Pretty sure it wasn't just some guy who figured "I could totally do that" and was allowed to give it a go. Rather it was probably a scientific study like the current efforts, using the best tools available at the time. In 1969 humanity sent people to the moon, and we can't even unroll some old scrolls? It's hard to know, when you're there, whether technology has gotten good enough to do something or if it isn't.
EDIT: Read some more into this. From Wikipedia and its sources:
> In 1969, Marcello Gigante founded the creation of the International Center for the Study of the Herculaneum Papyri (Centro Internazionale per lo Studio dei Papiri Ercolanesi; CISPE). With the intention of working toward the resumption of the excavation of the Villa of the Papyri, and promoting the renewal of studies of the Herculaneum texts, the institution began a new method of unrolling. Using the 'Oslo' peeling method, the CISPE team separated individual layers of the papyri. One of the scrolls exploded into 300 parts, and another did similarly but to a lesser extent.
> The results were mixed: one of the scrolls literally exploded (into more than 300 bits) during the "peeling" and attempts to put the scraps back together gave little hope for success. The second - PHerc.Paris.2 -, on the other hand, had survived in a slightly less fragmented state.
So this was new science being done on the possibility of unrolling the scrolls and piecing together information from the fragments. Whether the fragments from PHerc. 1667 was decoded I'm not sure. The work has been digitized (and photographed with specific wavelengths of light where the ink is more distinguishable), but I couldn't figure out if it was open to the public anywhere.
Another interesting part:
> In 1756, Abbot Piaggio, conserver of ancient manuscripts in the Vatican Library, used a machine he also invented, to unroll the first scroll, which took four years (millimeters per day). The results were then copied (since the writing disappeared: see above), reviewed by Hellenist academics, and then corrected once more, if necessary, by the unrolling/copying team.
So it's not like they never got anything useful out of the scrolls but kept on trying anyways.
I believe the Butlerian Jihad caused a ban for "thinking machines" with a tenet of "Thou shalt not make a machine in the likeness of a human mind." This to me at least points at a ban for things that behave or feel like a human, not on the underlying math. An ornithopter probably has some fancy AI-esque flight stabilization, but it isn't expressed in a human way. The same goes for function approximators and surrogate models, no one would do the things we see people doing with AIs today, letting them talk them into heinous acts or fall in love with them.
That being said I can very much recommend the two Hyperion books for a good look at AI and co-dependence in sci-fi.
Definitely, I've been trying out a lot of dithering algorithms, and while they have big differences with only black and white as soon as you start adding more shades of grey they all look pretty much exactly the same as the input image. I'd imagine good dithering with colours would look amazing
Looks pretty good! It looks a bit like a dither, but with fewer artifacts. Definitely a "sharper" look than blue noise, but in places like the transitions between the text boxes you can definitely see a bit more artifacts (almost looks like the boxes have a staggered edge).
Thanks! I would imagine printing on paper would be a completely different ball game. I actually considered scanning the actual epaper display to show each of the dithering techniques in their intended environment as it does change the look quite a bit. From the little I know about typography and things like ink-wells I can definitely see how certain algorithms can change quite significantly. The original post here has a pattern which looks similar to old newspapers, maybe that's worth looking into?
Ooh, I haven't actually! I'll need to implement and test this for sure. Looking at the results though it does remind me of a dither (https://pippin.gimp.org/a_dither/), which I guess makes sense since they are created in a broadly similar way.
Just did a bit of a deep dive into dithering myself, for my project of creating an epaper laptop. https://peterme.net/building-an-epaper-laptop-dithering.html it compares both error diffusion algorithms as well as Bayer, blue noise, and some more novel approaches. Just in case anyone wants to read a lot more about dithering!
Same! I've already signed up for the Time 2 and super stoked for it, then I saw the announcement for the Round 2 and I was about to switch over until I noticed it didn't have a heart rate sensor. I know its sleek and elegant, but that slight bulk would be worth it in my opinion. And who knows, with the extra thickness they might've been able to squeeze in more battery to get it to the 30 days battery life cited for the Time 2.
Also unfortunate that it's missing the RGB backlight of the Time 2. I can think of a few good use cases for it, but if it's only on the Time 2 that means fewer apps would use it.
I've been wanting a browser plugin like this for ages. Basically tell it which sites to limit, then once loaded it won't re-load for a certain amount of time, or until the next day (not necessarily 24 hours). This way there is no reason to keep checking the news, they won't change.
Indeed, I have a remote doorbell where the outer button is a piezo button and the inside bell part is connected to a socket. But the button is quite thick, presumably because it needs a bit of travel to get enough energy. Granted that's for a device that sends multi-wall penetrating strength of 433Mhz radio waves. For something like this where the distance is only about 25cm you might be able to get a button small enough.
There is a direct connection, you just don't have to bother with typing it. Same as type inference, the types are still there, you just don't have to specify them. If you have a collision in name and declaration then the compiler requires you to specify which version you wanted. And with language inspection tools (like LSP or other editor integration) you can easily figure out where something comes from if you need to. Most of the time though I find it fairly obvious when programming in Nim where something comes from, in your example it's trivial to see that the error code comes from the errorcodes module.
