>True, 12 doesn't match the number of fingers or toes... but have you ever considered it does match the number of spaces around our fingers and toes?
We used to learn to count on our fingers instead of counting our fingers, our four fingers have twelve knuckles and our thumb is the pointer. There are quite a few schemes for counting and doing math on our fingers like this, some include the tips of our fingers as well or tips and two knuckles, or the segment between the joints or all of the above, and both hands for complex math and different fingers for different things like place so you could count higher and do math on larger numbers. Someone saying you counted on your fingers was once a compliment, only the unlearned would count in their head, too easy to lose place because of distractions.
TFA does not quite explain the logic of this and somewhat suggests it as unique when it was the norm. If you are building a church, what better metric is there than the church you are building? There is no reason to measure, you can just subdivide with very basic tools. We want the entrance to be in the center, that is 1/2 church instead of 8.385 meters and that door is 1/6 church wide and 3/4 church tall. We want windows down the sides of the church, those windows are spaced 1/4 church and are 1/6th church wide and 3/4 church high. Windows have panes and doors have panels so lets subdivide those, panels/panes 1/3 window/door.
It is more complex than that and that example assumes the church is a cube but that is the basics of it and generally there is a square in there somewhere and that square is the basic unit. We want a church with no posts in the main space and our trees produce timbers so long, that length becomes 1 square, the church is 1 square wide and 1 square high to eaves, 2 square long, roof peak is 1 square above the eaves. The wisdom of the wood (or what ever material was being used) often played a role.
Personal style in this proportional sense came down to how they used the divisions and their subdivisions and their subdivisions and what random numbers they interjected into the easy divisions, which might be suggested by the divisions and subdivisions or come from just about anything. I am building a cabinet to hold my pots and pans, I have 7 pots and pans so I will figure out a way to get 7 in there so everyone knows it is meant to hold 7 pots and pans, or at least that one random person who got obsessed with that one peculiarity of my cabinet will figure out that 7 had some sort of importance too me. Easter eggs have been with us for a long time.
People often reduce the imperial system/base 12 to the foot and its inches, but it really is this sense and use of proportion that it is built on. If you are building a cabinet for your home, there is no reason to measure, it needs to be as wide as the space it will fit in so use that as your metric, make that one square and subdivide out the rest of the dimensions. Dividers, sector and straight edge are all you need, no need to deal with the fact that the space is 4.738 whatever wide and a sense of proportion to the whole will just happen for free. Admittedly, the sense of proportion might not be the best when you are first starting out but it will have a sense of proportion that could easily not be there if you got fixated on 4.738 and rounding errors in your cad software, and you never have to measure those odd lengths.
>Eschew flamebait. Avoid generic tangents. Omit internet tropes.
>Please don't post shallow dismissals, especially of other people's work. A good critical comment teaches us something.
>Please don't pick the most provocative thing in an article or post to complain about in the thread. Find something interesting to respond to instead.
>Please don't complain about tangential annoyances—e.g. article or website formats, name collisions, or back-button breakage. They're too common to be interesting.
It is fine if you don't like LLM writing but it is not particularly interesting, why should I care? why would I want to read the same sentiments over an over? What use is this knowledge to me or anyone else? Your blog is a more suitable place for such things.
Am I weird for not wanting to see this same discussion and variations of it in most every thread including in ones that it has no place? I don't see it having any effect on the trend which only seems to be increasing, but I do see an effect on the quality of the discussion.
>If a story is spam or off-topic, flag it. Don't feed egregious comments by replying; flag them instead. If you flag, please don't also comment that you did.
K4 is the K programming language, Q is a language built on top of K. They are the practical over achieving members of the array family of programming languages.
There is no time that I would normally have my phone other than when I am at home; the data point that I provide would be the rare times I take my phone out of the house and most of that time it is off, I only turn it on if I actually need it. My phone is turned off a fair amount which also means I do not have internet since I get my internet through my phone's hotspot, it is nice to be able to disconnect from the world so simply, just turn off my phone. If this was the norm, location data would have far less value and possibly not be worth the expense. Phone addiction seems the real issue here.
My purchasing data is not much better, two purchases so far this year other than my three monthly bills and groceries once or twice a week where I also get cash for my other expenses. I don't do this out of concern about being tracked, just how I live my life. Sometimes I leave my phone off for a week, nothing bad happens, at least nothing that having my phone on would have prevented.
Flashback had the bulk of Prince of Persia's mechanics but developed story and the puzzle aspect to a far greater extent and was less action based compared to Prince of Persia's race against the clock. There are times in Flashback when you have to race the clock but there are also times when you just have to stare at the screen and figure out how to do something or wander the world trying to figure out what you missed and where the fuck you are supposed to go next. Flashback is one of my favorites but I am not a gamer and the majority of my gaming was in the previous century.
It worked on my Android tablet but I can't scribble a note and draw a picture/diagram with the stylus. I don't know anything about iPads but on Android you have the USI pen and for any app that understands the USI pen, it interprets fingers and stylus individually, the stylus is active so the tablet knows when it is input from the stylus or input from a finger. The google Cursive app which is the standard Android note app shows this well, stylus only writes and fingers only pan/scroll/zoom unless you switch it into finger mode so you can write with a finger.
