What was cringe about Oppenheimer? I bought the movie in order to watch it but felt disappointed, and have only seen it once.
188 karma · joined November 14, 2019
This was a wild ride. I'm torn on whether this feels like the Reader is bloated/polluted or whether this is the coolest numerical parser I've ever used. You can really do a lot to coerce the these numbers just by inserting an {o,s,e,i,b,#} into the number, with different semantics depending on the position of the character.
Somewhat overwhelming, I can only hope there's some elegance underlying it all...
Often times an interesting novel will prompt me to study the cultural context independently.
There was still tremendous value in exposing myself to Dostoyevsky as a teenager. I have observed myself make the same mistakes as his characters, blinded in the moment by emotion. He had so much insight into human nature - but even if forewarning doesn't prevent us from folly, it can highlight a path to acceptance, repentance or redemption that otherwise may take a lifetime of self-reflection.
I don't mean that in a religious context, if that matters.
Also just learned about compose key apparently, and I noticed that I can program this split keyboard I'm using to turn that into a chord, anywhere!
Then an LLM told me that I can 3D print my own custom keyboard with 32 programmable layers. Everything is an infinite rabbit hole these days, how wild.
However I've only ever used regular dashes. How do you type an em-dash? Is it OS specific? I've taken to using Emacs insert-char with a list of frequently used ones in my scratch buffer. My memory for Unicode is unreliable.
One simply change to improve the experience is to keep the Next/Back at fixed locations. The animations and transitions are beautiful, and looking away to chase the moving buttons causes me to drop the visual context.
As a workaround I set the height of .tour-body to 900px and the the whole thing became so much more immersive, like the old planetariums.
Even if these are contrived examples this is one of those things that could become completely ubiquitous as a cheap solution to problems that only seem obvious in hindsight.
Either that or we'll never see this tech again, it feels like there's no middle ground. I wonder how the cost scales up for mass production
30 minutes ago it was on the front-page, now I can't find it listed in the top 200.
The counter example they gave was the elephant - but this video [1] of elephants walking looks to me like "bunny hands", at least to a degree.
The article is interesting but it's difficult for me to really picture the implications of the article. Actually after reading it I get the feeling that what I was visualizing is entirely contrary to what they are trying to convey to me.
I suspect it's a generational gap.
I went down a few rabbit holes on the site - is this program also written in Basic?
Thank you! I'm working on a robot with a very expensive slip ring, and need to send high fidelity data through it with shielding. I had no idea this was possible this will make things so much easier!
I found a related video you might find interesting.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=gZvimEf6DFw
I'm currently studying group theory and SO3 rotations (quaternions & matrix groups) and I'm also curious about the connection. I still have a lot to learn but I wouldn't be surprised if the reset rotation is unique, if we abstract away variation.
I'm an enthusiast when it comes to [Vanilla] Emacs. I enjoy customizing my editor, jumping into the Lisp when I find an error, and contributing - though my own config is usually the problem.
This sounds like an opportunity to improve the day-to-day for developers!
Please report any verified bugs to Github. There are only 12 open issues, most of them enhancement requests. The maintainers are celebrated in the community for their diligence and attentive engagement, and I'm sure they'd love to help.
The interface is unique and takes a lot of getting used to. I did need to leverage my extensive experience with Git and Emacs to understand unexpected behaviour but the fault always lay with me.
Given the implications of bugs in such a critical part of a developer's workflow, can you be more specific?
I agree with the order, the Gaussian should come later I almost closed the article - glad I kept scrolling out of curiosity.
Also I felt like I had been primed to think about nickles and pennies as variables rather than coefficients due to the color scheme, so when I got to the food section I naturally expected to see the column picture first.
When I encountered the carb/protein matrix instead, I perceived it in the form:
[A][x], where the x is [milk bread].T
so I naturally perceived the matrix as a transformation and saw the food items as variables about to be "passed through" the matrix.
But another part of my brain immediately recognized the matrix as a dataset of feature vectors, [[milk].T [bread].T], yearning for y = f(W @ x).
I was never able to resolve this tension in my mind...
Luckily it was a small group of devs and not a large venue. Still embarrassing...
This short video is annoying but informative: [1]
The closest I've seen to actual robotic crochet is [2].
Which is exciting and close - but it's hard to overstate its limitations. I took the challenge in that short video seriously and spent 10-20 hours learning basic crochet. It became very clear that replicating my simple test patterns would require vision, planning and modeling capabilities beyond anything I've seen in SOTA surgical robots.
What I find interesting about the post (Knotty) is buried here [3] - apparently it's possible to ditch the grid and create an intuitive representation of the final knit pattern. I suspect that may be doable using traditional algorithms.
[1] https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=EImnSsCadK8
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Bg3RAI8uyVw
The effect is disrupted by introducing rendering artifacts, by watching the video in 144p or in this case by zooming out.
I'd love to know the name of this effect, so I can read more about the fMRI studies that make use of it.
What I've found so far:
Random Dot Kinematogram
Perceptual Organization from Motion (video of Flounder camouflage)
Personally I use/prefer 4o over 4.5 so I don't have high hopes for v5.
I wonder if a potential application of LLMS could be: have two experts have a really interesting but dense conversation with each other, and then translate the conversation into simpler language with interjections for explanations.
It may not be enjoyable for the most general audience, but it would scratch an itch for some of us.