hingler36

I grew up in Texas and lots of people who hear me talk about it assume I absolutely hate it there. In reality, I have a lot of the same complaints as this author and think it's citizens should demand better. The state seemingly has zero interest in investing in community resources, and what few of these exist are constantly at risk.

Fairfield Lake State Park is a perfect microcosm of this. The lake exists primarily to provide water for a power plant. The state park exists on land leased at very low cost from the power company. The power company closed the plant, and the state could have bought the land to secure the state park. It already had all of the infrastructure you need to run a state park, and had staff lined up to do so. Instead they let the land pass into private ownership and made a halfhearted effort to recover the land after the fact.

A lot of Texans that I talk to assume that the vast public land of the Rockies and Sierras is a geographic inevitability. In reality much of this public land exists because of specific, concerted efforts by communities and municipalities.

I agree that for most people it's not worth it, but for people who need it it's absolutely necessary. The biggest hurdle is making sure new hobbyists don't just assume it's like FDM with minimal post-processing.

From the hobbyist perspective, the main thing this gets you is much more precise and detailed prints, so they're very popular in the model making community.

From a professional perspective, this gives you access to a bunch of different materials that open up all kinds of options for prototyping.

I would love to see any kind of study that has numbers on this, please share if you have one!

We have extremely low voter turnout overall and a truly negligible amount of provable election fraud, even after years of investigations from an administration that has a vested interest in proving the 2020 election was fraudulent.

Why should we enact more barriers to voting to solve a problem that doesn't even exist?

Very interested to learn about how they were able to overcome social-media-fueled election interference that we saw in the first round

I feel like the distinction comes down to "edited" vs "generated", but even here the line can be blurry. For example, is AI denoise really just removing noise from an image, or is it generating a new image of what it thinks the original signal was?

How do you know your product is great without feedback from a community?

Have you tried reaching out to "influencers" to get the word out on your product?

The main appeal for human robots in general is that, in theory, they can go wherever humans can go. As soon as a facility has stairs or even a single step up wheeled robots can't work.

As much as I dislike Tesla, a lot of this feels like pretty standard legalize that would be in most reservation or pre-order documents to protect the company. Can anyone speak to if this is truly unique for in this case?

The title is a bit sensational; the article directly calls out that they are using grip strength as a proxy for overall fitness and day-to-day ability. So, people who have higher fitness have a lower incidence of depression. I'm not really sure this is news.

Is there a wasm-esque effort for mobile?

There's been a lot of interesting work in the last ~decade on improving monte-carlo methods for solving PDEs, the field is really fascinating!

https://github.com/rohan-sawhney/mcgp-resources

I do like this framing, although it still doesn't warrant the term "real" imo

The bacterial pockets are the main reason I know of, and it doesn't seem like there's enough lead in the nozzle allow to really matter

I've heard of 3D prints being not-food-safe for a host of reasons, but lead is a new one. How does lead get into the filament? Care to share an article?

Agreed, the naming system is atrocious. The one that really pisses me off at this point is that "real" numbers get to be called that. Imaginary numbers with rational coefficients are SIGNIFICANTLY more "real" than a converging infinite series, imo

A lot of the comments are claiming that "no one is forcing them to engage with AI proofs" and that's not the case, as explained in the article. The author is forced to engage with the public by the very nature of being a prominent researcher on this problem. The public is drowning him in messages regarding this result. So yes, he is being forced.

Academics have always been required to engage with hacks and cranks to some extent; the deluge of AI proof writing has only exacerbated the problem.

Did you... Enjoy software development beforehand? Like there is a huge chunk of people that really enjoyed writing software and are bummed that that part of their job is being subsumed by models.

The same could go for mathematics or any field; there are lots of people who enjoy the process and aren't satisfied by being handed and opaque final result

I mean 95% of a proof is not a proof, and the fact that we got 95% of the way there isn't necessarily an indication that we'll ever get there. There's also a big difference between publishing a mostly-done proof as such and publishing a proof as complete only to retract later.

There's a lot to hate about the academic world, but the solution isn't spewing out terabytes of crappy half-baked results.

It's not a strict binary. I can write the parts of the code that I find interesting and shove the parts I don't want to write onto the model.

It's very fun, keep it!

I enjoyed the article, but I got a real kick out of how the author formats the date into the URL

It's wild to me that no matter how many community-based tools are destroyed this way, this keeps happening. I understand that running servers isn't free, but there are plenty of ways to pay for infrastructure that don't destroy core community engagement.

Do you have a concrete example of a high SNR researcher who will be limited by this policy? Aka one who is submitting more than two high quality papers per month?

Hyperion is amazing, it's one of those books I wish I could read again for the first time. Enjoy!

I'm interested in reading more information as it comes out, but a lot of the comments claiming it's "just vibrations" are being a bit reductionist. These devices are controlled by complex algorithms, and they take a lot of time and money to create. Why shouldn't this company enjoy the same IP protections that Apple enjoys on their work?

Ben's writeup of the mini-cheetah actuator remains one of the best resources to learn about robot actuator design and control

I'm trying to understand how to "vote with my money" for not being recorded by these glasses in public. My best interpretation would be financially supporting private establishments that have banned these devices... Which feels like exactly what you're arguing against.

Thanks for clarifying your point. I didn't know about the reprap IRC channel being dead, that's a real shame