adornKey

Ätsch!

Having the focal point up close for a long time isn't that good for the eyes, so sitting closer than an arms length to a desk monitor isn't an idea that lasts well.

100 dpi with subpixel rendering already maxes out angular resolution (horizontal). It doesn't max out everything (retinal), so you still see some artifacts, but practically this is not that relevant. The price in energy/bandwidth rises quadratic for very little gain.

To get the equivalent of 4K at 100 ppi - with 200 ppi you have to put the burden of 8K onto the GPU... For now this is absolutely not good - High ppi is ok for small monitors and handheld devices, but for a decent desk with several good monitors GPUs just aren't ready yet.

But the angular resolution of the eye doesn't rise. For a desktop monitor 100 ppi practically already reached the limits. Anything beyond that is just additional burden for the GPU and a waste of bandwidth. Surely you can increase resolution just to make font rendering easier, but you also have to pay the price in energy consumption or speed - without any visible improvement.

Microsoft did a lot of great work on Fonts in the past. Recently it looked like they abandoned per monitor subpixel-rendering?! In which direction are they heading?

The explanation seems to be that it looked good in some old fonts. But I think it was always some kind of abuse. On old Typewriters the accents were usually used for accents (é è). They didn't move the cursor, so using them for apostrophes wasn't that comfortable and interrupted writing flow. Accent + space looks a bit like a quotation mark, but the right place of an accent is usually on top of a letter.

A more general approach are Encyclopedias of integer series. I think that works better than just focusing on single numbers. Hm. How many numbers are there, that are interesting, but not part of a series?

Maybe that game exists, but it's an old word and you can find references for it that are hundreds of years old. Its meaning fits to the browser. Your statement that it's just some kind of reference to some special game is not correct.

A few years ago I liked Ars Technica, but then somehow I think quality went down the drain. Did something happen to them a few years ago? If they get rid of the crazy reporters and go AI only - maybe the quality will improve again to a readable level.

"Der Ätsch-Browser".

Once everybody has a decent amount of VRAM they can just run local AIs and the need to mess with Ad-laden search results will fizzle. So of course they are desperate to grab a new monopoly. People haven't realised yet, that local AIs are fast and produce good results - on pretty average hardware. If they don't manage to grab a new monopoly Google will be history.

But it doesn't really need a nefarious plot for the price spikes. There is a serious lack of VRAM deployed out there. Filling that gap will take quite some time. Add to that the nefarious plot and the situation will most likely get even worse....

Oh oh... Time to say goodbye to Greenland. Lets see what is going to happen to LEGO.. Freedom Bricks?

Do the guys that buy out the market have real use for all the hardware - or is it just hype? A solution against investors trying to corner the market would be to sell virtual hardware. Let them buy as much options on virtual "to be delivered" hardware" as they want. We also need an option market for virtual LLM-tokens, where the investors can put all their money without affecting real people.

One agreement could be that Eisenstein integers are more beautiful...

Currently Debian wants to deprecate GTK2. So even the guys that are interested in stability might start to see problems with Debian. The key problem of Linux is that it doesn't have a stable API to write long living GUI-software for. So far Debian was the way to go. Maybe recommending Debian will become even less popular soon.

Yes, to all the the scattering, the sky has, you have water and other material relevant for absorption in the path. In the end even the colour of the ground might matter. In the past some people said, that the sea is blue, because it's a reflection of the blue sky, but that covers only a part of the problem.

I think the color of the ocean is an even more interesting subject than the color of the sky. There is even more interesting physics involved.

You won't get a green sky, but at least there is a meteorological optical phenomenon called the green flash around sunset. To see it, I think, you have to know what you're looking for - and you need good conditions.

I think AI will definitely help to get new compilers going. Maybe not the full product, yet. But it helps a lot to create all the working parts you need to get going. Taking lengthy specs and translating them into code is something AI does quite well - I asked it to give me a disassembler - and it did well. So, if you want to make a new compiler, you now don't have to read all the specs and details beforehand. Just let the AI mess with e.g. PE-Headers and only take care later if something in that area doesn't work.

For a start I think you could take a deep look at what WHO actually publishes.

https://data.who.int/dashboards/covid19/cases

They have a nice point there "What do negative counts of cases or deaths mean?". And this is a good starting point to see what's wrong with them.

Epidemiologic data usually has a date and some number as value. The main problem with WHO is that they don't use any epidemiological meaningful value for date. E.g. "Date of infection" or "Date of death" would be meaningful - they chose to use some strange reporting date instead - one that can be easily manipulated at will. And this first shows it's symptoms in negative death counts.

If you can get your hand on some real data - and compare - it's very obvious. If you can track some individual cases, you can see that sometimes date of reporting and date of death differs by 6 months. The way WHO does things obviously turns data to garbage.

Florida once was a good example. Florida published data like WHO for a long time. Numbers went up and down - and it looked chaotic - with measures supposedly changing things. And then one day they changed and started publishing data by date of death. Suddenly the chaos was gone, and everything followed strict mathematical epidemiologic functions. You could even write mathematical formulas with a single parameter for most of the curves - (That formula got flagged and censored here ASAP). Most likely people didn't like that the effects of measures were gone.

Sadly these topics here get censored too quickly to get any meaningful discussion going... If you're interested in real epidemiological data - you're mostly on your own.

