badosu

I had a hard time trying to parse something understandable from the article.

This is what I got from it (I'd be happy to hear someone informed correcting me/confirming). (excerpt from a discussion yesterday I had with some friends not too math inclined)

What it seems to be the articles claim is that, you could define a scaling operation in the angles you performed, finding some constant scaling factor (say alpha) and running the operation twice to reach the identity (rotation 0 compared to baseline), e.g.:

I = R ⊕ (α.R ⊕ α.R)

In their example that would be something like (with alpha=0.3):

I = (rad(75).X ⊕ rad(20).Y ⊕ ...) ⊕ (rad(0.3x75).X ⊕ rad(0.3x20).Y ⊕ ...) ⊕ (rad(0.3x75).X ⊕ rad(0.3x20).Y ⊕ ...)

Remembering that our rotation action is non-commutative, e.g. `aX ⊕ bY != bY ⊕ aX`.

The interlocutor on the other end experiencing time (or reasoning) at a different scale is an interesting case too, imagine a week feeling like centuries to them.

I really have a hard time understanding this train of thought.

One could say these sentences are also a product of "its culture".

The world is not black or white, good or evil. Things are more nuanced and complicated than advertised to be.

I'm not the single source of truth either, but I think there are lots of resources for people interested in avoiding propaganda and trying to understand things more deeply.

Sure, but I think there's a spectrum when making that decision:

"should keep their bullshit to themselves" <---> "should perhaps take leadership and avoid having their public channel a cesspool" <---> "actively encourages/participates in discriminatory practices" <---> "raging maniac hurting people, rallying for X"

Specifically on the topic of RubyGems:

I couldn't care less about what DHH posts or not, I certainly care that he uses his position to influence a chain of actors to interfere with something that always worked just because X.

I couldn't care less about the other side on the "cancel" mission, I care about influencing a chain of actors to interfere with something that always worked just because Y.

Please quarantine your political polarization/culture wars bullshit, non-anglo countries don't need it.

This.

While I am all for making conscious choices on what to support I can't take anything phrased like that seriously "all is contributors".

Hyprland, while inferior (imo) in some aspects to sway on the wayland tiling manager landscape is a fine piece of software that I use on my non-work computer (I still use sway for stability).

Back on the topic: I reiterate I'd be happy to avoid using or supporting projects based on non-purely technical issues (discussion on "pure technicality" omitted for brevity).

It's just... What, do I need to know every persons imo completely irrelevant opinions on whatever du jour hot political topic? Maybe the answer could be yes,

I would be fine with dropping Hyprland support, maybe I will after digging a bit more. But this whole thing just reeks to me of terminally informed and ragebaited people looking for a platform to vomit their completely irrelevant opinions, actions speak more (e.g. fostering a dangerous environment _adjacent to the project_ based on discrimination).

I just feel I want to nope out of this industry and everything related to it, it's very overwhelming.

Working with Phoenix, and even more so Elixir and OTP, has been a great joy at a similar to almost the same level I had when transitioning from DotNet to Ruby in 2010 for my experience.

There are still some rough edges, and the job market might be more challenging, but overall I feel anything Elixir related at the moment provides for a high quality filter - both in terms of job opportunities and teams as well as the general product development experience.

Maybe when google actually did searches. A coworker today was unable to find a very straightforward quoted text on google, on duckduckgo the first few hits were exactly what we were looking for.

As someone who wasn't able to get a lot of value from LLMs attempting to bruteforce their usage in my work environment I decided to experiment on a side project.

I document my whole experience and provide a few conclusions from my perspective.

Happy to hear some feedback, here or on the gist itself, let me know your thoughts!

Lua is the scripting language of [Recoil]. I've been writing some fairly complex game code on it for a few years now, I lost a lot of prejudice over time on 1-indexing.

In fact, at least for this application I've come to enjoy its practicality!

Recoil: https://beyond-all-reason.github.io/RecoilEngine

Seems like an interesting hypothesis to explore.

You didn't provide any context of why you think that could be the case or the mechanism through the alleged subsidies happen.

Is piracy that difficult in other countries? Why would someone waste money in any service like this? Why do people reward this?

I get ya, but this would be more of my case if my terminal didn't have scrollback search available (or if I really wanted to scrutinize the output carefully).

In foot I just ctrl+shift+r and search back the references one-by-one in a mode, which I guess is 90% of my use case for scrollback.

There's a lot more context than what is being discussed here. Kent has proven to be incapable to respect the release window process everyone who works in the kernel agrees to.

I don't like politics in my repo as much as the next guy, but this case is pretty clear cut. There's no ambiguity or controversy.

I don't have a computer science education, but I had a math one. I found it a great explanation, but I understand why others would feel it's not.

It definitely is not an "asshole" way of explaining it though.

Some context: it is a tightly knit community, where I interact with the contributors often in a conversational manner.

I know their intent is to push the project forward and well-meaning, I don't care about whether they are vibe-coding. I care about knowing they are vibe-coding so I can assist them to vibe-code in a way they can actually achieve their goal, or help them realize early that they lack the capacity to contribute (not of their own fault necessarily, maybe they just require orientation on how to reason about problems and solutions or their use of the tools).

I contribute to an open-source game with decades of legacy and employing many unusual patterns.

Two weeks ago someone asked me to review a PR, which I did pointing out some architectural concerns. The code was not necessarily bad, but it added boilerplate to a point it required some restructuring to keep the codebase maintainable. I couldn't care less if it was written by AI or not in this case, it was not necessarily simple but was straightforward.

It took considerable effort to conjure a thoughtful and approachable description of the problem and the possible solutions. Keep in mind this is a project with considerable traction and a high amount of contributions are from enthusiasts. So having a clear, maintainable and approachable codebase is sometimes the most important requirement.

