nluken

Unfortunately, you're usually working against physics and not software, because, as you allude to, playing music together requires near perfect latency (some sources say 10ms as an absolute maximum) that's physically impossible to achieve over a long distance, even if you had a perfect connection.

I hear this often and it's such a strange view of art, like the only thing that matters is scale and speed. It's a perspective so colored by mechanization that it fails to account for other philosophies in art. Think of what, say the Arts and Crafts movement was all about!

Northeastern held out for a long time, only switching away from Racket, despite the protest of students and professors alike, in the last year or two.

The post title here is extremely misleading. Per HN standards, the post should use the original title, "How to turn 'sfo-jfk' into a beautiful photo"

Oh! I know this one! You're thinking of Jeffrey Lewis & The Voltage's LPs from 2019: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=3urXygZXb74'

> Concorde burned 52% of its fuel just taxiing and taking off

and later in the article:

> Remember, Concorde burned 52% of its fuel just taxiing down the runway.

Setting aside that these are completely different claims, the author does not cite this claim at all and it fails my personal gut check. Where is this information coming from?

Might be harder to track but what about CFR or some other metric to measure how many bugs are getting through review before versus after the introduction of your product?

You might respond that ultimately, developers need to stay in charge of the review process, but tracking that kind of thing reflects how the product is actually getting used. If you can prove it helps to ship features faster as opposed to just allowing more LOC to get past review (these are not the same thing!) then your product has a much stronger demonstrable value.

Despite worries about creeping prices, coffee in Italy averages around €1.20 for an espresso or €1.50 for a cappuccino [1]. Way different than in a major American city.

[1]: https://www.ft.com/content/ccd7ef60-cef2-4b03-b4a4-63fa32854...

Nice little article.

Another personal suggestion in this vein: The Queue by Vladimir Sorokin (trans. Sally Laird), which consists entirely of unattributed dialogue. It's challenging at first but once you get a feel for the rhythm and start recognizing characters by how they speak, it becomes a really charming read.

Different strokes for different folks. I'm a fashion lover but a fan of cheap cars, and I could equally say something similar about people who drive new luxury cars when there's plenty of reliable functionality to be had under $10k. There's a lot of craftsmanship that goes into nice clothes, and you can get way more expensive than $500. And fashion is a form of art in a way. What makes a painting worth thousands of dollars?

Keep using that structure. The bots use it so much, and in ways that human authors wouldn't, that it becomes self-parodying. As long as you're not using the same device over and over again in the same piece you'll be fine.

The giveaway is almost always an over-dependence on "Not 'x' but 'y'" structure. Even when the author changes the wording so that the phrase doesn't read exactly like that, they tend to leave the structure intact, and the bots really like to lead with the inverse of what the author wants to say to create contrast.

A human author might have used this technique once to really emphasize a strong point, but today's LLMs use it so often that it loses its emphasis, and instead becomes a distinct stylistic fingerprint.

Looks a little like a first gen Daihatsu Copen, and I mean that as a complement: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Daihatsu_Copen#First_generatio...

> So far, the biggest way Americans have leveraged AI in politics is in self-expression.

Most people, in my experience, use LLMs to help them write stuff or just to ask questions. While it might be neat to see the little ways in which some political movements are using new tools to help them do what they were already doing, the real paradigm shifting "use" of LLMs in politics will be generating content to bias the training sets the big companies use to create their models. If you could do that successfully, you would basically have free, 24/7 propaganda bots presenting your viewpoint to millions as a "neutral observer".

People here are rightly pointing out that there's still room for improvement with this (and almost any) kind of surgery, and the article talks about the accessibility challenges of making procedures like these more widely available, but after reading up on the history of this procedure it's hard not to see modern surgical techniques as a kind of man-made miracle. Great read.

> now you are taxed out of success

Separate from your inflation argument, aren't income tax levels lower than they used to be, even during the Reagan administration?

You're not going to get new clothing for TEMU prices without the de minimis exception. In theory, the higher price of these goods will decrease the amount they're purchased and lessen impact of pollution.

As others in this thread point out, though, there are other casualties of this change.

It came across more mixed to me. It seemed like he spent the whole article making the case for negligence and then took it back at the end.

