snitty

This seems worse. They just outright copied the apple weather app...

>Why today’s phones are so boooooring?

The author explains that the backs of phones are the primary distinguishing factor with inconsequential differences in screen resolution and refresh rates.

And then...favorably points out how the backs of headphones are the primary distinguishing factor with inconsequential differences in driver response.

Am I missing something?

Platform as a Service.

Which leaves me the same number of questions.

So, what is Platform as a Service?

> set -e

> echo "Downloading piku-bootstrap here."

> curl -s https://raw.githubusercontent.com/piku/piku-bootstrap/master... > piku-bootstrap

> chmod 755 piku-bootstrap

> echo "Now you can install Piku on `hostname` like this:"

> echo "./piku-bootstrap install"

Did you look at the script?

Turn your face to the sun, child.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=N9Kmde6cZM8&t=60s

>Rama’s language is Turing-complete…

Amazing they could accomplish such a feat.

This has got to be at least the third FOSS project I've seen called Chisel or some homophone thereof.

>https://www.reddit.com/r/cpp/comments/14vcvxg/c_makes_it_eas...

This you bro?

Furthermore, it doesn't appear that they're looking at whether the reason the paper was cited was the subject of the failed replication.

To analogize to the legal field, which they mention in the article, if a case I cite is good law on one point of law, but no longer good law on another I may cite it as _Plaintiff v. Defendant_, 123 F.3d 456 (1998) (reversed on other grounds, _Defendant v. Plaintiff_ 78 S.Ct. 910 (2000))

Just because one finding in a paper wasn't replicated doesn't mean that the paper can't or shouldn't be cited for other findings.

Mathematicians prove that you can deduce the shape of disk based on the frequencies it produces when you hit it with a stick.

Ah, I haven't heard that name since it no longer became good business to troll Apple fans.

I endorse this analysis.

Sincerely,

Your local IP attorney.

This is objectively correct. You can't get trademark on descriptive things (or abbreviations thereof). If I made a generative pre-trained transformer, I need to be able to accurately describe it. Just like Medtronic can't get a trademark on "Heart Monitor" for heart monitors.

You can also power it with a standard wall adapter. So, then you'd need to plug the wall thing into the battery, and the battery into the headset?

LCIII 4 LIFE

Is the best way to write AVX2/512 code really just smushing some assembly into your Go/C/C++?

The way the NES and SNES work is that once per frame you read from the memory address mapped to the shift register to get all the bits out, one at a time. For certain inputs you only care if it's pressed now. Others you compare to previous state to see if it changed.

Bounce could, theoretically, cause an input to be read as a non-input if it just bounced at exactly the wrong time, but it won't cause multiple inputs, as it's only polled every 1/60th of a second.

Were you checking to see if the button state changed between reads? Or were you reading a 1 as "down" regardless of whether the previous read was "up"?

Alaska grounded their whole fleet of Max 9s before the FAA ordered it for everyone else. So yes. It was grounded.

This video is…weirdly researched. Like, they researched the effect of cutting added dietary sugars for various lengths of times, and picked seemingly random bits to talk about from the research.

Please don't give it much weight.

Also, they indicate that a water fast is when you have no water. It's when you have only water. Which also isn't a good indication of what happens if you just cut added dietary sugars.

nmigen is a python based HDL.

The lead author just successfully defended her thesis on Wednesday!

>FoundationDB is a free and open-source multi-model distributed NoSQL database developed by Apple Inc.

Hospitals in the US are actually pretty concerned with hospital acquired infections. For the sole reason that medicare/medicaid and insurance typically don't cover costs associated with them. So the hospital itself is on the hook for diagnosis, treatment, and any associated costs.

>You can't do that IIRC, because it is based on prior art in the public domain. Just like you can't patent a chair with 5 legs.

A point she made in the video (and at least partially confirmed by a quick patent search by me) is that there really isn't one of these in the prior art.

> There's also no reason to patent that many things for the same thing. You only need to be sufficiently vague to how it folds.

As far as patents are concerned, those are the same. Getting a patent broad enough to cover all her embodiments of the invention is the same as getting a patent that covers all the prototypes. In the US you get up to three "free" independent claims per patent application, that can cover different approaches that are non-overlapping. But they can't be addressed to different inventions. In other words, you can get a single patent on three reasonable variations of a folding coat hanger and slight variations thereof. You cannot get a single patent that covers a folding coat hanger, and precision timing device, and a popcorn maker.

Source: IAAPL

Until someone gives me a convincing reason why Iago did it, Othello is NOT solved.

I just want to emphasize that, currently, CAR-T therapies are not particularly effective for solid tumors, which make up the majority of cancer diagnoses. They're currently only good for leukemias and lymphomas. They're also not the first line of treatment, because they have to be genetically engineered from your own cells, and then reinjected into you.

There's been some progress in CAR-NK therapies, which would be "off the shelf" in that they don't need to be engineered from your own cells. Also some very preliminary work with allogeneic CAR-T therapies that wouldn't have to be made special for each person.

>With the new show being trying to have them unravel someone's trick, with the odds stacked greatly against the magician, it's pretty obvious they've almost "seen it all".

The two main points of the show are to feature and raise the profile of younger magicians, and to get modern video records of their tricks. The "fool us" thing, while genuine is pretty ancillary the point of the show.

>It also gave me a glimpse on how secretive the magician community is. Since people earn a living selling required gimmicks or instructions on how to perform specific tricks, it is completely unacceptable to discuss how things are done. For the really puzzling ones on the show, if you go online to try to find the answers, you'll often find others asking the same thing, and the accompanying wall of silence. Even more so on forums dedicated specifically to magicians. You're likely to find a large discussion, usually with links to the official store for the trick, and zero answers. To do that would be breaking the magician's code, and apparently, you don't break the code.

Very, very, very, few people make a living selling tricks, and most of those are people who design and manufacture large stage illusions for the best magicians. A small handful of performing magicians ALSO sell tricks at retail magic shops. A few more than that write and publish books through magic publishing.

Some folks take the code of silence VERY seriously, but notably Penn and Teller do not. They do a cups and balls with transparent cups. They do Lift Off Of Love, which shows in detail how to do a pretty involved stage illusion. They LOVE telling people how things are done. They share similarity with Houdini in wanting to expose people who pretend that they actually have supernatural powers, and some of their tricks are aimed at showing that it's really just a high skill profession.

> A watch company should not be a movie studio.

> A movie studio should not be a grocery store.

> A search engine paying for 100% placement should not also be a music platform, movie platform, thermostat vendor, cloud vendor, ...

Then what's the lawful distance between goods and services that company should be able to offer?

I get the position that big is bad, and I don't entirely disagree with that, but selling watches offers no unfair benefit to apple in the movie studio business, and vice versa. It's not like they're tying one good to another, or leveraging market power in one to gain market power in the other.

So if we want to say that you can't run a company that makes consumer electronic devices and a movie studio (see also, Sony, Amazon), then what's the limit?

Should a company that makes motorcycles be allowed to sell, say, fine stringed instruments (Yamaha)?

What about a company that makes industrial adhesives? Should they be allowed to also sell office supplies (3M)?

This is a really fun argument we're having where the various parties don't agree on the definition of the thing they're arguing about.