Many sites do something like that in practice. The problem is the extra 500ms of parse+eval time for your JS bundle influences user behavior a lot on the margin, so it’s better to not force the user to wait.
Ultimately the choice of platform is about trust rather than capability. Apple has been a much better citizen historically than any of the smart TV companies.
Those other smart TV companies write shit software that performs terribly on bad hardware and may have ads - YMMV but that's not really "worse" than Apple's anti-steering clauses concealing massive fees on ATV apps like Plex or ESPN and causing half the western world to revise their competition laws to outlaw many of their practices. It's just bad for different reasons.
super ultimately, the choice of platform of trust is about farming long enough to get monopoly lock in and then slot in a MBA to convert that trust to cash.
Anyone who see anything other than enshittification is living on the same month-to-month timeline that capitalism wants in their consumers.
Coincidentally I am also writing a cellular automata simulation. I've blindly given your article to my software architect subagent, who has identified several architectural improvements that it can make and has converted these into tasks to farm out to other subagents. Thanks!
The description/assessment of tasks is all plausible, but agreed, some of the execution can be surprisingly boneheaded :)
Case in point, I am building a cellular automata-based physics system, and there is seemingly nothing I can do to affirm that row 0 is "down" and row 255 is "up". The system just cannot grok it on a consistent basis. It has the ability to take screenshots, write unit tests, etc, it's just blind to the kind of intuitive logic we get with our human world model. So the code frequently regresses and gravity starts going in the wrong direction.
Other words they like are "reflection", "expansion", "compression". These are fundamental, abstract, semi-monadic terms that allow the user to bootstrap an abstract theory. A little bit of "insight" (aka linguistic rearranging) and I've got a theory out of nothing. How does it work? Well, reflection and recursion of course. None becomes one becomes many. Can't you see the structure?
It feels a lot like logical razzle dazzle to me. I bet if I'm on the right neurochemicals it feels amazing.
This is arguably why it makes more sense to bring GH under the umbrella. Azure integrations need to happen yesterday. The future is full-stack batteries-included low-codeish platforms that are easy to launch with and then boom you're one click from the Azure product suite. Tighter integration is the only way to do this because of the inherent distribution advantages.
Yeah, MS just too focused on desktop office and Azure enterprise customers
they should have launched an "firebase like" and full web framework "next.js like" to convert that into long term azure customer like its no brainer they didn't want to create that and recycling Teams forever
this is also issue with game development, like I know MS is big at desktop dev but they don't have presence in game dev other than xbox game studios which is fine but they could create their own game engine with all resources they have. they could save both for their usage in their massive studio while also strengthening their development pipeline from code,game engine to azure
Github should have the product sophistication/complexity of Atlassian with the distribution advantage of Microsoft. Anything less is an execution failure IMO.
Not even mentioning AI, which is a huge opportunity also.
Yes, this is interesting, finding complex structures that are found at multiple scales is rather amazing.
The paper attributes the solar system's spiral structure to the galactic tide. If I'm not mistaken, and this might be outdated, the galactic spiral structure is attributed to massive clumping - massive particles attract.
("Massive" meaning particles with mass - not necessarily large. "Particles" meaning macroscopic particles, not subatomic.)
The basic theory of spirals is basically that you get spiral structure when the orientation of elliptical orbits shifts with semi-major axis. This leads to what appear to be spiral arms that have higher densities. In these high density regions you get collisions of gas clouds which leads to star formation. The star forming regions produce lots of bright, blue stars, which then make the spiral arms very visible in optical wavelengths.
In this case of the Oort cloud the galactic tides would be what are responsible for inducing the change in orientation of the elliptical orbits as a function of semi-major axis.
It's amazing, yes, and at the same time, it makes perfect sense.
(Somewhat) similar mechanisms are at work whether you're pulling together stars into a galaxy, hydrogen gas into a solar system or water towards the drain of your bath tub - a pull towards the center, the centripetal force, slight variations producing "artifacts".
Well, I would not call these two mechanisms similar, though the artifacts may be similar. I wonder if in fact the spirals are similar, for that matter if mathematicians even have terminology for different types of spirals.
The spirals shown in the paper do look like idealised spirals of very young galaxies, shortly after the bar phase. I wonder, other than spirals, what other artifacts such processes might cause.
Imagine an accretian disk undergoing fusion in spiral-shaped filaments!
Also, galaxy spirals are very much an open question. Galaxies don’t rotate the way you’d expect from the matter you see, and it’s the main reason we hypothesize the existence of dark matter. Unless dark matter is the reason the Oort Cloud develops spiral arms, I’d wager the mechanisms are quite different.
IIRC the galactic spiral is believed explicitly to be not due to gravitational attraction so much as shock wave/traffic jam dynamics (transmitted through gravitational force ofc) -- not sure if that's what you meant by clumping.
Do we know why ie Saturn rings are not spiral-like? Ie due to their age (some relatively recently broken down comets) or some other forces that keep them spread evenly? Or just gravity is too weak amongst them for those smaller pieces of rock
Just trying to understand what you're getting at here. About what axis would you expect them to spiral? From normal mechanics + gravity I would expect them to orbit more or less elliptically about the polar axis of Saturn rather than spiral, but I don't know much about astrophysics.
It will be really exciting if we confirm one, then.
The spiral structure here is a hypothesis within a hypothesis. Whatever objects comprise the Oort Cloud, they haven't been directly observed. Scientists have inferred its existence from a variety of comets that seem related and have very, very long orbital periods, such as 200 years, or 2,000 years. So these comets are observed once-in-a-lifetime, or once-in-a-civilization, and the hypotheses say that they're being dislodged somehow from a "cloud of planetesimals" where a bunch more of them are found.
But this supposed cloud would be extremely sparse: plenty of space in-between the very small icy bodies, and individually, they're so much smaller, and so distant from the Sun, that they don't reflect enough light to our telescopes. They really don't send signals in other wavelengths, either, like a pulsar or quasar or something with an active powerplant.
This is beyond the Kuiper Belt, even; the Kuiper Belt, if it indeed be a belt, has offered us a couple of directly-observed objects, including Pluto and Charon.
So it's nice to conjecture and invent proposals for some kind of structure there, but the very existence and extent of the Oort Cloud is something that's been extrapolated and inferred from secondary evidence.
confirmation is unlikely, as imaging and detection out there is not a thing
from the intro, "Here we discuss dynamics underlying the Oort spiral and (feeble) prospects for its observational detection."
we need a whole new class of space based telescopes for this, and other things like direct observation of surface conditions on.exo planets
How could you possibly know what an LLM would do in that situation? The whole point is they exhibit occasionally-surprising emergent behaviors so that's why people are testing them like this in the first place.
I have never seen anything resembling emergent behaviour, as you call it, in my own or anyone else's use. It occasionally appears emergent to people with a poor conception of how intelligence, or computers, or creativity, or a particular domain, works, sure.
But I must push back, there really seem to have been no incidences where something like emergent behaviour has been observed. They're able to generate text fluently, but are dumb and unaware at the same time, from day one. If someone really thinks they've solid evidence of anything other than this, please show us.
This is coming from someone who has watched commentary on quite a sizeable number of stockfish TCEC chess games over the last five years, marvelling in the wonders of thie chess-super-intelligence. I am not against appreciating amazing intelligences, in fact I'm all for it. But here, while the tool is narrowly useful, I think there's zero intelligence, and nothing of that kind has "emerged".