If you managed to give all the features of Googles Cursive app within your Poincaré disk paradigm, I would happily drop $100 on it, assuming it worked as an offline app.
Edit: should mention that I don't think this is worth $100, other than to the handful of people like me who it would be perfect for assuming it was well executed. You would probably make more charging far less. The paradigm could translate amazingly well to the tablet/stylus experience if the details are worked out well.
This would be fantastic on a tablet; stylus for entry and fingers for navigation would make it very efficient and a great improvement over the standard infinite page. I would probably pay for a non-web tablet version, it is rare my tablet is connected to the internet.
I was not suggesting that it would be a false positive, I was suggesting that this will filter out many submissions that would be of interest to those that want less AI on HN. This would flag a blog that has nothing to do with AI if some random person mentioned AI in the comments of that blog post, right?
I got a partial load and what it looks like it does is just search each submission for a list of key words and discards any that hits, so it would discard this submission.
Most of the shareware I got was downloaded from BBSes and the internet and even these central repositories that are the norm now are nothing new, in the 80s I went to a local BBS that was dedicated to shareware and in the 90s a handful of sites, and there was always the developer's site for the direct download but often they just linked you to one of the big repositories. The only shareware I can remember getting physically was the stuff that came on a disk/cd with some magazine I bought just for the CD filled with shareware. I miss those CDs.
For as long as I can remember shareware was more than the physical sharing, it was the model of a free version that you could share and a paid version and sometimes both versions were the same and it was just requested that you pay if you can (buy me a coffee). Some of this shareware was even adware, I remember getting some drawing program that had a popup every 15 minutes advertising the author's programs, it would go away if you paid; my first "hack" was realizing that I could start the program and then turn the computers date back a day giving me 24 hours and 15 minutes before the popup appeared, after a couple weeks my mom tasked me with fixing the computer, she was having to reset the date every couple days for some reason.
Edit: deleted a comment about source code, realize I misread your post. Should try to fix a couple of those sentences as well, my language skills tend to fall apart when I get nostalgic and I find it very difficult to restructure the thought, I lose the nostalgia.
A fair amount of software follows the model but does not use the term, everytime I go on the play store to look for an app I encounter many that offer a free version with limited features.
It has worked this way since the days of the vacuum tube, so there probably is some legal precedence somewhere. I think part of this with the NE5532 is just that these days most EEs spend most of their time with digital where the data sheet and its spec is absolute; in the linear world the spec sheet is an ideal and an average because the parts themselves are an ideal and the real world never lines up with the math. Back when the NE5532 came out it was still common to see power supplies that were unregulated or barely regulated or cheap regulators with poor tolerance that would vary a fair amount with wall voltage and massive tolerances on passives, data sheets and EEs took this into account, most parts would survive max voltage but there would be a higher failure rate, so run at 70% or 80% and you don't have to worry about it.
In these days of cheap SMPS and EEs that are trained with a strong lean towards digital and much improved IC fab, the max seems to be treated as the max safe voltage for good reliability and life, and you don't have to worry much about the tolerances of everything else so much. Back in the 90s when I was learning this stuff, the old EEs scolded me when ever I ran at max voltage and would patiently explain it all to me and that even if it can operate at that voltage, you can't be certain your PS will still be putting out that voltage in a year, parts drift as they age and accidents happen and the world is not ideal. They were right.
Using the three plots of Infinite Jest as the vertices doesn't really work, there is nothing fractal like about the plot itself and plot is not the structure. How I see it is that the vertices would be family, education, and society, which are all deeply interrelated. For the majority of the characters we learn their relation to these three things, in Hal and Gately we get a very well developed view of it, not so much for Marathe and Steeply where the family and education aspect is abbreviated and I think this is where the mentioned mercy cuts happened.
I don't think I would say Infinite Jest has three plots, it feels like it does because the plot never happens, we get the setup and then it is dropped right when it actually starts. We can view it as three plots but those plots don't provide anything useful towards understanding. They would be more accurately viewed as triangles, they are containers for information.
Edit: I also don't think we can fully interpret Infinite Jest through the Sierpinski structure, that was the structure of the first draft which was something like 500 pages longer and had the bulk of the novel in the end notes. It has been too long since I last read it to say what the structure of the final form of the novel is but I think he may have just made the gasket more linear; he keeps repeating the full triangle but each time he goes a bit deeper with the iterations.
Seems to miss the real reason, which is that AI is terrible with subtext. This is what the author is hinting at with "It often looks perfect but bothers me for reasons that aren’t immediately obvious." Most people have an intuitive understanding of it and employ it constantly even if they can't identify or purposefully use subtext to any extent.
We used to learn to count on our fingers instead of counting our fingers, our four fingers have twelve knuckles and our thumb is the pointer. There are quite a few schemes for counting and doing math on our fingers like this, some include the tips of our fingers as well or tips and two knuckles, or the segment between the joints or all of the above, and both hands for complex math and different fingers for different things like place so you could count higher and do math on larger numbers. Someone saying you counted on your fingers was once a compliment, only the unlearned would count in their head, too easy to lose place because of distractions.