robbrown451

Well the common ancestor of all living fish would be more like a lancelet, which is nothing like a sea sponge. (it is bilaterally symmetrical and has a "notochord" which is like a primitive spinal chord.

The main issue I have with the parent's comment is the idea that "most species" evolved independently. No, most species have a whole bunch of other species very closely related to them.

There are a few major branches of fish, such as ray finned (most fish) and lobe finned, the taxanomic category of the latter also includes tetrapods, and only has a couple of species that are still actual fish, such as coelacanth and lungfish. And above that distinction, there are bony fish and cartilaginous fish, such as sharks and rays.

But still, even if fish is not monophyletic, it is not polyphyletic, which means all things considered fish are "connected" to other fish.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Evolution_of_fish#/media/File:...

Today fish is generally defined as chordates (vertebrates) minus tetrapods (four limbed things like amphibians, reptiles and mammals). Not a taxonomic category, but more scientific than including all things that live in water. This of course excludes those things we refer to as "shellfish," which are generally mollusks or crustaceans.

Bumblebee doesn't even come close to any definition of fish. It doesn't live in the water, and isn't in the same clade than includes all living fish (as we are, being tetrapods).

Not sure what you mean by "most species of fish evolved independently," by the way.

Yes and cheaper still is to just use the computer you already have to be your synth. I don't think there are any advantages today of using an analogue synth. Software synths can not only do all those "fat" sounds but can do a really good job of synthesizing real instruments such as an acoustic piano. (see Pianoteq, for instance, which does not use sampling to create instrument sounds)

I find analogue synths pretty fascinating but if you are just using them to make music (as opposed to a hobby in themselves), there are far better ways, here in 2022.

Not to take anything away from Dave Smith, he was brilliant and his synths were the best you could get, in their day.

You don't think self driving cars categorize and prioritize things?

I would imagine the car has ways of identifying things that are specific hazards, such as a gas pump. Fruit stand is probably categorized as "other."

"the problem is in having the correct ontology to even get to the "prioritization" stage."

That part isn't done by the program, it is done by whoever enters the prioritization numbers. That is, someone, possibly a committee, can dial up the "avoid gas pumps" weighting relative to the "avoid baby stroller" weighting if they are concerned that cars might swerve so widely to avoid coming near a stroller than they are risking hitting a different hazard. Or they can dial up the weight of grocery carts relative to dogs, since children might be in a grocery cart. Etc.

Those are humans, who can do whatever ontological analysis they need when deciding on the the settings. The car doesn't need to access any of that, it just needs a general look up table that can help make optimal decisions based on the human-entered value system.

"But it does not change that the autonomous machine does not understand the complex world it is driving in in the slightest, and that, for example, swerving into an unmanned fruit stand without being able to brake is much better than swerving into an unmanned gas pump."

It seems it would have a way of prioritizing such things. That doesn't seem particularly complicated, to be honest... weighted decision making is certainly within its capacity. E.g. shopping cart has fewer "avoid hitting" points than stroller.

It's not like every scenario has to be explicitly programmed in, nor does the program need to run some analysis on a detailed backstory to justify that a baby is more valuable than groceries. In effect, somebody -- probably not a programmer either -- just needs to enter some numbers into a spreadsheet.

(yes there is complex programming that allows that to be manifested in the car's decisions, but the idea that programmers are themselves constantly making "moral calls" in the code, rather than the control data, is fiction)

And if it does have such prioritization in its logic, I'd say yeah, it "understands" the world in that respect. Unless you have defined the word "understand" in some mystical way that precludes non-biological machines by definition.

Because the drivers are not wearing helmets and therefore increasing the risk to themselves.

Because the crashes are less likely when the driver is not wearing a helmet. This is sort of the point of the article.

Stallman's pronunciation sure sounds like two syllables to me... Guh-new.

It's much harder to say as a single syllable than the word "grew," which they compare it to.

I wish they had named it something better. The recursive joke doesn't help. The odd sequence of letters that are hard for most English speakers to say makes it worse. The fact that there is an actual English word with those letters, but pronounced differently, makes it even worse.

