hooby

It would seem quite predictable that AI is going to follow the same trend as all disruptive technologies:

* First hundreds of companies rush into the new space * Then market leaders do emerge * Then the market consolidates

And in the end, only a few of those hundreds will remain - and most will go under, and in many cases the founders of those that did went under will then - with the power of hindsight - admit, that they never had a plausible shot at becoming market leader in the first place.

Isn't that just how it always goes?

I don't know about cup holders - but it's been definitely shown, that replacing actual physical knobs and buttons with a touch-screen does hurt safety.

The thing with media controls is, that you can use those only when it's safe to do so. You're not gonna change the radio channel or music-playlist while going through a busy intersection. But many of the functions car manufacturers are moving from actual buttons to their touch-screens, aren't that time flexible.

Might be a tangent - but is more discoverability actually desirable in this case?

Could it possibly preserve that "old web" style of interaction, if it becomes a global phenomenon that everyone uses? Or does this only work as long as it stays a little hidden niche, that most people don't know about, and will never find?

Or in other words - can something feel like "the old web" (which was early adopters and enthusiasts only) - if it's frequented by everyone?

You love the idea of smaller communities - but how can they stay small?

But then you need empty space around the motor, so that it can rotate there.

That somehow seems a weird choice for a device that's all about improving space efficiency.

Well, if the motor is unsprung mass, you no longer need this contraption at all, and you can just directly connect the motor to the wheel...

So, that's probably not it.

The thing I see not mentioned in the article/video, is how the wheels can tilt/turn/angle - without needing a CV joint again.

The designs seems to cover all the motion of the wheel in the suspension - but I don't see how this could accommodate steering.

Is this for back wheel drive only?

Curiously the animations shown in the video, show the uni wheel used in the front of a front wheel drive car - but without ever showing how the wheels steer.

How is that supposed to work?

I wonder if it's a function of company size.

This sort of thing seems to happen in all large companies - and to be very hard to avoid, if you do grow to that level.

Louis Rossmann needs to read this!

The TL;DR:

Analysis showed that most frame time was lost due to lack of LOD levels and culling - causing the engine to render insanely high amounts of polygons that weren't even visible on screen.

In conclusion it seems that using the brand new engine feature DOTS (which is a perfect match for this game), successfully solved the CPU bottlenecks the first game had.

But because of Unity's DOTS <-> HDPR integration still being WIP (with several key features being experimental/missing) - they had to implement a lot of stuff on their own (including, but not limited to culling), which cost development time and caused the game to be not quite ready at release (explains missing LODs/optimization).

"Low-level" is not a perfectly well-defined technical term, and does mean (slightly) different things to different people.

I feel that the article does explain well enough, how the author defines "low-level" for the sake of this article - and the definition being used seems just as fine as any other. And sticking with this specific definition, the conclusions of the article do seem to check out. (But I'm no expert on the subject matter, so I might be wrong about that).

I feel that the "value" of the article lies in challenging certain conceptions about C.

To me, it doesn't really matter if the article is (completely) right or not - the somewhat indignant response I see happening to the title of the article, and the discussion I see about what "low-level" actually means, seems to prove that some dogmatic beliefs about C are pretty deep-seated.

I feel it's always worthwhile to question such dogmatic beliefs.

Worse than the long duration of copyright is that (in this case, and not just this case) it does absolutely nothing for the actual creators of the IP, but only serves to enable all those huge companies that have zero history with the IP (and often zero interest in it) - to sell and buy those rights, and maybe send some cease-and-desists, but otherwise just let them collect dust.

Copyright is no longer about protecting the rights of the original creators... but purely about allowing big companies to purchase and exploit IP created by others.

I think it's great to see increased support for open source engines.

Those engines might not be at the same technical level as Unity (yet), which shouldn't be a surprise given the way lower budget and man-power behind them. But they are getting better - and they do have some massive advantages over proprietary engines. One example for such an advantage would be that you can just fork the code, if they do something you don't like. They can't hold your game hostage to force changes on you.

There are, but by my personal experience those other ways might stop working every other Windows update and need tweaking/changing.

Reading stuff like that, just makes me love package managers even more :)

I had to do a little bit of Prolog back in University, decades ago, and it broke my head.

I managed to actually solve all the programming tasks we were given (and as I was the only one to do so among my peers, many copied my solutions) - but if anyone then asked me to explain how I did it, I was at a loss. I basically stared at the screen until some sort of intuition hit, and if that didn't work, repeat the process until it does...

I guess the paradigm never really "kicked in" for me ;)

Enforcement of the right to privacy works (more or less) for offline privacy invasions.

I believe the problem might rather be, that there's a lack of clearness and awareness when it comes to how privacy does apply to online matters.

