DistractionRect

Congrats on the launch! I'm probably just missing it as I only know enough python to be dangerous, but where can I find your MoA implementation in the source code?

The write up [0] sounds really useful, and says it's open source, but for the life of me I can't find it.

[0] https://www.patched.codes/blog/patched-moa-optimizing-infere...

This is what they were talking about, exposure __does not require__ you get sick. You can still be exposed, but you don't need to let the concentrations of pathogens to build up in stale air over the course of a school day.

The results aren't in yet, and of course will be subject to reproduction/duplicatation, but I suspect that's what we're seeing here. People (children) are still getting sick, just less so, presumably because they're getting exposed to lower concentrations of pathogens. The article doesn't make it clear (or I missed it) if the reduction is in severity (time spent recovering from being sick), frequency (number of times one gets sick), or a combination thereof. If I'm right, I'd expect it to be a reduction stemming from both reduced frequency/severity.

The licensing around the project is unclear, but the ToS is plainly for the website.

This is correct, gravitational constants are a good approximation/simplification since the mass of solar bodies is usually orders of magnitude greater than the other bodies in the problem, and displacement over the course of the problem is usually orders of magnitude smaller than absolute distance between them.

In other words, we assume spherical cows until that approximation no longer works.

Waze is about minimizing drive time for the locally for the individual, but that's at odds with minimizing drive time globally.

This seems to be about optimizing flows globally, and there's a feedback loop between Google maps and intersection timing. For instance, if the majority of traffic flows east/west through an intersection, then you could expect more time is given to that flow than north/south. This would minimize global drive time, but it wouldn't be locally optimum for people that drive north/south through that intersection.

> To do this they had to remove the limits placed by the game publishers on the number of enemies that can be present in a level.

So they discovered what they intentionally introduced via breakage? It seems they couldn't find what they set out to for, and rather than writing that they just shoe horned the result they wanted into the game.

All fair points. Phones have 120fps displays, but obviously can't run much at that rate. Some web pages, basic note taking, etc. But pretty much anything 3d is 30-60fps.

Consoles, hand helds usually aim for 30+

Real time rendering, video streaming etc, are 24-30.

If the nit is my phrasing, let me rephrase, the point is that it's usable in an interactive/real-time application. It's perhaps at the lower bar, but 30 fps is far from a rarity. Though not always ideal, it's certainly acceptable.

To their point, 30 fps is commonly acceptable, in which case you're spending 7-14ms on this, and 26-19ms on everything else. You can also use frame gen cheat 30 fps back up to 60 if one is so inclined.

Firefox for Android here, it's a strobing mess. I have to purposely and very slowly scroll and wait for frames/images(?) to load in order to get any kind of cohesive experience/information out of the site. I think the product is really neat and I love the idea, but the site is insufferable.

I suspect that most of the devices you'd expect to find in your consumer cluster are too small/slow to saturate the link.

Edit: it's also a matter of scale. You probably have a small number of small/slow devices in a consumer network versus a lot of large/fast devices in your enterprise cluster.

I follow, essentially you're viewing it like a loan + interest + a minor stake in the venture. If the venture fails, you still expect to repaid loan + interest and your stake in the venture is worth $0.

Unfortunately no one will agree to this as long as everyone else is willing to invest _and_ shoulder the risk

So after reading "Getting the World Record" I was brimming with ideas on how one could improve upon their work, only to be squashed upon reading "Losing the World Record." All parties involved has done an excellent job breaking the game, and aside from the (really) hard questions of understanding game, there's not much left except further exploring the parameter space.

I simmered on the latter overnight, and a few thoughts occurred to me:

- a parameter for fullness (holes + filled blocks that are below the "surface"). It might be its own parameter, or used to augment other parameters to discourage behavior that might lead to a the end game.

- reachable surface height: rather than taking the lowest height of the surface, compute the reachable height of the following piece

- an alternate definition of reachable surface height: the lowest point any of the seven pieces can reach (perhaps augmented by the number of pieces that can reach it)

I understood your intent, my comment was aimed at the child comments that collected under yours. I just felt like it needed to be explicitly said that this isn't some conspiracy/cover up. The content is still there, and who said it isn't really consequential. It doesn't help or hurt YC, it maybe shielded Austen from getting booted from Twitter, but beyond that who cares? People getting out their pitchforks because HN mods did something inconsequential, four years ago, for a person who's now labeled $bad today seems silly. More so since it's well documented that they'll do it for anyone on request. I just don't see the what justifies their outrage.

I agree partly with the lesson but more broadly I think it is that any hint of impartiality//conflict of interest for governing/regulatory bodies will be construed in a negative light. Where I disagree is that you could have saved the mods the trouble. I don't think there was any way you could have worded your original comment, or I mine, or Dang his, that would entirely quell the accusations that followed. There's one person in the thread that continued to insinuate that this isn't a policy or it's a new policy; even though Dang showed his comments about this policy going back almost a decade.

The game engine side of Roblox has always been Lua, and they have their own GUI classes//paradigm for making UI with the game engine.

