Do you really mean this literally? Even the Linux kernel contains tens of thousands of lines of Python, and more lines of shell. Is that undesirable?
417 karma · joined January 14, 2010
When I saw this adaptation back in 2004, I was amazed because the web didn't even HAVE an API for its pixel buffer; the canvas element didn't arrive until a year later! All the destructible/buildable terrain here is faked out with stacked `img` elements. They had to simulate a simple form of graphics with a more complex one, because that's all the platform made available.
It's very good.
This is a linear sequence of bits, which when interpreted as a Game of Life board, "prints" an exact copy of itself 2 pixels to the right (leaving no trace of the original).
I suppose its job would be easier if it only had to construct a copy of itself rather than "moving" itself, but I enjoy the interpretation that it's a linear "tape" of bits which prints its own code transposed by 2 pixels, and takes an unfathomable amount of time and space to do so. Beautiful.
Describing its design, the readme for libxev says "credit to this awesome blog post" and links to the same Tigerbeetle post in this submission.
Her main collaborator, co-creator and producer of many years is the artist AG Cook, who founded the label PC Music. He appears often in her music videos and gets mentioned in her lyrics. His own solo work plays a lot with pairing the artificial and the organic, taking the "slick" aesthetics of electronic pop to abrasive extremes and placing it next to vulnerability and gentleness.
This is my favourite piece of his work (both the song and the video): https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=kH2wQ5speuU
Charli's work or his might not suit your taste! But these are real people doing interesting stuff and playing with the form. It's not fake.
If something looks like a "weird stance", consider trying harder to understand it. It's better for everyone else in the conversation.
All of that could get added to affinity without changing its core offering, which would be consistent with both their past strategy and their current messaging.
There's clearly a funnel for Canva Pro upgrades, but (to my knowledge) they've never paywalled formerly-free features, and it seems to be a profitable strategy so far.
It's a classic "commoditize your complements" play. Canva remains profitable without charging for Affinity, but Adobe can't stay profitable if they stop charging for Photoshop/Illustrator.
The business justification works without imputing any more sinister motives than that.
It's a collaboration between multiple library maintainers, attempting to standardize and unify their shared change-tracking approach.
> thanks, I used AI but aren't we all? I thought the point of AI is to get us to be more productive.
You've also repeatedly dismissed any criticism of the writing as "hate."
If you want readers to do you the favor of reading your work, please do them the favor of writing it.
> 32^4 = 1,048,576, which is hopefully enough.
Unfortunately, it really isn't enough. Since these 4-character codes are based only on a hash of the note's filename, and there's no other collision-resistance built in, the likelihood of two notes getting the same code rises very quickly. With 500 notes in the vault, the chance of two notes having the same code is about 1-in-10. At 900 notes, the odds are 1-in-3, and at 1200 notes, the chances of a collision rise above 50%: it's more likely that there will be a collision than not. These are realistic numbers of notes for an Obsidian vault.
This is all solvable by having something allocating IDs (and attaching them to the notes), but when using a hash, 32 bits just isn't enough to give uniqueness at even small scales.
[0]: https://x.com/GeoffreyHuntley/status/1965295152962097550
I don't like the gradual reframing of the model itself as being in charge of the tools, aided by a framework that executes whatever the model pumps out. It's not good to abstract away the connection between the text-generator and the actual volatile IO of your program.
Profiting isn't the misdeed, artificially suppressing competition is. Only Google experienced the benefit of suppressed competition, and that's why they were the ones paying the kickback, not receiving it.
Even in these comments, there's a fair bit of disagreement about whether they show do show monotonic improvement.
Wikipedia's definition is fine; it's describing the real diagnostic criteria, not a stereotype. The crucial thing is that to a third party, those traits won't always be obvious.
One of the axes upon which autistic people vary is their ability to mask those traits. The stereotype is a person with obvious symptoms who cannot (or at least does not) mask them socially. Presentations of autism frequently include some aspect of masking and some ability to "pass" as non-autistic, but with substantial cost and effort to the individual.
> It's my impression that people now use the term autism is for pretty much any sort of neurodiversity (and even for traits within neuronormal, e.g. likes math).
That may be so, but there are also plenty of people with actual diagnoses (and many others who meet the criteria) who don't fit the traditional image of an autistic person.
That's why I object to the claim that the term "autistic" has "lost all meaning." What's been lost is the ability to tell at a glance who is autistic, because the diagnostic manual now applies the criteria consistently regardless of whether their impact is immediately obvious to a stranger.
My personal experience, after getting diagnosed in my late 30s, has been observing the significant effort I spent masking — trying to pass as non-autistic — and choosing to use that energy differently. In that sense, I've probably become a little bit more obviously-autistic than before, but in a way which makes my life easier and more comfortable.
The DSM-V combined together a bunch of old disorders with largely overlapping symptoms and no consistent differentiation at the diagnostic level.