas, etc.
  Résumé/CV: https://petiterevolte.com/en
  Email: monsieur@louis-andre.net

I'm an experienced product + interface designer who works with small teams. I mostly ship UI deliverables, but I'm old enough that you can call me "classically trained" – I still do the odd brand & print project as well, which tend to be fun for everyone involved.

I integrate well with engineering teams, and can ship my work as pull requests when it's convenient for everyone. I'm currently filling out my schedule from the end of summer onward.

Your point is valid (and I make a similar one frequently), but it doesn't gain from being presented as good term vs bad term use. It's the context that makes it pejorative.

In the context of advertisers, content is just what you deliver for a price (Netflix, Disney), or against which you slap advertising (Youtube). You want more of it so you can charge more, and care little what fills this content pipeline.

You're now in the last frame of the comic, getting thrown out the window.

Pratchett himself would be very ill-defined if you limited yourself to naming a genre.

There are OS-native options everywhere to spawn an email client window that's filled out and ready to send from your address, so that couldn't possibly be a differentiator for them

Yesterday, the comment section on Flock camera vandalism was wild for this reason.