Oh, and as someone else pointed out you can also just `from std/errorcodes import nil` and then you _have_ to specify where things come from.
Of course, I'm heavily biased, but also very interested in mediating any such issues. I obviously can't, or wouldn't want to, force you to report anything. But it would be very appreciated if you, or anyone else reading this with similar experiences, could report it here: https://docs.google.com/forms/d/1ZWa2GONAM825IxFt8ZOdfn_XeJy...
> The community "leaders" / moderation team is also full of abrasive individuals with fragile egos.
I certainly hope this isn't the case any longer. As one of the moderators I feel the current group is very patient and welcoming. At least that's what we're trying for, no one is perfect so I'm certain you can find counter examples. But as a whole I think we're doing pretty well. If you have any specific complaints we would love to hear them. They can be left anonymously in our community feedback form, or you can find we anywhere in the community for a chat.
Isn't this better though? The alternative being that every email or phone call is an hour, or that they batch it up based on gut feel. If I get a phone call that could easily steal 6 minutes of focus time (note that I specify focus time, even if the call is only 30 seconds you'd have to mentally switch tasks back and forth).
Speech for the disabled would indeed be great, as long as the disability doesn't also affect the system which you use to "silent speak".
As for the privacy thing, I would say that I absolutely hate talking out loud to my devices. Just the idea of talking my ideas into a recorder in my own office where nobody can hear me feels very strange to me. But I love thinking through ideas and writing scripts for speeches or presentations in my mind, or to plan out some code or overall project. A device like this would allow me to do the internal monologue thing, then turn to "silent speak" them into this device to take notes which sounds great. And the form-factor doesn't look that dissimilar to a set a bone-conduction headsets which would be perfect for privacy-aware feedback while allowing you to take in your surroundings.
With this tech demo though it seems like the transmission rate is veeery slow, he sits still in his chair staring into the room and a short sentence is all that appears. Not exactly speed of thought..
And of course there is the cable running off to who knows what kind of computational resources.
The AI parts of this are less exciting to me, but as an input device I'm really on-board with the idea.
Cool to finally see a 1.0 release of Ghostty! Will definitely check it out. One very strange and niche question though, do you support font switching with SGR escape codes? After the Monaspace font family was released I made a PR to Vim to support highlighting by font switching, but I've yet to find a terminal emulator to my liking that supports it. I'm building an eink laptop and its monochrome display requires some neat tricks like this to get the most out of the device.
Exactly. Of course everyone used Reddit differently, but personally I basically never upvoted anything unless I really enjoyed it. The big question for me would be what happens to my funds if I don't upvote anyone in a given month, do they roll-over to the next month? Do they go to server management? Do they go into a separate pool to do something else fun with?
In a way Reddit did distinguish their usual "this content is better than the one below" upvote with "this is amazing content" by giving Reddit gold. A similar system could be used here. One thing that made Reddit great was that since people up (and maybe more importantly) downvoted content good stuff would float to the top. It would be pretty bad if upvotes where too meaningful as that would drive away engagement.
To be honest I don't completely agree. The business model itself is what makes thin interesting, not to users, but to creators. Take me for example, I write tech articles from time to time, and the occasional video, presentation, or coding live stream. As it stands I don't make any money on this, I just do it for fun. But with a site like non.io there's no reason for me _not_ to post my content there. As long as you get some publicity out there (like you're doing with this) creators should hopefully start contributing. And once the creators are there, so will the users be! I agree though that the splash page is a bit strange, maybe throw up a popup over the content for people who aren't logged in and haven't visited the site before? Or at least put this info in a sidebar. The business model is as you say the core value proposition here, so if people don't get it right away the interest could quickly fade.
Wish you the best of luck with this. And I'll look into posting my stuff on there as well, as I said there really isn't any reason not to
EDIT: Read some more into this. From Wikipedia and its sources:
> In 1969, Marcello Gigante founded the creation of the International Center for the Study of the Herculaneum Papyri (Centro Internazionale per lo Studio dei Papiri Ercolanesi; CISPE). With the intention of working toward the resumption of the excavation of the Villa of the Papyri, and promoting the renewal of studies of the Herculaneum texts, the institution began a new method of unrolling. Using the 'Oslo' peeling method, the CISPE team separated individual layers of the papyri. One of the scrolls exploded into 300 parts, and another did similarly but to a lesser extent.
> The results were mixed: one of the scrolls literally exploded (into more than 300 bits) during the "peeling" and attempts to put the scraps back together gave little hope for success. The second - PHerc.Paris.2 -, on the other hand, had survived in a slightly less fragmented state.
So this was new science being done on the possibility of unrolling the scrolls and piecing together information from the fragments. Whether the fragments from PHerc. 1667 was decoded I'm not sure. The work has been digitized (and photographed with specific wavelengths of light where the ink is more distinguishable), but I couldn't figure out if it was open to the public anywhere.
Another interesting part: > In 1756, Abbot Piaggio, conserver of ancient manuscripts in the Vatican Library, used a machine he also invented, to unroll the first scroll, which took four years (millimeters per day). The results were then copied (since the writing disappeared: see above), reviewed by Hellenist academics, and then corrected once more, if necessary, by the unrolling/copying team.
So it's not like they never got anything useful out of the scrolls but kept on trying anyways.