Skateboarding and roller skating with my 8 year old daughter. Adding a bunch of other kids, hockey sticks, RC vehicles and whatever else adds to the chaos only makes it better.

I suggest an accountability partner. The biggest problem I've had with that is that my partners didn't have it as badly as me, so they didn't understand.

The idea is you check in once a day (10 minutes or so), and just talk about what you've achieved, where you've failed, etc. It can be very effective.

I've done some pretty extreme things in the past, such as hired a "coach" who would hold me financially responsible if I didn't send proof that I got up and walked the dog to the ATM machine by 8 am every morning. (we had complex rules and she had a check made out to charity, ready to send if I didn't achieve what I was supposed to) It was extremely effective while I did it, but only for really measurable things.

I use a timer lock to keep cannabis locked up for a few days at a time, so I don't have to quit it (I think it is good for my creativity as well as for seeing "the big picture" and finding the positive, but it is bad if it is tempting me to use it while I should be working)

If you are interested in getting a group together to do accountability partners, get in touch. (rjbrown at google's mail service)

I made a simple graphical web app to help my 5 year old (now just turned 8) understand basic arithmetic concepts, and it's been very successful. You can see a session of us working with it together at https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=t3doY76KEVk . (note that I made a web cam button, so it will put the video of us behind the app itself, so I could screen capture the app and it shows me and her as well) The video is a full half hour (two sessions), and even if you just skip around it's pretty cool to watch how the concepts seem to click for her.

You can use it at https://pianop.ly/mathLesson/ and if anyone is interested I'll put an MIT license on it and put the code on github.

It started out with us using pennies laid out on the table, then when I realized how tedious it was, I started using GIMP, then when realizing how tedious that was, made a little app. This is the earlier version (first GIMP, then a cruder version the app) https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=_VDn54vPNSk

Ok, well, they aren't doing it for this, so what are we complaining about again?

The issue of loud vehicles can be addressed without resorting to things like facial recognition. Facial recognition, due to the obvious privacy concerns, should probably be reserved for much more serious things, such as catching fugitives or detecting violations of restraining orders and the like. Not people smoking outside. Maybe it shouldn't be used at all.

So I don't understand the complaint.

Never heard of violence upon someone for not paying a ticket. They might have their credit affected, their wages garnished, their vehicle registration suspended, and so on, if they continue to ignore bills. That isn't violence, but it is consequences.

But I'm curious how you'd prefer it be handled.

What if I don't pay rent? Should I be allowed to live there forever, simply because no one, not even the police, is allowed to physically remove me from the property if I refuse to pay and refuse to leave? I wonder how this ideal world you imagine actually works.

If you get a bill in the mail, how does "monopoly on violence" come into play?

That's a different problem with different possible solutions. Just because we work on one thing doesn't mean we have to stop working on another.

Presumably this one is a lot easier to address inexpensively with a bit of tech. Smoking not so much. For one thing, people don't wear license plates.

Oh I've seen people with service dog vests, but don't have any knowledge of whether they are "real".

But see, I don't care if the person really needs a service dog. Some are for "emotional support", and while I think that is a bit silly, whatever.

What I'm concerned about is badly behaved dogs. I haven't seen that inside stores or restaurants.

I really don't care about whether they are sniffing produce or whatever (not they they seem to do that), if I'm going to get sick from something in a store, most likely it is from a human, since humans tend to host human-infecting germs.

Have you actually ever gotten allergies from a pet in a restaurant? I have cat allergies, but they tend to kick in when I am in someone's home where a cat lives.

Well it's better than nothing. But as I said, where I live (San Francisco) people bring dogs in stores all the time, and I never see problems. Presumably most of them realize that if their pet is going to poop on the floor or bark or snap at people, they just don't bring them in.

