alanbernstein

True, but I think there's another dimension implied: how many devs are left that understand the code? Being able to start at zero is a fascinating surprise (compared to five years ago).

And yet we are surrounded by cameras that do this constantly

It's the repainting that bothers me

Well whatever the zero means, it can't be the number of days that the bug has been present, generally. It should be expected that most zero-days concern a bug with a non-zero previous lifespan.

Stop using email newsletter popups.

Stop using images that I can't zoom in to.

It's not really a good thing for technical discussion and support topics though. Information that others might hope to find by searching the web is no longer discoverable that way.

Right, it seems the appropriate analogy is the shift from analog-photograph-developers to digital camera photographers.

I bumped this video to the top of my watchlist because of your comment, thanks for that. My takeaway is that the rocker-bogie is one of the best examples of an elegant passive solution I've ever seen.

I really like this pure-math way of looking at airfoil behavior: https://complex-analysis.com/content/joukowsky_airfoil.html

Considering things like Palantir, and the doge effort running through Musk, it seems inconceivable that this is not already the case.

I think I'm more curious about the possibility of using a special government LLM to implement direct democracy in a way that was previously impossible: collecting the preferences of 100M citizens, and synthesizing them into policy suggestions in a coherent way. I'm not necessarily optimistic about the idea, but it's a nice dream.

I think they're the same? both are built layer by layer but consumed in vertical chunks, right?

After all, what is a sandwich but a stack of food?

If I'm working in a dark room, then light mode is eye strain hell. With dark mode, the minimum brightness I can achieve is about 100x lower than with light mode.

I do agree that both styles of treemap shown in the article are inadequate for various reasons, but I don't think that applies to treemaps as a whole.

Personally, I find treemaps unmatched for disk space analysis. Specifically, I like to use the squarify layout algorithm, to NOT use the "cushion gradient" shading method, to use inset frames to convey depth visually, and to include filenames. This maximizes glanceable information density, for the use case of identifying large objects to delete to recover space.

This is how the old spacemonger app worked, and I liked it so much I had to recreate it for Linux/Mac: https://github.com/alanbernstein/treemonger. My version still needs some work, but it's minimally useable.

Why do treemaps suck?

Before reading the article, I interpreted the quotation marks in the headline as addressing this exact issue. The author even describes dark patterns as a product of design.

For an LLM which is fundamentally more of an emergent system, surely there is value in a concept analogous to old fashioned dark patterns, even if they're emergent rather than explicit? What's a better term, Dark Instincts?

I'm generally very much for open-source software, but after my brief experience with FreeCAD and Fusion, I think if I'm going to sink 10+ hours into learning one of them, it will be Fusion. I bookmarked this recently and plan to try it out but have not yet started: https://www.youtube.com/playlist?app=desktop&list=PLrZ2zKOtC...

I adopted bosl2 recently, it's wonderful! Anchoring is a huge improvement, which does eliminate a lot of that work. But it's a very large library and I am slowly expanding my knowledge of it.

I have a lot of experience with openscad. I design a lot of small, simple-to-moderate parts. I want to use something like fusion instead, but the GUI learning curve is a huge blocker for me.

I'm not a CAD professional, I can't seem to find the time to watch hours of video to get the basics down. With code based CAD, the way to start is usually obvious. When I run into a blocker, I search online, find examples, and try them out. Then, crucially, I copy and paste code snippets into my design, and modify them, to solve my problem.

In a GUI cad tool, I find that I spend most of my time hunting for buttons in the UI, often finding UI layout discrepancies between my version and whatever video I found.

In code, I do have to repeatedly solve little trig or geometry problems, and I'm always aware that a constraint based GUI tool would eliminate that completely. But I always know that I can just spend five minutes with pencil and paper and get it done, whereas switching to fusion means adding an hour or more of work to multiple designs.

I really want to design more effectively, with better fillet flexibility. But for my simple tasks, the barrier to becoming productive in a GUI is just too high.

I believe the "command palette" in e.g. VS code solves this well, perhaps a GUI cad with that would be workable for me.

Maybe what would really help me, is a larger more complex project which I can develop over a longer time in fusion while I learn to use it. Too bad I don't have anything that naturally fits that bill.

Practically nothing in health science is universal, your anecdote does not disprove anything.

Ok, now for the people using motor vehicles instead of their own muscle power, account for the time wasted at the gym for the equivalent exercise. Or for time at the hospital, due to their sedentary lifestyle. Then account for the various types of pollution and destruction caused by motor vehicles.

Or, you know, just appreciate this 2D chart for the two dimensions of factual information it is able to convey effectively.

I think the verb "promote" was chosen over "say" here very deliberately

Thanks, will look into it. For some reason I thought all the RF options were super expensive, maybe not.

I see, thanks. Sounds like I was overthinking it.

`aunpack` does the trick for me.

Thanks for sharing. I'm very familiar with the basic mechanics of quaternion rotation, and I've been interested in a deeper understanding of this double-cover concept, but I just don't get it. I've seen the belt trick and it feels more like an illusion than an illustration of some deep truth.

I like how you've connected it to spin, but I still don't understand how that is a real physical property rather than a mathematical artifact.

I don't quite grasp the significance of your "different look". Can you suggest any other reading?

I find the smartphone controller options for my Canon t6i so frustrating and dodgy, I gave up on them. The IR remote works for about 20 seconds and then the receiver shuts off for some reason. Practically useless for family portrait selfies.

Instead, I have a shutter release pedal, connected via a 50 foot audio extension cable, to the wired remote port on the camera. It's not compact or elegant, but it's easy, fast and reliable.

This was my first thought, but after reading the comments here, I see I had no idea how many other alternatives already existed, so why not add another one.

Cool! Did you consider using more compact keys and caps?