NohatCoder

While it is good to see some Bayesian statistics in use, I wouldn't in this case put so much emphasis on an exact calculated probability that he did or din not cheat, the prior in this case is simply too wishy-washy for that.

The sound conclusion is that this is not evidence of cheating, but it is not evidence of the contrary either.

This is such a useful feature.

I'm fairly well versed in cryptography. A lot of other people aren't, but they wish they were, so they ask their LLM to make some form of contribution. The result is high level gibberish. When I prod them about the mess, they have to turn to their LLM to deliver a plausibly sounding answer, and that always begins with "You are absolutely right that [thing I mentioned]". So then I don't have to spend any more time wondering if it could be just me who is too obtuse to understand what is going on.

My function approximate coverage of a square pixel, so indeed if you rotate a line around it at a certain distance that line will clip the corners at some angles and be clear of the pixel at other angles.

I do believe that it is already invariant to linear transformations the way you want, i.e. we can evaluate the corners of an arbitrary parallelogram instead of a square and get a similar coverage estimate.

You certainly could imagine doing that, but as long as the initial evaluation is fairly cheap (say a texture lookup), I don't see the extra pass being worth it.

Reminds me that I found an alternative way of sampling an SDF:

First take a sample in each corner of the pixel to be rendered (s1 s2 s3 s4), then compute:

    coverage=0.5 + (s1+s2+s3+s4)/(abs(s1)+abs(s2)+abs(s3)+abs(s4))/2

It is a good approximation, and it keeps on working no matter how you scale and stretch the field.

Relative to the standard method it is expensive to calculate. But for a modern GPU it is still a very light workload to do this once per screen pixel.

Of course finding the optimal solution to a Cobble puzzle does not actually require the computation you describe. We can in a single pass find a limited set of candidate words and work out a solution with those.

It is only fast compared to a really dumb baseline. But you are right that the story of React being fast was a big part of selling it.

So this website is hosted with IOMART, a cloud service provider with call-us pricing, and it stopped working because a few people clicked the link from here. That is really not impressive.

Probably down to a combination of LLMs on average having a harder time with tasks that humans typically find difficult, and the task of prompting being easier the more you know about the problem.

So, is Protocollie actually any good? I don't have any means of evaluating the final product, but I feel like evaluating what ultimately stuck to the wall is a pretty important part of the tale.

How buggy is it? How long would it have taken to build something similar by hand?

Depending on who you ask the answer is either "It depends completely on the task, and it is in any case much more important that you divide your application in the right places than exactly how many bits you end up with", or "1".

If you ask Amazon then the more the merrier, because the number of microservices is effectively a multiplier on the bill.

The only news in the article is the way civilians are murdered. The Israeli government already kills far more people per day through deliberately induced starvation.

These events are hard to believe, not because of the cruelty, but because they now happen without a shred of deniability.

And so you leave your politicians to set the official German opinion of unconditional support for Israel.

I think that part of history is largely forgotten. I don't think a lot of Europeans have much self-interest in mind when picking a side in this conflict today.

If you calculate ELO based on a round-robin tournament with all participants starting out on the same score, then the resulting ratings should simply correspond to the win count. I guess the algorithm in use take into account the order of the matches, but taking order into account is only meaningful when competitors are expected to develop significantly, otherwise it is just added noise, so we never want to do so in competitions between bots.

I also can't help but notice that the competition is exactly one match short, for some reason exactly one of the 561 possible pairings has not been included.

At least adding in the feature once you notice the problem shouldn't be difficult.

It is very hard to take the lot of you serious with press releases that talk about a million qbits, without mentioning what is in the device you built. Your press release seems to be engineered specifically to get misquoted by journalists. You don't have a million qbits, and you most certainly do not have the billions of gates required to utilize the million qbits, that you don't have, meaningfully.

You may claim that I have misunderstood something, all I can say is that that is 100% your fault, because you publish nothing but misinformation.

(That is the plural you, and I really do not care which one of you wrote the garbage, you work as a team and you get judged as a team.)

Napkin maths would suggest something like 20% of a normal EV battery per household, so indeed a big investment, but perfectly reasonable. The harder part is that solar power production is much lower in the winter (depending on latitude), and seasonal battery storage is still a bit out of reach.

There is certainly a need for ignoring common wisdom if you want to make something new. I don't think being unaware of it is necessary as long as you are willing to go forward while being told that you are on a fool's errand.

It is not a link shortener, it is an archive tool. I thought the same thing when I first saw the headline. Their description is really bad and confusing.

A non-branching version of the same algorithm will also run code equivalent to both branches. The branching version may sometimes skip one of the branches, the non-branching version can't. So if the functionality you want is best described by a branch, then use a branch.

It may very well be, it is the type of optimisation where it is quite possible that some compilers may do it some of the time, but it is definitely also possible to write a version that the compiler can't grok.

But you don't generally need to care if the shader code contains a few branches, modern GPUs handles those reasonably well, and the compiler will probably make a reasonable guess about what is fastest.

The main problem is overwhelming voters, for a vote to be meaningful the voter has to understand the propositions that they vote for. Given the amount of legislation passed it is quite unreasonable to expect everyone to do the due diligence for every vote.

What might make such a system work in practice is to only let a small randomly selected group of people vote for each issue. You still get a similar representation as a full vote, but with each person having much fewer votes to attend to it isn't overwhelming.

The Webassembly dev experience is awful, and it needs to be glued together with JavaScript anyway. 99% of web code doesn't care about the performance difference, and anything GUI is wasting more time jumping back and forth to JavaScript to save any time at all.

Ah, buried in the post-article part. I was wondering how all of the models were seemingly capable of making legal moves, since last I saw something about LLMs playing Chess they were very much not capable of that.

To me at least, the great value of this site is that people can and do write their honest opinion. Maybe the style of the parent comment wasn't that good, but I agree with the take that there does not seem to be much of value in the project, it enables a style of game that has been done to death by amateurs and indies, and there are probably better tools out there for making that kind of game as well.

Braid features actual novelty in game design, enabled exactly by not using an engine with a fixed view on how a game works. I don't see how this compares.

The plain servers aren't that bad, but then they get some extra billing in. Traffic is pretty nuts, if you sustain sending on that 10 Gb/s link it will cost you approx $160000 per month.

Then there are all the services that ain't plain servers, those are generally priced at at least a 10x markup, some of them much more than that.