The first thing to do with data is to get meaningful axis - then you can take care about the Y-Axis and figure out if data gathering was stable (it wasn't...) and then maybe correct for changes in data gathering.

Getting real epidemiological data is often a challenge - some states still make a big secret about meaningful numbers. But it exists and is available - there were enough official publications and leaks. If WHO was willing they could publish meaningful data instead.

WHO consistently failed for years to publish meaningful epidemiological data. They publish widely misleading data to be used by politicians. And they're not amateurs and they're not doing this by accident. The best thing would be to send those crooks to jail ASAP.

Another point to think about is that politics turned against them. This is something that doesn't happen for fun. Something like that takes years. People spent years writing literal books about what's wrong with WHO - tracking money and corruption... Even slow thinkers in politics meanwhile got the memo... but the slowest of the slow haven't got it, yet.

The political mainsteam and the data on my side... Illinois is the one doing the fringe thing - against data and common sense.

There was plenty of time to notice what is going on with WHO. Lots of data, lots of stories... Everything was open and obvious for such a long time, that now even mainstream politics finally got it.

The take from this story is that Illinois is most likely just some backwater hill billy state that embraces corruption.

Mice can fit through tiny holes. An old rule says that if a pencil can get through - a mouse will get through. Some mice even fly. I once had a bat clinging on my good old CAT cable. So even leaving windows open at night might affect bandwidth...

Another classic is the "Frog on Keyboard error". Software developers have to be prepared for everything...

https://thedailywtf.com/articles/Classic-WTF-Cursed-and-ReCu...

I wouldn't trust users for tagging. Let the AI tag things and let the users select what flavour of AI they want to use. The biggest problem are the people.

Especially people interested in tagging are really bad. Sane people have a life and don't have time for things like that. Web forums with a reputation system have proven that power users with a lot of reputation usually are the worst. After Usenet died it was like the trolls went to web forums, and as power users they were granted admin rights.

Current systems are indeed very vulnerable to professional manipulation - there is no real defence yet - and there are powerful players. But democratic sampling won't help much. Only the wrong guys are interested in voting - and once mass hysteria has set in any democratic majority will vote to censor anything that brings them out of their panic loop. Witch hunting lasted for hundreds of years.

I think just tagging things accordingly would be a lot better than raw censorship. In good old places of Usenet just tagging things as Spam worked quite well. Just filtering out some tags and putting some guys in a kill-file was good enough. But it required manual labour - and eventually that was too much. But with AI now I think tagging could be done efficiently.

If people like to filter out all the tags (sarcasm, math, physics, ...) they can have it - but the way how things work now is that a lot of important information just gets censored by stupid people everywhere. Just hiding information from everybody is quite harmful - being seriously uninformed already killed a lot of people...

The question is if humans are any better.

Usually mentioning anything about doing proper epidemiology (e.g. analysing COVID numbers), or anything modern about atmosphere physics and climate-modelling gets taken down everywhere within 24 hours - by humans.

Mathematics and physics is something a lot of people don't like and really love to take down. Idiots censoring experts is a real problem. This place here has less idiots, but outnumbering experts with stupidity is something that works everywhere.

But all the techniques to multiply numbers with your fingers are more confusing in base 12.

https://www.wikihow.com/Multiply-With-Your-Hands

Those techniques can be useful. If you add toes, multiplying numbers up to 20 (like 16x18) is easy.

Seeing them and hearing about them in the media are different things. You have to look for data yourself - it won't come to you.

I met several people working in cancer medicine, and they tell me that they're seeing the spikes. And some statistics showed very early that something is wrong. But chances are low you'll read anything about that in the media.

Look around and see who is dying. It's an old saying about wars that people will not bother to check if something is going wrong before not at least 5-10% of the population have died.

Nowadays the popular mainstream cults openly go against hard data - and nobody bothers...

Witch hunting was popular in Europe for more than 300 years. Last conviction in court in Europe was 1944... The mainstream is much more insane than people are aware of. Modern cargo cults have a lot more evidence going against them than witch hunting ever had (doing statistics about the number of lightning strikes reduced by burning witches wasn't that popular at all).

I think in your mind you associate "unknown" strongly with "random" and even "random with equal chances". Just because something is unknown doesn't mean it is random. And if it is random it doesn't mean it is 50/50.

For a normal User I think Linux has been almost perfect for decades. For Games Windows still had some advantage. But for developing software I really didn't like Linux. The windows API is very stable. In Linux constantly new problems showed up. E.g. some window-manager suddenly started stealing my focus, just because it wants to have the focus on an irrelevant Edit-Field somewhere... If Linux wants to be the standard I think it should have a stable Api first. And I don't have much hope in Gnome and KDE doing anything like that.

When making a typo one guy I knew deleted the whole word with backspace and typed it new from the beginning. Anything else to correct the error he called cheating.

That was a long time ago - and he was still young. But not so long ago I asked some keyboard manufacturer (Ducky?!) to add more macro features for productivity - and I got the answer that it would be cheating to play back macros faster than normal writing speed - Recording macros on a keyboard and playing it back faster than recorded was impossible by design because they don't want to support cheaters.

Oh those coders... I wonder how much code on Github is invalid because of cheating...