> I get that involving a human body complicates the analysis. That was the point: that you can’t appeal to it as a simple example to ground the intuition in other case.
Yeah, fair enough. It's unfortunate that the comment you were responding to involved "caloric intake" suggestive of a biological system when it could just as easily have involved a mechanical pulley. Their intuition would have been stronger phrased as: Within a gravitational field that is approximated as a uniform force field, the amount of energy/work to raise a weight by a fixed distance is independent of the initial position of that weight on a (massless) rope attached to a (frictionless) pulley.
> I was referring to a human holding it. What would have been a better way to keep you from missing that?
Since you are asking, for me, it would helped to have the following inserted text: "In fact it takes positive energy [for biological muscle] just told a weight at a fixed height, doing zero mechanical work!" so that the statement stood on it's own, or else including within your post a more definitive statement to the effect of "intuitions involving the human body complicates the analysis", as you did in this reply. If "that was the point", go ahead and state it.
To be fair, I often have the same problem. It's easy for me to write a lot of text that goes around a statement without actually getting to it.
> In fact it takes positive energy just told a weight at a fixed height, doing zero mechanical work!
Stacking a weight on top of a table holds it at a fixed height and requires zero mechanical work.
The failure in intuition here relates to physiology and the mechanism by which muscles work, not physics. Myosin and actin are constantly cycling through bonding and release during muscle contraction, as this is how the shortening action actually occurs. In fact, muscle contraction is particularly unintuitive because people frequently consider ATP the "energy currency", yet the ATP-consuming steps are actually the release/relaxation and preparation for binding, not the pulling action. This is also why the phenomena of rigor mortis upon death occurs.
Because they were more focused on the stills than the movie.
IOW, a screenshot when you scroll it to the "right" spot looks clean and balanced. Personally, I think it's a bad UX decision, but also easy to scroll past once you know.
slop is such a poorly defined term that it's very hard to answer your question meaningfully. Is all code generated by AI slop? Many different opinions on this and questions to be answered as LLMs continue to shift the programming landscape.
As far as I'm concerned, it's a feature when the viewer controls the number of spaces per tab, it's a bug when someone else does (as is often the case online via css `tab-size`).
Can someone help confirm whether I understand correctly the semantics difference between the final-line eval of
x^
vs.
x*
?
It seems like either one evaluates the contents of the `box`, and would only make a difference if you tried to use `x` afterwards? Essentially if you final-line eval `x^` and then decide you want to continue that snippet, you can't use `x` anymore because it's been moved. Awkwardly, it also hasn't been assigned so I'm not sure the box is accessible anymore?
can you give an example of what you mean and how you might expect it to be achieved with a reloaded diff? otherwise `while true; git diff --color=always |less -r; done` gets you most of the way to what you are asking for
> It took me tho 4 full days to get the specs to the level I was happy with.
When I click on history there I see only a single commit for these docs. Would you be willing to share some or all of the conversation you had with the LLM (in a gist or in the repo) that led to these architecture docs? Understand if you can't, but I'm sure it would be super instructive for people trying to understand the process of doing something like this and the types of guide rails that help to move the process forward productively.
Most likely the (legally) correct thing to do in the US is to first report the landlord to the relevant agency, possibly named something like Licensing and Inspections or Fair Housing or somesuch. Each local jurisdiction will have it's own agencies for this, so do research. Failure to respond to that would next involve a landlord-tenant lawyer.
Whether or not it's worth all the trouble and time is a different matter. For most people, I'd say reporting to relevant authorities to make the landlord's life harder without needing much continuing effort is probably worth doing, but the lawsuit side is likely to be a huge time and money sink and it's almost always easier to just move. Let the city sue them for continuing to accrue complaints of unsafe living conditions.
In the same way, a landlord cannot evict you themself if you just fail to pay rent, but there are multiple legal mechanisms to eventually get the sheriff to do it for them. Basically, if landlord-tenant negotiation fails, I think the only legal recourse is to involve governmental third parties unless you technically open yourself up to legal reprisal.