Even technically knowledgeable people are often caught completely off guard by how much you can actually glean and deduce from very limited data. Most people wouldn't believe how revealing some seemingly innocuous data can be, when you collect enough of it.

Why not call it "The right to privacy"?

Come to think of, we should even add that to the declaration of human rights!

Wait a minute...

Google is definitely no stranger to shutting down and killing unprofitable products - often pretty early even. They have a long history of doing just that.

And being a publicly traded company - they would have to shut down Chrome as well, if it actually were unprofitable/not worthwhile.

And they do have the data needed to actually get a relatively accurate picture of how Chrome affects their bottom lines overall. They know what they are doing, giving it away for free.

Not the best example though, as Windows these days is pushing Edge as anti-competitively as ever.

Windows now comes with three built in browsers: IE, Edge(Blink), Edge(Webkit) - none of which can be uninstalled.

Every other update users will bugged about switching to Edge again (exact amount varies by version and locale).

System apps will ignore default browser settings and use Edge to open all links (except in the EU they very recently went back to using the default browser again).

Browser-choice dialogue is gone, instead Edge will pester you if try to use it to download another browser.

Point being, all those punishments did absolutely nothing to stop or curb the anti-competitive behavior.

I honestly don't see how "who benefited more" matters to the question of whether it's bottom-line worthwhile for Google to give Chrome away for free.

So, here's the question:

When a large, publicly traded ad-company (that relies on collecting data and tracking users for most of it's income), creates a product that costs them quite a lot of money to make, and then gives that product to you for free...

Do you expect them:

A.) to be taking a loss on that product because they really just want to gift it to you from the goodness of their heart with no ulterior motives?

B.) to actually have another way to make money from that product, which makes the whole endeavor financially worthwhile to them?

I'm wondering about the "now".

Didn't the very initial release of Chrome, many years ago, already create a unique, identifiable ID per user, and open a connection to phone home to Google servers (using that unique ID) on every single key-press and mouse click done anywhere in the browser?

So... does anyone have any good guesses what actually caused them to do this?

I mean, obviously they want to push Edge - but for some reason their hands were forced within the EEA. I'd be interested to know that reason :)

> It's a convention (and a useful one) that the HTML served for a web server's error pages will include the HTTP status code in the text (and often the <title> as well). But it's only a convention and it can be violated, both accidentally and deliberately (both in omitting the status code and listing the wrong one). If it is violated, you probably won't notice for a while (if ever).

A malicious server can just as easily send the wrong status code, as well as listing the wrong status code in the accompanying html - so if the browser did show the real status code more prominently to the user, that wouldn't actually help in such a case, or would it?

> I'm a little confused what Russia has to gain from this.

People use VPNs to get western news and information through other channels than state-controlled Russian media.

If Russia can block these other channels, then their own propaganda becomes the sole information citizens have access to.

Something is going very wrong here.

Information on the internet should be in whatever format best suits the topic. The format that best serves the users looking for that information.

And search engines should learn to interpret that information and the various formats, in order to be able to best connect those searching information with those providing information. Yes, the search engine should adapt to the information and it's formats - not the other way round.

Instead we see "information" (or the AI-generated trite replacing it) adapt it's contents and format for search engines, in a bid to ultimately best serve advertisers. And search engines too adapt and change their algorithms to best serve advertisers.

As a result it becomes ever harder and harder for users to actually find the information they want in a format that works.

It's become so bad, that it's now more practicable to use advanced AI to filter out the actual information and re-format it, rather than go look for for it yourself.

As a human, you no longer want to use the web, and search... you want to have a bot that does that for you... because ultimately the space has become pretty hostile to humans.

Nice open clone of the "Escape Velocity" series of games.

Fun to play, but sadly the main story imho isn't quite as good as in the originals. It's way better in terms of playability on modern systems though.

Ooh, I love this. They sixtyforgan is just the kind of nerdy project that never fails to totally amaze me!

"All crypto is 100% scam" is an exaggeration. There are legit use cases - but you've no way of ever being sure - and due to lack of regulation, you don't get any protection either. And there's about enough scam going on, that might just as well be 100% scam - but it's not.

PayPal is not above profiting from scams. They are treating buyers pretty well, but there's quite some horror stories out there on the seller side of things. There's also a wave of Fraud on the platform, a long list of controversies and some class action lawsuits as well.

So in summary: crypto is not 100% scam (but maybe 99%?) and PayPal launching a StableCoin does not mean that this new coin is not gonna be used in/for any scams.

I did some work for online journals where papers got published even IF the peer review was bad and rejections were exceptionally rare.

The review score of the abstract was only used to decide on the best topics to invite for a presentation or talk - and the review score of the paper was used to hand out awards, decide "highlighted" papers, and it also influenced how high up in the search results a given paper might appear.