jules

How is this not straight up fraud?

What was the take home project about?

Ah I see, so each of the values that are shown in the inspector should become its own observable object? That sounds reasonable.

> But in reality it's probably re-rendering the entire hierarchy using the @EnvironmentObject. So the SceneKit view gets setup and rendered every update of the Slider.

I get that this is slower than only updating the single value, but what I don't understand is why even this is so slow? Browsers can render the right hand side of this inspector UI (https://chsxf.dev/assets/posts/5/map-editor-with-inspector.p...) at reasonable speed even if you rebuild the entire DOM for the fields in the inspector. I mean, it's one checkbox, one slider, and 7 text boxes and a bunch of labels. What is taking so much time here?

How do you silo the changes? The issue was that changing a property of an object caused the inspector to be redrawn. With old fashioned UI libraries you would only change the value of one text field in the inspector. Can this be achieved with SwiftUI? To be honest I'm surprised that it's that slow even if the entire inspector is redrawn. Surely on a modern computer you can redraw a couple of text fields at 30fps?

The potential profit from that is a rounding error for Apple.

"In the fall of 1972 President Nixon announced that the rate of increase of inflation was decreasing. This was the first time a sitting president used the third derivative to advance his case for reelection."

-- http://www.ams.org/notices/199610/page2.pdf

> You can however price this in, and I doubt it accounts for 110$/MW.

What do you base this on?

I can only talk about computer science. The research papers in the past would probably not be able to get published in prestigious journals today. They'd need to get expanded from sketchy 8 page papers into very rigorous 25 page papers. I think we've overshot though. With papers in the modern style you need to wade through a lot of cruft to get to the key idea. As for the quality of the ideas...the older papers do win. I think that's because there was more low hanging fruit, but some part of it may be due to an incentive structure that rewards safe bets.

If I'm not mistaken, the preparation of the dish (meat boiled in vinegar for several hours, then sweetened up with gingerbread and reduced apple juice) was traditionally intended to tenderise the tough meat of old farm horses that had been used for ploughing the land. Almost all restaurants prepare the dish with beef nowadays.

The main issue is that the ECB will be unable to raise rates sufficiently to combat inflation because some EU member states will be in a lot of trouble.

From my vote to this decision there are so many layers of abstraction that I wouldn't even begin to have a clue who to vote for and in which election if I do or do not want this E-ID.

At least in national elections there are parties campaigning with a platform and then I can decide which platform I like best. How often the platforms of the elected parties get translated into reality is another question, but it can at least plausibly be described as demos kratos. Maybe the EU is "democracy" in some modern sense of the word, but in the original sense of the word it is not. (I'm not even saying that's a bad thing. Maybe it is in fact better to have elites deciding.)

I get that you may want to move here if you want to have kids, but isn't Europe declining at least as fast as the US?

Is it? This may be heresy, but I found the food in the US to be better than in France. If you're willing to spend a lot of money it may be better in France, but for ordinary eating out I've found the US to be better. Patisserie is better in France, though.

The difference between e.g. northern and southern Italy is large. Larger than the differences I've seen in the US. I'm from the Netherlands, so I may be suffering from the same issue, but a reason I doubt that is that in many ways Dutch culture is closer to American culture than to Italian culture, so if anything I should be able to detect nuances in US regional differences better.

It's not just the money though. Even if you remove pay-to-win and move to an ad supported model, these games are still engineered to maximally waste your time.

In fact, even games that are not designed to maximize your time spent in the game can be bad. The reward hits you get from games make you less likely to seek out other types of reward in your life. And even when you're not playing the game, your brain will be running a background task strategising how to maximize your results in the game.

The stock market can be gambling, but if you put money in an index fund and don't look at it for 30 years, that's psychologically and financially very different from gambling.

Functors and modules are nice but do not have the convenience of traits and type classes. The problem with functors and modules is that you have to manually instantiate the right functors and modules when you want to use some operation. Type classes and traits build the right instantiations for you based on the types.

I want to write `toString (1,true)` not `ToStringPair(ToStringInt)(ToStringBool).toString (1,true)`.

OCaml is great, but it lacks traits / type classes. That plus some syntactic tweaks would make OCaml amazing for most general purpose programming.

Traits are the one part of Rust that should definitely not be given up. It is way better than the traditional OO model.

No. TSMC does own that IP. This is about instances where the IP is owned by company B. I don't know how the legislation would work in a case like that. Most likely Apple would be required to sell replacement parts to everyone, rather than only to its licensed repair shops.

In any case this is a theoretical point, it's usually some stupid little chip on the motherboard that got wet and rusty, not the CPU. Or the screen broke. Or the battery is too old.

Right to repair means that if the company A making the product buys a component from another company B, then A cannot forbid B from selling the same component to a repair shop. It does not mean that Apple is no longer allowed to glue their battery into the iPad.

> Either you know the material or you do not.

This is simply not the case. How well the person knows the material is more than yes/no. You'd be rounding the exam result to 1 bit and throwing away the extra bits of information. Maybe it's a good thing not to show that information to the student, but I'd like to see an argument for why the advantages of hiding that information from the students outweigh the disadvantages.

