diffeomorphism

Out of interest: They talk a lot about how they think/hope their license is not contradictory. Has anybody with legal expertise verified this?

Open-ish source is one thing, but an untested custom license is an issue in itself.

The post title should probably start with "Show HN:".

What kind of security guarantees do you have?

It seems to meet that your "problem" usually is unanswered on purpose:

https://simonwillison.net/2025/Jun/16/the-lethal-trifecta/

This has access to sensitive knowledge, tool use and exfiltration. So, the tech seems nice, but I doubt I could ever get permission to deploy this.

Weird windows centric view.

There shouldn't even be a question where to put things much less a "wherever you want". Instead you want a sane, sensible standard.

Yeah, those people were apparently 100% correct and this was a colossal failure.

Instead of large, accountable providers, now three quarters of their customers use vpns or switched to sites without age verification.

Many? Just add a "by restricting to the image, we may wlog assume surjectivity".

The question is usually more about whether the inverse is also continuous, smooth, easy to compute....etc.

It would stop in your country but not globally. That means your country loses all expertise and will be much worse off to defend itself.

Case in point: In 2007 Germany passed a "hacking law" (§202c). On its face, it was supposed to prevent black hat work. Except it very predictably also did enormous damage to security research.

The article is 5 pages and the Theorem yielding the factor is on page 4.

Same point. Much more difficult per hour but not appropriately more pay.

That just tells me that the pay was bad for the job.

If job A pays 80k and job B pays 100k, but job A is 40h and job B is 60h, then job B pays worse. They pay more but not better.

No, you are parsing this wrong.

> We evaluated the diagnostic power (...). We estimated a 94% accuracy for (our method), significantly higher than the (traditional method) (66% accuracy).

Both methods have counting in their name, but they are comparing the diagnostic power.

No, it is a well defined term in this context and does not refer to sensitivity.

https://pmc.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/articles/PMC4614595/#:~:text=Ac...

That is exactly why I gave the trivial example of an "always No" test. It has perfect specificity (zero false positives) and has accuracy corresponding to prevalence. The sensitivity is zero, however, which is the point.

No, that does not seem to be what they are saying.

> We evaluated the diagnostic power of the device in a cohort of 45 LC patients and 14 healthy pediatric donors. We estimated a 94% accuracy for the microclot count using the devices, significantly higher than the traditional counting of microclots on slides (66% accuracy).

They are comparing the predictive power and using accuracy (instead of sensitivity, recall, F1, etc.). For their method "using the devices", they compute an accuracy of the predictive power, not of the count, of 94%. For the previous method they say the accuracy is 66%.

Basic questions: Is accuracy even a good metric for this? Is 94% a good value or just the difference between bad and very bad?

It might very well be that their improvement is from bad to really good, but the point is that a raw stat of "94% accuracy" is useless without context and so is the headline.

That is exactly why I gave that example. Why does the headline focus on accuracy then?

94% accuracy sounds extremely bad, no?

https://www.ssph-journal.org/journals/public-health-reviews/...

> Prevalence estimated (...) 2%–3.5% in primarily non-hospitalized children.

So a fake test always saying "No" would be more accurate at 96.5% accuracy.

https://maruos.com/ https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ubuntu_Edge

Connect your phone to a display, mouse, keyboard and get a full desktop experience.

At the time smartphones were not powerful enough, cables were fiddly (adapters, HDMI, USB A instead of a single USB c cable) and virtualization and containers not quite there.

Today, going via pkvm seems like promising approach. Seamless sharing of data, apps etc. will take some work, though.

Much higher resource demands, which then requires tricks like upscaling to compensate. Also you get uneven competition between GPU vendors because it is not hardware ray tracing but Nvidia raytracing in practice.

On a more subjective note, you get less interesting art styles because studio somehow have to cram raytracing as a value proposition in there.

> if deterministic, then can be done in software.

You just need a few Dyson spheres and someone omniscient to give you all the parameter values. Easy peazy.

Just like cracking any encryption: you just brute force all possible passwords. Perfectly deterministic decryption method.

</s>

Will we? The hardware you want for AI and the hardware you want for super computing seem to have different priorities, e.g. concerning floating point precision.

Any launcher on any OS uses alt+space or win+space. Weird that you think this is somehow a power toys thing.

> retina resolution

That just means 3024x1964. With other laptops you can either go up a step to 4k or down to OLED 2880xsomething.

As far as I understand, the terminology says "linear" but means compositions of affine (with cutoffs etc). That gives you arbitrary polynomials and piecewise affine, which are dense in most classes of interest.

Of course, in practice you don't actually get arbitrary degree polynomials but some finite degree, so the approximation might still be quite bad or inefficient.

Basic questions: what does a GDPR request get you? Wouldn't providers like you to switch to them?

Just look at the smartphone market.

It does cause the same problem but seems to be somewhat less frequent.

No, that was some of the initial speculation, but turned out to be wrong.

No. That is what roundabouts, curved roads etc are for. Left turns are generally more problematic due to crossing incoming traffic etc.. Hence planning avoids them for good reason and there are much more right turns.

Obvious stoppers: man power, expertise, incompatibilities,...

This is not limited to CS or Latex in any way. Plenty of students spend a lot of time fiddling with word, powerpoint, note taking systems, citation management (which is surprisingly horrible in MS word), Adobe software etc..

Obvious reasons:

- Your thesis is a major output of years of work. Of course you want it to look good.

- You might think it superficial, but if the presentation looks bad, many people (subconsciously) interpret this as a lack of care and attention. Just like an email with typos feels unprofessional even if the content is otherwise fine.

- Spending time on tooling feels productive even if it is not past a certain point.

- People that are into typesetting now have an excuse to spend time on it.

That said, in my experience people spent a few hours to learn "enough" latex several years ago and almost never write any macros. Simple reason: you work with other people and different journal templates, so the less custom code the better.

Lots of occasions, mostly celebrations or campaigns. It even has its own Wikipedia article:

https://de.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Freibier

That is a bad counterexample. There is a world of difference between the main devs offering a paid service and some unaffiliated company offering services.

In principle, having a reliable source of funding for typst is great. However, as a journal this would make me hesitant: what if down the road some essential features become subscription-only?

Yes, obviously. Do you delete all source code once you compiled a binary?

Any future corrections, additions or other modifications are made to the source, not the generated old pdf.