No. MIDI controllers have their place, but many people work without one, or only use one for live performances. There are often also way more knobs in the various FX chains in a DAW than you would reasonably want to map to a controller, but still want to touch at least a few times while making a song.
Knobs are confusing when converted to a mouse paradigm because there can be a few strategies to control them (click+drag up/down, click+drag right/left, weird rotational things, etc), and you have to guess since each FX studio and software may implement it just a little different.
For the sake of easy reference, I'll leave the relevant snippet from the linked article so people can decide for themselves with a bit more information:
> Another important note - some binary blobs and other non-free software components are used today in PebbleOS and the Pebble mobile app (ex: the heart rate sensor on PT2 , Memfault library, and others). Optional non-free web services, like Wispr-flow API speech recognizer, are also used. These non-free software components are not required - you can compile and run Pebble watch software without them. This will always be the case. More non-free software components may appear in our software in the future. The core Pebble watch software stack (everything you need to use your Pebble watch) will always be open source.
Some more details from the Apollinaire wikipedia page:
> On 7 September 1911, police arrested and jailed Apollinaire on suspicion of aiding and abetting the theft of the Mona Lisa and a number of Egyptian statuettes from the Louvre, but released him a week later. The theft of the statues had been committed in 1907 by a former secretary of Apollinaire, Honoré Joseph Géry Pieret, who had recently returned one of the stolen statues to the French newspaper the Paris-Journal. Apollinaire implicated his friend Picasso, who had bought Iberian statues from Pieret, and who was also brought in for questioning in the theft of the Mona Lisa, but he was also exonerated. In fact, the theft of the Mona Lisa was perpetrated by Vincenzo Peruggia, an Italian house painter who acted alone and was only caught two years later when he tried to sell the painting in Florence.
Just chiming in here - any time I've written something online that considers things from multiple angles or presents more detailed analysis, the liklihood that someone will ask if I just used ChatGPT go way up. I worry that people have gotten really used to short, easily digestible replies, and conflate that with "human". Because of course it would be crazy for a human to expend "that much effort" on something /s.
EDIT: having said that, many of the other articles on the blog do look like what would come from AI assistance. Stuff like pervasive emojis, overuse of bulleted lists, excessive use of very small sections with headers, art that certainly appears similar in style to AI generated assets that I've seen, etc. If anything, if AI was used in this article, it's way less intrusive than in the other articles on the blog.
What are you comparing it to or what do you feel is missing? Remote desktop has gotten way better on Linux since the days of only X-Forwarding or VNC, at least from a performance perspective.
This is really cool, so thanks for sharing. Since the motivating goal for the question you are answering is WCAG compliance, is the output of pdf2htmlex meaningfully more WCAG compliant?
Depending on your requirements on both PDF input and HTML output, there is often no way to do this that is both easy and general. At it's core, PDFs are not designed to be universally reflowable.
Yeah, fair enough. It's unfortunate that the comment you were responding to involved "caloric intake" suggestive of a biological system when it could just as easily have involved a mechanical pulley. Their intuition would have been stronger phrased as: Within a gravitational field that is approximated as a uniform force field, the amount of energy/work to raise a weight by a fixed distance is independent of the initial position of that weight on a (massless) rope attached to a (frictionless) pulley.
> I was referring to a human holding it. What would have been a better way to keep you from missing that?
Since you are asking, for me, it would helped to have the following inserted text: "In fact it takes positive energy [for biological muscle] just told a weight at a fixed height, doing zero mechanical work!" so that the statement stood on it's own, or else including within your post a more definitive statement to the effect of "intuitions involving the human body complicates the analysis", as you did in this reply. If "that was the point", go ahead and state it.
To be fair, I often have the same problem. It's easy for me to write a lot of text that goes around a statement without actually getting to it.