That's one possible way to look at it. The other, perhaps more positive way to look at it, is that similar to autocomplete, AI-assisted tools have made the boring parts less boring and left more space for the interesting bits. I use them every now and then for chores and such which I would put off otherwise, but there is certainly no shortage of interesting problems that they can't tackle. Now I just have more time to focus on those.
I'll admit that I'd used github copilot while I worked on one of my projects, and I couldn't help it but notice a rather significant cognitive decline whenever I set out to take over and start hammering out the code myself. I just can't allow cognitive declines.
Even Apple conceded that building it from scratch is prohibitively expensive. Mozilla would do better to use that money for the browser, but then again, Mozilla has never known how to operate. It's a mere miracle fluke that they're not bankrupt.
This approach is worse. Use red and green like everyone else and the user can choose their terminal color palette to differentiate in a way that works for them. Then it works the same across all commands. If you're the odd one out, you're adding more mental overhead for the user, not less.
enclose.horse is fun, I wish they removed all the clearly fake high-scores though. It would be a lot more interesting to see the actual score distribution rather than thousands of points on a level where the perfect score is 50.
Unfortunately gaming and cheating go hand in hand. I haven't seen a level with thousands of points yet but every time a suspiciously high number of perfect scores.
Every sensor in the array is sampling at frequency, so - first order - you can use that sampling frequency and the sample size, you get an idea of the input bandwidth in bytes/second. There are of course bandwidth reduction steps (filtering, downsampling, beamforming)...
Sorry, not sure I follow from what I said (explaining how much data sensors produce) to 'increasing the sampling frequency' ? You're usually sampling at larger width to then put specifically taylored pass-band filter and removing aliasing effects and then downsampling. This is a classic signal acquisition pattern : https://dsp.stackexchange.com/questions/63359/obtain-i-q-com...
None of this changes the actual real amount of data you have at the end of the day though after all is said and done, that's what I mean, so long as you don't botch it and capture too little. In computing terms, the amount of real data in a compressed archive and the uncompressed original is the same, even if the file size is larger for the latter.
On SKA from what I understand they're sampling broadband but quickly beamform and downsample as the datarates would be unsustainable to store over the whole array.
Right, that makes sense, you'd be looking at an insane amount of data across the ranges that these sensors can look at. But they would still need to preserve phase information if they want to use the array for what it is best at and that alone is a massive amount of data.
I think they preserve timestamped I,Q data. Know some people looking at down-sampling, preselecting those signals for longer term storage and deeper reprocessing and they seem to have a 24h window to 'analyze and keep what you need'.
We're still in technological phase where ADCs are far more advanced than storage and online processing systems, which means throwing away a lot. But I have high hopes for a system where you upgrade computing, network, storage (and maybe ADCs...) and you get an improved sensor. Throw man-hours at some GPU kernel developers and you get new science. The limit seems more now about enough people and compute to fully exploit the data than technological...
Too late to edit: any idea of the resolution that the I,Q data is sampled at (bandwidth, bit depth)? I've been in one of these installations a while ago and the tourguide had really no clue about any of the details (I think he was the son of one of the scientists)?
While I'd say you're mostly correct, I do disagree some.
There is quite a large issue with sites posting things like current events on social sites like Facebook, or other rapid news events on X. Doing this has the potential to diminish your sovereignty. For example if you tell your users to follow X on the site and you're posting some event that Musk doesn't like, maybe you're posts will disappear.
It's absolutely not something to think about, unless you are in some kind of cult.
This website is also foreign to Europeans, so what are you then doing here contributing with your comments?
It is probably time for Europeans to start dealing with their problems in different ways than having internal "purity purges". It has never worked, and will never work. It makes people weak and easily defeated in every endeavor.
"Hey France, I know all of a sudden Germany is suddenly running around with black white and red flag, but it's completely cool if we have them manage all of our critical infrastructure". --carlosjobim 1937
I'm in the US. I'm watching what's going on here. If you want to talk about any group doing purity purges, they have ICE printed in big letters on their jackets.
Of course feel free to pull an IBM in the 40's and stick with the regime, it evidently has no long term business repercussions.
Yes, yes obviously everybody who doesn't participate eagerly in purity purges are themselves a nazi collaborator, foreign spy, reactionary saboteur on the MI6 payroll, maybe a crypto-jew, a jesuit, a lutheran, etc etc
Sometimes, just sometimes there are evil people out there that you don't want to associate with. Other times, if evil isn't an issue for you, that said evil entity represents a business continuity risk by using their services.
It's up to you to decide those risks, but it seems rather 'anti-free speech' to say that I can't recommend that you think about those risks in the first place. By use of this service you are not purging anyone. You are enlightening your current position and using that information to make next steps.
Linking to the Facebook page of a small business is considered stepping over the line by this so called "sovereignty audit" tool. Sure, we can call that "associating with evil people". I say it's a cultish purity purge - a recipe for failure for those who participate. Because very quickly they start looking for impurities with each other and fragmentize into different sects.
You could say the same about cryptographic signatures where each party only knows a part of the key, yet those all work fine. You could probably piece together the formula by a sum of some employees and some external suppliers if everyone broke their NDA, but if people keep their word, your factories could just as well see shipments of "Ingredient A" and the worker only knows how much to add to each batch.
Real life ain't abstract math. You have MSDS 'mulmen mentioned, but I also can't imagine any factory being able to just mix shipments of ingredients "A", "B", "C", etc. without the actual content being documented on purchase orders, OSHA reviews, etc. You may want to operate in secret, but at the very least, the taxman really wants to know if you aren't skimping on your dues, so there should be plenty of relevant documents in circulation.
Since they're operating in Europe it's trivial to split manufacturing into 3+ places that are within an hour drive but also in 3+ distinct jurisdictions that are part of the same free trade zone, so no tax authority can have a full picture either. And you'll never get, say, French and German tax authorities to voluntarily talk to each other.
I do recall some episode of "How its made" or similar of a food factory discussing some mix they were doing for a fast food chain, IIRC, that involved "two separate bags of spices, each sourced from a separate supplier for secrecy". That's about the level I'd expect out of such a scheme.
I don't know if that's really fair. It's much more rare for HN link posts to have bodies and this one is a single line of the gift link. Yes, that gift link works today but it's also completely reasonable to post the archive link.
WSJ 'gift links' often do not actually work. I don't know whether they have a "usage count" or a 'good for x time' expiration, but more often than not they don't work (beyond "gifting" a paywall).
With ToS, we can assume that everything that is not laid down explicitly tends to err in favor of the company, not the user.
"we store all messages": they store everything and ther s no guarantee of processing, sharing or selling that data
"we store all messages encrypted end to end for sole the purposes of communication and can never access its contents" would provide many more guarantees.
This happens a lot on HN. I remember there was a court order for OpenAI to release ChatGPT chat history, and many of the comments were simply "why are they even storing chat history in the first place? ridiculous" as if that isn't a core feature of ChatGPT.
This is not the case for any modern chat app. When you send a message to someone, it isn't delivered peer to peer straight to your recipient. The message goes from you to the service provider's server from where delivery is attempted whenever that message is processed. Your recipient might be offline, out of cell service, phone turned off, or etc and the central server takes care of that problem. Similarly when you log in to the chat service on the web, on your phone, on a new device etc, the messages need to be synced to you from somewhere, and that's again the service provider's central server. All messaging services do this. These days, some encrypt your messages, but not even remotely all.
reply