What someone did was port react/redux to Roblox to run on top of the game engine UI primitives + Lua instead of html/css/js. Basically, they ported a more ergonomic way to develop and handle UI to Roblox because the primitives suck (I remember when we used to have to made UI out of 3D game objects and do a bunch of math to map them to the viewport and sync them every frame because Robloxs official stance was they didn't want to recreate flash - can you imagine?! video games without 2D UI elements!).

My first exposure to programming was Roblox over a decade ago, and kids were doing some pretty cool things even back then. If you're just a consumer of the games, then yeah it's a silly place where you're exposed to slurs//internet culture at large. But if you're actually developing things with the engine, even silly stupid things, it's a wonderful playground for math and programming concepts.

In light of the flaming, I'd like to underscore why it's entirely reasonable to redact the author of the comment in question: the author outted themselves as knowingly and egregiously violating a ToS for another site, and using//promoting services which are at best unethical, but probably illegal (residential proxies//large scale proxy services are usually built off the backs of botnets//malware).

This isn't, IMO, favoritism or protecting YC interests//founders. The thread in question has nothing to do with Lamda, YC, or anything in that regard. It's someone talking about blackhat growth hacking in the open, which might bite them in the ass later. It's a textbook example of HN's stated policy about deletion/redaction in action.

If you don't need cryptography secure rngs, PCG is pretty cool.

It's pretty straightforward and builds off basic primitives, but the results has some neat qualities/features if you find you need them. E.g. People often find that they don't want pure randomness, but rather want some kind of uniformity//equidistribution over some period, which implies state (I.e. Shuffling a music playlist).

Resources. Perhaps their star will soon (on a cosmic timescale) consume their planet and they're looking for another solar system to inhabit. Labor for their Dyson sphere. Who knows. But, if something goes out of their way to make contact, odds are it won't be a friendly hello.

It's an http page, so your ISP//any hop along the way is free to insert anything they want or completely rewrite the content as they wish.

Yeah, the title really misrepresents the situation. This is someone who doesn't need to live in London, and visits a London few times a year.

I agree with the GP here. Yes, you can do all this with just FFMPEG, but now you have to wade through all the docs, flags, values to craft your CLI args with a bit of trial and error. The value add here is a coherent front-end that abstracts away all the complexity and lets you cut right to what you want. Further, if it's something you do infrequently, or your workflow changes, you have to rerun the gaunlet of figuring out what flags/values you need. FFMPEG can do a ton, but most people just need to crunch the file size, transcode, and occasionally convert a snippet into a gif

I'm only vaguely familiar with the concept of smart contracts, but from what I understand I can't see how it'd fair any better at enabling cryptographic timelocks - the core problem is designing encryption which can't be broken before a set period has passed. The naive approach is requiring to make a scheme which assumes it'll take X amount of time to brute force with Y resources.

That's obviously flawed because you can't constrain an enemies resources, and if the period is long there's plenty of room for improvement of algorithms/hardware which will shorten the time to brute force the scheme.

This only works because we create a scheme which can't reasonably be brute forced by classical means, and a human organization enforces/controls the time period.

In order to create something like that proposed in the posted link with smart contracts, the self contained smart contracts would have to employ a cryptographic timelock themselves. Otherwise, the smart contracts will be dependent on external (human) input, so it's just reinventing the same thing.

Amazon has their own Android tablets, tvs so they have a vested interest in running their own store.

Unfortunately, shipping Google Apps (GApps) requires meeting certain standards and conditions, which WSA was likely unable to do. Since GApps gatekeep the majority of the average persons Android experience, WSA was doomed for most everyone except the techies that could shoe horn GApps onto WSA.

The real problem is the on going engineering effort required to update and maintain WSA. Google can't even do it for Chrome OS, we're on Android 14 but ChromeOS is still on 11 (at least as of Dec 2023). It's just a different beast than a Linux subsystem.

> we could have worded it better!

An opportunity to dogfood your product!

In that case a link to an archived copy is preferable to a screenshot of the partial document hosted by Twitter.

Most things are flat payment for the thing plus a support window (aka warranty period).

Just let me own it as is, and decide if I want to pay for new features/updates later. Plenty of software is sold under this licensing model, and it works.

It probably wouldn't have been cheaper. The settlement would likely look like a fixed fee for previous use + yearly fee for X years before renegotiation, renegotiated y times before the patent expired.

It's likely that over the lifetime of the patent, the total cost would have been more than the cost to fight it, and as the a sibling pointed out, settling begets more suits + settlements. It adds up fast.

This isn't Cloudflare being "good," it's in their best interest to fight frivolous suits.

Sure, you can step through it and see what's occurring, but there's zero explanation to accompany it. To fully reverse engineer and explain a reasonably complex AI model would be quite the undertaking. Instead, we have prompt engineering. It's easier to figure out how to ask the black box nicely/properly to do what you want than to open it up and optimize/tune it proper. If we assume that we get that far, I fully expect the resulting explanation of the black box internals wouldn't be considered a reasonable/reliable basis for making medical decisions.

Exactly this.

Decisions based on statistical models can be fully audited and understood, and the results are reproducible because the algorithm is well documented.

The same can't be said of AI models.

They call that out specifically at the end, CPUs with their own embedded TPM aren't vulnerable to this kind of attack as all the communication occurs within the CPU itself.

Who says the hub isn't the one hosting the shenanigans?