lanza

sshing into a server only happens within one shell. Thus you can open tmux there and that's the only level of granularity you can have.

iterm window->iterm tab->ssh->tmux windows->tmux panes

With `tmux -CC` it lets you hoist that chain upwards and map the entire ssh session into an iterm window.

iterm window (ssh session) -> iterm tabs (tmux windows)

The biggest benefit for me is that you can then open another tmux session within the CC one and use tmux as normal

iterm window (ssh session) -> iterm tabs (tmux windows) -> tmux2 windows -> tmux2 panes

And then the normal feature of tmux is that it persists across ssh sessions. This also means that the entire iTerm2 window and all its tabs and splits are also maintained across sessions. I think my current layout on my main development machine that I remote into is over 3 months old.

Another point of view is that it decouples the state of your tmux tabs/panes from your terminal emulator itself. e.g. if you use this locally instead you could then terminate the entire iterm program and reopen it and restore the same exact window/tab/pane splits you previously had. This is a nice perk for restarting/updating iTerm.

> A new filing in California's suit against Amazon reveals that sellers live "in constant fear" of retaliation from Amazon if they allow their goods to be sold more cheaply elsewhere.

Tangential, but out of context quotes used in your sentence makes me think you're lying no matter what you're saying. Or else you would have kept it in context and used the whole quote.

Not to defend Amazon in the slightest. Just tired of seeing Breitbert quality clickbait OOC quotes everywhere.

This is also how politics works at this point. Politicians get A/B tested to maximize DAUs -- e.g. Fox News viewers and thus their voters.

Political party stances are the local maxima of AB testing talking points to their userbase around engagement.

Do people still break their phone screens? I have never used a case even the naughts. My 3gs, 4, few Android phones, 5s were all cracked. But nothing since ~2016 has cracked at all. I haven't stopped dropping my phone or anything. They just don't break anymore.

In the classical sense of "a QFT" then no there are no ways to do QG. The computations diverge. In the extended sense where you let yourself include non-QFT-like things like strings and spin foams, then sure.

Yup, as somebody who desperately wants great python integration in my suite of spreadsheets I'm not even going to consider trying this.

> In another comment, you said that you don't know what the Navier-Stokes equations are. Given that, I don't think you're in a good position to judge their value.

It was an exaggeration given that it never came up during my studies once. And I think that's a fantastic assessment of their value that I made it through most of a decade of studies without having to know a thing about fluid dynamics.

> I have a couple of group theory books myself, and I don't agree with your assessment that group theory should get priority over fluid dynamics.

...why? You're commenting on a physics line of education here. We don't use fluid dynamics and we extensively use group theory.

A physics undergraduate degree is different than a lot of degrees in that it's 100% incomplete for the purpose of training towards a real profession. Nobody hires physics bachelors. It's just the four year mark of your studies to be a 8+ year trained physicist.

And for that purpose of being an intermediate degree to becoming a physics PhD, Navier-Stokes isn't relevant. You don't use it in most fields that are generating physics PhDs in the 2000s and beyond.

There's only so much time to teach somebody in four years and there are significantly more important things that are also being left out (e.g. more thorough courses on group theory).

Former theoretical physicist here (quantum gravity). TBH I don't know what Navier-Stokes is.

She just lists the standard curriculum through undergraduate and graduate degrees. I clicked the links to all the books and my Amazon has the purchase dates from when I took those courses. It's not specific at all to theoretical physics.

GP? Do you mean Geekbench? If so it literally includes clang performance as one of its benchmarks that it runs. And it scales pretty consistently with the overall score.

Fine, but you came to a thread on the prototypical future variants of VR hardware. Just don't click if you don't want to read about it.

That's like taking a $100 Nokia phone in 2002 and saying that mobile phones are nice but will never be important.

The majority of the people on earth with access to the internet (~5b) are monthly Meta product users (~3.7b).

Twitter's revenue is pretty small compared to Meta's. In order for Meta to actually value the revenue generated they'll want active users to reach what Twitter had at it's peak. That's not going to be this year. And the app will have to be fantastic from a user experience point of view for awhile to grow enough to get there.

So yea, duh, Meta will monetize it. But it'll be an app hellbent on growing while being subsidized by Meta until then.

There isn't a tool that can do this job faster. git takes a few seconds once you're at half a million commits. Facebook has many repos checked in in their entirety that are bigger than that.

> The media would not be reconciled to the idea that such eminent persons should suffer such a cruel fate.

You're imposing your own narrative here. The interest was driven by the Titanic and deep sea exploration. Whomever the six people were means nothing. I've watched documentaries about this type of Titanic exploration and now the subject of those documentaries is part of a slowly developing catastrophe.

You're looking at this too abstractly. Meta's revenue grew by 0.6% last year. And that's up from shrinking by 1.3% the year before. Their social media platforms have reached the peak and don't really have any more users to gain. They aren't looking for 300% revenue growth. They'd be blissfully happy to get back to 5% by establishing themselves as a serious hardware/software company.

Ditto. I hate this idea. We all know the type of content that revenue drives: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=rE3j_RHkqJc. I want a site that rewards quality, not view counts.

