mNovak

Cool use of emscripten. Is this handling inflation at all? Fixed-number items like standard deduction will be impacted by that.

I think it gives a general idea of the tax situation, but possibly decreasing accuracy at high incomes, where a tax strategy can be implemented specific to the special deductions/credits each year, which are difficult to include in this form.

I enjoyed learning assembly in college -- to me, many of the non-intuitive aspects of abstract languages make more sense when you know something like C, and C makes a lot of sense once you know assembly. It all sort of clicks in a very satisfying way.

The underlying paper: https://publik.tuwien.ac.at/files/publik_300063.pdf

Would be interesting to use black and white rice, then convince your phone to read it as a QR code. That'd vastly simplify the before/after comparison.

This does seem like it might be vulnerable to a comb pick attack, if you can push all those wafer stacks into the sliding bar.

It might invalidate aspects of the patent, but the two are different enough that certain aspects of this one are still patentable.

Bottom line, you don't always patent the whole device, sometimes just the small unique implementation details are valuable enough.

A lot of people saying this is similar/same to the lock from Stuff Made Here. Certainly both use the same concept of preventing single pin picking by separating the pin alignment and matching stages, but this does appear to be a unique design. SMH used a pushing mechanism to bind the pins in place before trialing a set of gates via rotation; this one sort of does the reverse, with pins never binding (see stack of separable wafers on each pin) put a pushing mechanism trials the combination.

This one does seem potentially more compact / compatible to existing form factors. Though it also looks like it'd be vulnerable to just torqueing it, depending on how strong that zigzag bit is. But I guess then you can just break the door.

Buzzfeed is still the #2 result, but at least there's no tabloids

I believe the malicious tx is basically serialized into a hex string, so not easily inspected by the user. As such, the wallet gives a warning, which the user ignores

Unless I'm misunderstanding something, I don't think it can. Your ownership of NFTs and ETH balance is public info on chain, and the site can construct a malicious transaction giving them away, but it ultimately has to trick the user into signing it. Not really sure what leeway they have to manipulate how the wallet UI presents the tx to the user though.

It's just plain and simple phishing -- the user still has to authorize the transaction, nothing gets stolen just for visiting the site or connecting the wallet.

Not to say it's the user's fault entirely. What they're taking advantage of, is that generally people are less familiar with what to look for in a crypto transaction vs say an online credit card form (and/or wallet UI is worse than a typical stripe checkout)

Those floppy stacks sound delightfully like a harpsichord

"credible neutrality" is a nice phrase for a concept I've struggled to articulate, thanks

> To be in balance, the Stablecoin must provide real utility to the Outside World that transcends the Stablecoin/Insurer construct. Specifically:

> 1. There must be a transaction tax for real utility provided by the Stablecoin.

Don't all major reserve-based algorithmic stablecoins charge some kind of minting/redemption fee, to reward the risk taken on by reserve holders? And that makes this whole argument somewhat moot, since it's not a purely closed construct like they're describing. Though perhaps this line of reasoning (equivocating to other financial constructs) could lead to fee pricing equations required for some notion of stability.

The article jumps between multiple experiments (some laser some microwave), but if you're interested in the the recent 10 GHz microwave experiment the authors were a part of (and which was on the HN frontpage recently) -- 1.6kW delivered over 1km -- the details were published in [1].

Very relevant datapoint: the transmitter source was 100kW, fed into a 5.4m dish. The receiver array was 2x2m. The end to end efficiency, which this article pointedly avoids, is on the order of 1-2%, over 1km.

[1] https://ieeexplore.ieee.org/stamp/stamp.jsp?tp=&arnumber=966...

This reminds me of an old RTS(?) game called Majesty. The interesting thing there was that you build buildings and such, but you have no control over individual units. You can try to motivate them by placing bounties and such, and different unit types are more or less receptive to those incentives. So speed/micromanagement have very little benefit, though strategy and efficient sequencing would still be relevant.

In particular I'd really like online games that behave more like Warhammer or D&D, where a large portion of the fun is actually offline, designing your character/army etc.

Bringing it back to your comment, I can across [1], which brings some popular boardgames online. Premium games follow your license model (non-paying players can play with paid members)

[1] https://en.boardgamearena.com/

Is it an economic sim (National Parks Tycoon), or a chill simulator (Park Ranger simulator)?

Kind of makes me think of an open-world, never-ending Firewatch. Or, make a Journey style Appalachian Trail simulator.

I agree, I've always thought it'd be cool to develop a game that, for instance, you could meaningfully play from a full fledged console or a mobile phone. They might be different components or aspects of the game, but both would contribute to your world/quest/whatever. And just like real life, some people might specialize, and only ever play one aspect of the game, while others focus on other parts.

I've been following these, and it seems like such a fun thing to do. He seems to have been lucky that he caught on to his real product on day 1 -- semi-viral blog posts.

Still I imagine it's hard for most people to go 2 years on a few thousand of sporadic revenue.

It's the same reason you have money in a (zero interest) checking account rather than holding cash. For some that's the idea of security, others the convenience of spending "digital money" (e.g. wanting to do block-chainy things without risking the currency fluctuation of ETH or other coins).

Amusingly, I got banned from eBay Partner Network (e.g. affiliate links) after my hobby site got a little traction in a HN comment. Banned within hours; they responded to my emails, only enough to say the ban was being upheld.

So as a regular reminder, be wary of relying on the good graces of a giant corporation for your monetization!

I'm just waiting for dice of non-uniform distribution. Gaussian dice anyone? Of course anything can be accomplished with a proper lookup table.

It is a very nice looking tool, but I can't live without ellipse arcs. The bezier elbow lines always look so cheap to me.

These look excellent.

On the other hand, I still make an embarrassing amount of technical figures using powerpoint built in shapes.

Cool site by the way; FCC listings are always so hard to search

Also it's really bugging me that multiple heads are getting cropped out of frame, in the promo. I would have assumed the immediate first feature would be a bit of ML to find the human and put them in frame, and I assume that's how it accomplishes the orbit and follow-cam shots, so why the awkward clipping?

To dive straight into the low end is viable only for a large corp that can subsidize it and/or the massive marketing blitz. I highly doubt they're making money on the $250 price tag unless they sell several million. Anyone else has to start at the high end / specialty, and work their way down.

The camera quality doesn't look great, even in the promo videos. You'd think a software company can put on some some decent color balance at least. Also the video is very wobbly because it's such a small platform and no gimbal. That can be fixed in large part in software too.

I suppose they're going for the artistically constrained angle, more like a disposable camera.

I'm highly skeptical of the 60% efficiency figure being any sort of end-to-end metric. I suspect that was poorly phrased, and the receiver/rectifier was operating at 60% efficiency (which is reasonable for RF rectifiers), of power incident. But the vast majority of power loss is happening along the path before reaching the receiver.

Some ballpark numbers: 1km at 10GHz is ~110dB of path loss. Those look like feasibly 40dBi antennas at both ends. That still leaves -30dB link budget, i.e. 0.1% of energy reaching the target.