I know what the author is getting at but he frames the article like he agrees with the State charging the parents with involuntary manslaughter, which, barring some detail not included in the linked NYT piece, seems ridiculous to me.

The death of a 7 year old is a tragedy. Why do we then need to feel the need to hit bereaved parents with a manslaughter charge? Either there's something missing from the story or we're blaming a systemic issue on individual negligence.

The em dash isn't just the present state of AI slop— it's the future!

> If I could just throttle it up to 35mph, I wouldn't even need bike lanes around town. 45mph, and I could easily get to the next town over.

The "higher class" of which you speak has existed for a long time, albeit usually fulfilled by gas powered vehicles until recently: https://www.vespa.com/us_EN/models/primavera/primavera-50-4s...

There's a reason why we require license, registration, and insurance to operate mopeds but not bicycles. You're far more dangerous to pedestrians, other cyclists, and yourself at these kinds of speeds.

Physics and practical concerns are way, way different. You want to go as fast as possible down the descents in a bike race. You don't want to lose any kinetic energy and fall behind your opponents, so the only time you'd be using it is when you actually want to slow down. In a car, you might be braking/slowing down going downhill anyway, so that energy is better captured than used that moment.

There's also the matter of mass: lot more momentum/energy to be gained from a 1500kg car versus a 70kg bike + rider. That said, less energy needed for the motor so don't know how the math works out there.

Edit: all of this is moot anyway because of the point zettabomb made as well.

These guys are not using their brakes nearly enough to make up for the amount of power they would use on the climbs, even on the descents.

Yes and I understand that. I was specifically replying to a comment about this phrase being a myth for athletes.

I would say that in practice 99% of people can't outrun a bad diet, but not because of any sort of physiological reason. You simply need to train so much that most people won't ever approach the level of running/cycling/lifting they would need to do so.

If you're training like an elite athlete (for me and my at the time roommate that was running 85, or in his case, 100+ miles a week with a few lift sessions) you can, and will, eat just about whatever you damn please and not gain weight. Most people can't fit that much training into their lives without making it their life's primary focus at the expense of everything else, and couldn't sustain that level of training if they did, so it becomes a practical impossibility.

I do miss that aspect of running so much mileage, though I appreciate the freedom that stepping back from competition has afforded me in other areas. To maintain weight now, I eat 1-2 meals a day, but back then? I ate whatever got put in front of me, sometimes 4 meals a day.

The author doesn't touch upon it here, but you can compress experiences along two axes: time, or what I'll call depth. This second type of compression drives the proliferation of overly long TV shows, documentaries, and podcasts. Most of these works are not meant to be watched or listened to alone, but instead present information of limited depth so people can digest them (or at least grasp them at surface level) using only a portion of their attention while they spend the other portion on something else.

You may be spending more time on these kinds of things, but I would argue you're really not much better off than the person reading the headline, and at least giving it their full attention for a tiny bit of time.

While I'm sure the author enjoyed their experience, she doesn't really explain why we should prefer "speedrunning" to the traditional timeline. It gets you into the workforce earlier? She never even makes clear that she accomplished the second goal she lays out at the beginning of the piece. Nothing about her optimization-dictated academic path indicates a particularly "illegible" or "unusual" life. To me, it actually slots in quite nicely with the now widely emergent hustle culture.

Notably, she doesn't discuss other people or social interaction at all minus couchsurfing "random internet friends" (a telling description of people you're ostensibly close with). What makes "travel" and "adventures" better than, say, living in a tight knit community for a few years, making very close friends by virtue of repeated, consistent interaction? I probably could have compressed my schooling as well, but I developed as much as a person academically during that time in my life because I made friends with people who were different than me, and had different life goals, which changed my perspective significantly.

I would also note that it's probably too early for her to actually assess in full what she's gained from the experience. She was in undergrad at UVA in the fall of 2022, which would make her at most 22 and only one year out of school assuming a normal two semester academic calendar.

A whole lot of words to say basically nothing. Are we really equating a 30 day move in stock price with a company wide turnaround?

Just running 30 miles a week is not enough to cause damage in most people. Tiger was also doing hours of professional-level golf training every day at the same time.

You can effectively accomplish something like this already simply through good writing and programming, accounting for these gaps as part of an NPC's characterization. It's a cool way to play with player expectations, and one of the core bases behind Toby Fox's games.