As for competitiveness in education...there are advantages and disadvantages to it. I'm not convinced that class rankings are a good idea, but I'm also not convinced that the optimal target for competitiveness is zero, to the point of not showing students their grades beyond pass/fail. Anecdotally I've seen the aim for zero competitiveness have perverse effects, where students instead start to compete on how lazy they can (appear to) be while still getting a pass, to show how smart they are.

Let us consider the proposal of keeping higher learning the same except that we don't do exams. What would happen?

For better or worse, whether somebody completed their degree does often factor into hiring decisions, so exam grades do indirectly factor into hiring decisions. Having completed a degree signals some level of domain knowledge, conscientiousness, and intelligence. Without exams you would have a 100% success rate (unless you introduced some other assessment mechanism), so the signal would be gone; having completed a degree would only signal whether or not you were able to afford it financially.

Secondly, a large fraction of the students would lose motivation and not do anything by the second year. Many would stop doing homework, stop doing any real studying except maybe superficial reading, and many would hardly come to class. In fact, many students currently already do this until the first midterm, even though they know the midterm is coming. A lot of students need the existence of exams to motivate themselves. Not all students, but a lot. These students don't want to lose motivation and waste time; many would probably regret not learning anything for several years. Our monkey brains are not suited to motivating ourselves to do things with a >3 year time horizon. Exams are a mechanism to motivate our monkey brains to put effort into studying.

I think if we consider professions that are important to our own lives, we do recognise the necessity of assessment. Would you prefer your doctor or nurse, accountant, electrician, or for that matter, teacher of your kids, to have come from a school that doesn't do exams or from a school that does? If they are experienced, maybe it doesn't matter, but how many people are going to take a chance on a fresh graduate if they are from a program without any assessment, where the philosophy is "you do it, you tell people you did it, then you either convince them that doing it imparted something useful on you or you don’t"?

There are other ways to solve that problem, and some of them may even be better than the current system, but I'm not convinced that taking the current system and simply removing exams would work.

What you are saying is not at all controversial, but it is incomplete, which is probably why you have received pushback in the past. Criticising the existing system is easy. Giving an alternative is harder. Implementing that alternative and showing that it's actually better on some metric is MUCH harder than that. But you have not even given an alternative!

No. The maximum prison sentence in such a case would be 8, 6, or 2 months in the Netherlands, depending on how reckless the driver was (and up to 4 years if drunk). If you then kill the cyclist you're looking at a maximum of 25 years.

As a Dutch cyclist I would certainly use a helmet on American roads (or not use a bicycle at all). Furthermore, in the Netherlands the delivery drivers that use bicycles are asked to wear a helmet by their employer. Riders of E-bikes that are able to accelerate without pedalling and those that are able to accelerate above 25 km/h are required to wear a helmet by law. I'm certain that the majority of the Dutch would think it is completely insane that a delivery company is prohibiting the use of helmets on their E-bikes, even if it was in the Netherlands.

That's one of the practical things wrong with this style of architecture: it looks bad with even a little bit of staining on the walls, and it stains very quickly because it lacks an overhanging roof that protects the walls.

The stuff I see in contemporary art museums is only occasionally clearly better than what DALL-E produces. I don't think anyone would bat an eye if you put a selected collection of its images in a museum.

I don't understand this article. Le Corbusier is the epitome of the opposite: architecture that architects love, but that the people who have to live or work in it hate. The article attempts to shift the blame to managers, but there is hardly a better example of forcing stuff onto people against their will than Le Corbusier and his disciples. That Le Corbusier's Pessac is now viewed as an architectural success says more about the standards of contemporary architecture than about Pessac. Here's a picture advertising the place: https://media-cdn.tripadvisor.com/media/photo-s/0e/f7/9d/67/... Is that supposed to be a grand achievement of one of the most famous architects?

So what exactly did Le Corbusier get right, according to the article? "The very fact that his designs were so easily modified was, arguably, their strength." -- this is what fans of Le Corbusier always praise him for, and it always sounds really bad to me. The main strength of the architecture is that you have to radically change it to make it liveable...? That he said “You know, life is always right; it is the architect who is wrong.” when people made radical changes? I guess that's more laudable than trying to fight the change, but also a very low bar.

It's hard to capture an entire lecture series in one sentence, but one way you might categorise subjects by the type of problems they allow you to solve:

- Multiple linear equations over the rationals/reals => linear algebra

- Solve equations over the integers / integers mod p / factor numbers => number theory

- Solve polynomial equations / factor polynomials => algebra

- (Partial) differential equations => (partial) differential equations

- Approximate solutions to various equations over the reals => numerical analysis

- Counting the sizes of various finite sets => combinatorics

- Integrate wild functions => measure theory

- Formal understanding of real numbers => real analysis

- General framework for differential equations => functional analysis

- General framework for continuous functions and limits => point-set topology

- Prove that two elastic shapes are different => algebraic topology

- Prove that a knot in a circular piece of string cannot be untied without cutting the string => knot theory

- Determine optimum strategy in a game with incomplete information => game theory

- Describe very big sets / prove that certain things can't be proved => set theory

- etc.