They asked for a second pass but it took two weeks for me to get around it, in the meantime they sent 3 different PRs, one closed after the other. I found it a bit strange, then I put some effort to review the last iteration. It had half baked solutions where for example there would be state cleanup functions but state was never written in the first place, something that would never go through normally, I gave the benefit of the doubt and pointed it out. I suspected it was AI generated most likely.

Then they showed me another variation of the PR where they implement a whole different architecture, some incredibly overengineered fluent interface to resolve a simple problem with many layers of indirection that reflects complete indifference to the more nuanced considerations relevant to the domain and project, that I tried to impair. The code might work, but even if it does it's obvious that the change is a net negative to the project.

What I suspected indeed was the case, as they finally disclosed the use of AI, but that is not necessarily the problem, as I hope to convey. The problem is that I was unable to gauge the submitters commitment to perform the humble job of _understanding_ what I proposed. The proposal, in the end, just becoming mere tokens for inclusion into a prompt. Disclosure wouldn't necessarily have caused me to not take the PR seriously, instead I would invested my time in the more productive effort of orienting the submitter on the tractability of achieving their goal.

I would rather have known they didn't intend or gauged their capacity beforehand. It would have been better for both of us: they would have had their initial iteration merged (which was fine, I would just have shrugged the refactor for another occasion) and I wouldn't have lost time.

> The intention here seems to be to filter out low quality submissions for which the only purpose is to only pimp Github resume for having contributions in highly starred repo. Not sure if the people doing that will be disclosing use of AI anyway.

That is a fair way to see it, and I agree that it is a losing battle if your battle is enforcing this rule.

However, from a different perspective - if one sees it more as a gentlemen agreement (which it de facto is) - it fosters an environment where like-minded folks can cooperate better.

The disclosure assists the reviewer in finding common issues in AI generated code, the specificity of the disclosure even more so.

For example, a submitter sends a PR where they disclose a substantial amount of the code was AI assisted but all tests were manually written. The disclosure allows the reviewer to first look at the tests to gauge how well the submitter understands and constrained the solution to their requirements, the next step being to then look at the solution from a high-level perspective before going into the details. It respects the reviewer time, not necessarily because the reviewer is above AI usage, but because without disclosure the whole collaborative process falls apart.

Not sure how long this can work though, it's still easy to distinguish bad code written by a human from AI slop. In the first case your review and assistance is an investment into the collaborative process, in the latter it's just some unread text included in the next prompt.

It would be limited if it _literally_ wasn't a question, right?

I'm opening myself to understand things. I don't understand the combativeness.

Reminder that Github _still_ does not support IPv6: https://github.com/orgs/community/discussions/10539

I don't understand why someone, with some technical education, would use any chromium based browser instead of firefox, any ideas?

You can make a fractal out of the state graph of a double pendulum: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=dtjb2OhEQcU

I don't doubt there could be an iterative formula that maps to it, but I'd be very surprised.

I really appreciated the information I was unaware of folks in the industry.

Also a pretty acceptable, and hopefully self evident, statement that technology and industry are relevant to "winning wars" (regardless of nation), even with the loaded assumption on "[american tech and industry]... won the major wars of the 20th century".

> If Western technology companies abdicate that responsibility, we will all need to learn Mandarin.

This bit killed it for me. It's completely reasonable and I encourage others to understand and perhaps accept a Realist[0] worldview, where obviously major powers are engaged in security competition.

I observe this too often, and it saddens me, that "western" people might truly believe in things like this.

My country and region was actively interfered, militarily and politically, by the US. We never were approached for deals as respectful partners, always a condescending and agenda driven deal with strings attached. Chinese relations with my country, and economic opportunities, flourish and give me hope that it might kickstart improvements I've lingered for since my teens (infrastructure, particularly rail for me).

Don't get me wrong, I am extremely suspicious of China politics and its goals. And of course this is part of its soft power ambitions, believe me that us "non-westerns" are perhaps not as dumb as we might seem (perhaps as problematic in other areas though).

Unless US, EU, Israel, or whatever considered to be "western" do not paranoia themselves and believe their own propaganda that China should be nuked you should indeed learn Mandarin, reason a little bit different than perhaps you assumed for on this statement: they treat others with; even if some underlying goal might exist; actual respect.

Look at yourselves in the mirror.

0 - https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Realism_(international_relatio...

I remember a very simple experimental setup we did at my initial physics class, my university at the time was in construction (we didn't have equipped labs), with a result similar to the two slit experiment by shining a cheap laser at an angle on a cd/dvd. Something like this: https://www.reddit.com/r/Physics/comments/paqnya/doubleslit_...

You don't want to have too much hypertrophy in the heart for sure. My understanding though is that it's very hard (almost impossible?) for it to be a problem without exogenous hormones, or some other condition that allows you to accrue an abnormal amount of muscle mass (e.g. myostatin defficiency).

Edit: I mean someone with a healthy fat percentage body composition. Of course having to pump blood to a 300lb-140kg body is problematic for the heart, be it a mostly fat or mostly muscle body composition. My point is it's just much easier to be fat enough for it to be a problem than muscular enough without exogenous hormones or an abnormal condition.

We could have had Bernie

After reading it a bit further, they searched for a service that exposed email via Gaia ID, and found it via Pixel Recorder.

Use it on the block user api and get an email address from what I understood.

It's revealing how many sub designs they found on south american jungles, but few actually found in traffic or on the targets coast.

I had a great time with bitwig as a daw, no idea about the hardware issue though

The way I read is, as the society is getting more equal, in modern politics the challenge is to...

Which is a way to dismiss legitimate issues from an audience you might dislike.

But yes, maybe I could be more charitable to the author I guess.