Gilbert Strang has an excellent free (IIRC) linear algebra course, accompanied by his excellent textbook. Kahn Academy has some surprisingly good linear algebra lectures as well, if something isn't clicking.
> The European Union’s Digital Identity Wallet takes a radically different approach. Zero-knowledge proofs let you verify age without revealing personal data—like showing you’re over 18 without disclosing your birthdate or identity details
I'm not buying that "I am over 18, but I tell you this without revealing that I am over 18" is a real thing
Is there a name for this? I think about this all the time. I've always had a theory that some offensive words may actually be persisting longer solely because we essentially calcify their definitions and never allow them to evolve into new less offensive meanings.
Suggestion: it should, at very least, not show a UI a notification "_ is now on signal!" As a nice to have, yes, it should blackhole a message until at least one reply happens.
No, but I can empathize. I never understood the Nix language. It's impenetrable to me. I hate it so much.
I keep checking back every year or so secretly hoping they'll have upgraded the language. It's fascinating how successful Nix is given how utterly opaque the language is.
Imagine how hard moderating a forum is. Now imagine moderating the whole Internet. Everyone always thinks it's trivial. Everyone couldn't be more wrong.
> For example, my software renders the smiling face with horns as red [], but often the depiction is purple.
It seems the article is ironically falling for the same problem. This would be worked around by including images of the emoji variants, rather than relying on Unicode.
> A sound that could not possibly be produced by the circuit in the PDF or any reasonable variation of the circuit.
Why not? What's wrong with the circuit?
Here's my rebuttal to your claim: I literally show a circuit of a single wire and say I'm using it on my guitar, and I could get that sound. Why? Because I didn't say I'm _only_ using the wire. I have other equipment.
> The whole thing has the feel of long AI hallucination for a vague prompt.
I really doubt the video itself is AI. Only because it doesn't need to be. It's literally just a dude sitting and talking to a camera. It would be easier to make this video than to generate it with AI.
> I can’t think of any reasonable explanation for why these videos exist or for how they were made.
Respectfully , that's a bit of a ridiculous thing to say. I'm not sure where you're going with it. Even if this was 100% AI, there would _still_ be a reason someone took the time to generate it and post it. Why does any YouTuber post a video?
> It seems completely possible that, in 3 or 4 years time, publicly available AI services will be able to produce videos of this quality and duration.
I think you're completely correct, and I think many of us share your paranoia here. But honestly, there are _plenty_ of better examples of AI slop out there, and it's sort of ironic that you've chosen to focus on one that very much doesn't appear to have any signs of AI.
You seem convinced this is "fake". It's unclear what you think is fake about this.
Fruits are wet, salty, acidic objects. As such, they can be used in an electronic circuit. They have an impedance, and, if you do it right, a voltage. [1] There's nothing fake or surprising about this.
He's just placing the fruit in series with the power source of some effect pedal. Unsurprisingly, this slightly alters the power source for the pedal, creating an audible difference in effect.
It's probably not something someone would do in practice, but notably, when it comes to electric guitars, experimenting with different types of distortion is pretty common, and it's common for guitar players to get creative.
Even if this "fruit effect" is not practical (I mean, you'd get inconsistent results), it's definitely a silly and interesting enough idea to justify a YouTube video. I could even see someone using it as a gimmick for playing live.
> I think anyone with a basic understanding of electronics would see the absurdity of these circuits and wouldn’t buy the schematics
Which schematics are you referring to? I think you might be assuming he's selling the "fruit" circuit. I think he's selling circuits for effect pedals, completely independently of this "fruit" video.
> I'm willing to believe elecromagnetic fields are real
No shade intended, but a philosophical conversation is unconstructive when it centers around highly ambiguous and undefined words. The word "real" does not actually have a general meaning until you give it a definition in support of your comment. (And surely you will find that if you had a definition, you would not need so much "belief" to back up your argument.)