I'm not an exec, but I've worked with people that make millions in big tech. You just don't get there unless you are fantastically competent at what you do. Pettiness and immaturity really just is an inefficiency that nobody wants to deal with at that level. When the decisions you are making are measured in the 10s to 100s of millions then nobody else will tolerate a second of your emotions. You'll quickly find yourself outside the group of trust if you're not being objective.

This has an accepted caveat that the most powerful one or two people can always throw in some nonsense. e.g. Jobs saying "FeceBook" and just suggesting a quick, unproven solution. When nobody can overrule you it doesn't matter. But the rest of them would get railed for wasting time.

> We've seen this story before and it hasn't ended well for the folks in Mark's position.

Meta doesn't need to dominate the market. Being the Android to Apple's iOS or the Windows to Apple's macOS is way more than fine for Meta's business. iPhone's did $250b in revenue in 2022. Meta as a whole did $117b.

They aren't looking to replace Apple, they are just trying to find a way to get their revenue growing again. It's a huge win in their eye's if Quest3 contributes reasonably well to bringing their 2023 revenue to about $130b.

If there was a genuine third company competing with Meta then that would be a problem for them. Valve and Pico are roughly 0% the size of Meta and Apple. They just won't have the resources to actually compete. Google has been rumored to be working on a headset. If that's the case and they didn't fire that entire org then that would be Meta's only real competition for second place.

> Apple could always use this to their advantage, or double-back on it. Who cares? They've moved the needle in a positive direction, that's all that should matter.

Because all of business history has told us that the market dominant company strong-arming its opposition has never worked out for the consumer.

> Google, FB, & Microsoft where they both control and sell your data to the highest bidder.

Can we please keep this nonsense to lower quality sites like reddit? I like to pretend hacker news hasn't degraded this far yet.

It's just "Mexican hat" potential. The `hot` was a phone keyboard typo and writing `top` was just a mental typo.

Virtual particles are calculational tools. They aren’t concrete things the way you’re proposing them to be. They are closer in character to “completing the square” than they are a an actual physical object.

They are great for trying to help human brains make concrete the details of the process. But again they are just artifacts of the way we do our computations.

And the Higgs field is a particularly great example of this. If you shift a sin wave 90 degrees it becomes a cosine wave. If you don’t expand about the lowest energy of the Mexican top hot potential for the Higgs field it creates an entirely different description of the physical phenomena and virtual particles.

> So Higgs particles don't exist under normal conditions

Eh. That's like saying fully constructed lego kits don't exist under normal conditions. Yea sure, my normal life conditions don't entail me having just finished putting together a lego rollercoaster. But calling that "normal conditions" is a weird way of describing the situation.

I'm being kinda nitpicky, but as a physicist who understands the phenomena I'd just definitely never say "under normal conditions" here. The LHC just provides more potential interactions in a highly regular way and thus more opportunities to measure it.

The Higgs boson is just heavy and unstable and less probabilistic to be created via most particle interactions.

> So Higgs particles don't exist under normal conditions, they're just proof that the Higgs field exists and explains how mass exists

This Higgs particle doesn't explain how mass exists. The construction that explains how mass works predicts that a Higgs boson exists.

> Also a countertop swivel chair physicist, my understanding is that Higgs bosons are recruited as virtual particles all the time to bestow other particles their mass.

Physicist here: nope. The coupling between the Higgs field and other particle fields is what creates the phenomona of mass. The Higgs particle is just an excitation of that field.

Virtual particles aren't "real" in the same way that the first order Taylor series of sin(x) being x doesn't max x a real sinusoidal wave. All it does is let you make your calculations "close enough" for your accepted definition of "close enough."

I actually don't think it's a ton. Go count the lines of code of one of your small projects. I have something I spun up in the evenings over a few days and it's 2000 lines. It feels like nothing.

Tech giants have thousands of engineers working on these projects for many years and delete and rewrite features on a regular cadence. The fact that Messenger is only ~500 times bigger than my project is kinda weird to me. Mine has 1 user, it has 3 billion.

Why is it depressing? Does some collection of people on earth suffer from tech giant apps having too many lines of code? It very effectively shovels money from these soulless companies into the pockets of the employees. No living entity is suffering, just the company from it's own bloat.

I find it to be quite a beautiful result. Developers get to develop and not focus on maintenance. The lack of local maintenance creates repository wide maintenance jobs that are also interesting in their own right.

It is tragedy of the commons. But really the only one who deals with the tragedy is the corporate entity.

Because you don't make money deleting code. People at tech giants don't love their employers like they are their mother or something. They don't do things that don't get them rewarded. Implementing new features does.

And so engineers implement new features and write more code and release the features and get rewarded for doing so. Once the feature is done, if it's easy to delete it they will. If not, and it never is, they'll leave it around and move on to something else.

When you have 3 billion users if you make the company 1/100th of a penny per user per year you pay for yourself. That's like increasing the value of the average user by 1/200,000. So your feature doesn't even have to be that good. It just has to be minimally better than what it's replacing. Restyle a button to be more appealing in the peripheral vision of users and that probably breaches that threshold.

Reality is that it isn't quite this easy (fewer users are that valuable, most don't use it daily, etc). But it gets the point across. You work there to make more money and deleting some feature that is probably referenced by some other dead code somewhere else isn't profitable work for anybody.