What are the shenanigans you are aware of with service dogs? Badly behaved dogs, or just people that lie about why they need a dog? My suggested plan would make such lying unnecessary since all you need to do is prove the dog can pass a behavior test, it has nothing to do with whether you supposedly need the emotional support animal. (and of course, this doesn't give anyone the right to bring the dog in a store or in a plane or whatever, unless the business wants to allow it)

I think if pets are only in one part of the plane it should not be a problem. Planes filter the air more than just about any other environment. I have pretty severe cat allergies and don't think it would be a problem for me unless it is in the same row.

You'd have to be spectacularly stupid to do that. The case I heard where that happened the flight attendant it there, without realizing there was a pet in the container. (the family told her, but somehow she didn't hear or understand)

What if the back of the plane is pets ok and the front of the plane is for people who don't want to be near them?

Where I live people bring the dogs into the grocery store (carrying them, putting them in the cart, or just walking on a leash.... and no, they aren't all service dogs) and I've never seen a problem.

Personally I think you should be able to get a special collar or jacket for them that says they have passed a test that they are well enough trained for such things etc.

It can be fuzzy and arbitrary at the same time.

It's certainly arbitrary that the Gulf of Mexico isn't considered a sea. (or various other "parts of the ocean" referred to as "gulfs" or "bays")

"The main difference between a sea and a lake is that a sea is a part of the ocean."

Ok, so you have decided that the Caspian Sea isn't actually a sea? Well I guess all bets are off if you can do that.... :)

I think you are onto something.

And even if you just call them islands, you'll run into ambiguous territory somewhere. Is Manhattan really an island? If so, then is Harlem River really a river? (and there are also islands which become part of the mainland at low tide)

BTW, the state of Rhode Island was originally "the State of Rhode Island and Providence Plantations" which made sense but was unwieldy. Now the actual island of Rhode Island is called Aquidneck Island.

True but it is all arbitrary. If there was an island twice as big as Greenland, what would it be called? And why is Europe considered a continent when it is more accurately just a peninsula off of Asia? And if we are talking seas, why is the Caribbean a sea when it is just a region of the Atlantic ocean? Even moreso for the Sargasso sea, which is a region right out in the middle of the Atlantic (it doesn't even have any land boundaries).

It is indeed mostly semantics.

Interestingly (to me anyway) I was just following the news about Lake Powell being at a very low level, and noticed on a map just how "non-lake like" its shape is (even when at full capacity).... it just looks like a river and tributaries that are somewhat wider than they were before a dam was built.

https://www.google.com/maps/place/Lake+Powell/@37.0518007,-1...

Meanwhile, why is Greenland considered an island and Australia a continent? Who knows. You have to draw a line somewhere.

I started to point out that that one isn't correct either (notice how the back part of the E key is significantly wider than the back part of the F key, which is wrong), but then I noticed that the article says this (mentioning me):

"Update 13 October 2021: This method is great for getting piano key proportions very near accurate with a few very simple steps. Thanks to Rob Brown who added more details in the comments that will be helpful to anyone looking to make a highly accurate model (e.g. if you’re trying to align a drawing with a photo)"

The actual proportions are described in the link above (I wrote a little algorithm to do it accurately for my music app)

Disappointing that for all the work they did, they didn't look at an actual piano to get the key geometry right. Specifically, black keys aren't centered between the two adjacent white keys, they are offset to allow all keys (white and black) to be approximately equal width at the back of the keyboard.

It looks weird and awkward the way they do it.

See: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=29941801#29943285

Pretty sure that's not what is intended. They used to sell supposed x-ray googles to gullible people, the ads implying you'd be able to see people naked.

Probably the best way to test if you are doing it right is to compare to an optical blend.

Say you blend red and green, such as by having a red ( rgb(255,0,0) ) div, and putting a div that is green with 50% transparency over it ( rgba(0,255,0,.5) ).

Now, make a checkerboard pattern of red and green divs. Look at it from far away enough that it appears as a solid color. (easier if you make each div occupy one pixel, while trying to avoid any antialiasing) You could also use something like frosted glass to blur it.

Do they appear the same color?

I would not expect it to appear as a bright yellow, but a rather dark yellow. (but not so dark as it appears brown)