stonethrowaway

Age combined with seeing the trite and cliche hooks to get people to read/listen/watch the usual self-promoting puffery over and over again. Sometimes it’s just the author discovering something mundane and wrapping it up as a TED talk.

> What I don't understand is how followers of this philosophy overlook the obvious, basic, overwhelming flaw. How do you overlook that?

Followers of sama? Simple: in it for the money. The only tangible philosophy that sticks ends up being greed combined with lying through the teeth.

Scumbag? Based? Not sure what to say on this.

If NYT loses, we all win.

About as well as automation of devs.

> I know that if you go back far enough in these posts of mine, you will find some real crap in there. Sometimes that's because I had a position on something that turned out to not be very useful, or in some cases, actively harmful. This sucks, but that's life: you encounter new information and you are given the opportunity to change your mind, and then sometimes you actually do exactly that.

Sometimes the content is decent. But this post, and this line, hits me as very tone deaf. It’s like no deeper reflection occurred.

NeXT and Apple are stories of a founder bulldozing ahead with a vision, his coming and going coinciding with the respective companies’ high and low tides. The discussions around a “thing” are framed in the context of the of the thing, the founder, and one or more people who happen to be involved (the storyteller, scribe). No thing is ever discussed in isolation without the founder, and it’s always the scribe who tells that story. You will hardly ever come across a pivotal story about NeXT or Apple without the founder being mentioned as a key figure in that story, to the point that it’s their decision as to how that story ends.

The point? The thing is meaningless. It’s the story of the founder’s reaction and the cause and effect of the founder’s choices. The thing has no gravity in and of itself. It’s meaning entirely created and destroyed by the founder.

In the case of NeXT, it is literally the company rising and falling with the presence of the founder. The weight of any thing immediately diminished with founder’s departure. Nothing remained.

We shall see what happens with Apple. It may attain a new founder, or it may not.

Put another way, the logo can be anything.

Some decent commentary here: https://www.reddit.com/r/technology/comments/1giwi4s/why_chi...

We had a few days ago an article on a similar subject, but just the rise of China in terms of over all tech. Someone made a comment about how Zuckerberg must have taken notice that the field of AI is being pushed forward by both teams of developers and research publications being composed of entirely Sino-ethnic people. At the very least, the teams at Meta. I don’t have a dog in that race so to me it’s just a curiosity.

If you can advise them, I hope for their sake they’ll move to the States because they’re underpaid in most so-called first world countries.

Didn’t CAD automation software also adopt it? I remember MasterCam, SolidWorks and others needing hardware dongles.

The market for that is tiny compared to music but, the money made basically guaranteed given adoption rates. Even today I think there are too few contenders to pose a significant market risk to these companies.

One use of an AI tool potentially would be to try to correlate the angle that a publication would benefit from by pushing a particular viewpoint. In other words, I want to read not the article, but what WSJ gets from it. That’ll tell me if the article is worth reading at all more than a summary of it.

Framing it differently, they have skin in the game.

Primitive Tech is more useful than 3B1B from that perspective.

Not sure why this is downvoted. It’s the absolute summation of this sort of thing. Anyone who grew up in that time period can immediately relate to both the personal feeling of it, as well as the anonymity and isolation of these things from the “real world.”

We used to talk about this but people shot us down as racists and didn’t grok what was happening in front of them. Played right into that fiddle.

WARNING:

Do try this at home.

This time it’s different and it changes everything and it’s our best one yet.

Another reason to avoid The Atlantic.

C# is Pragmatic [0].

[0] https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=41761346

Technical ability and programming are orthogonal.

Because it makes for excellent headlines and advances the author’s career.

Because the author isn’t a bona fide dev and couldn’t tell shit from shinola wrt code quality. Like a lot of other research it’s nonsensical.

One follows from the other.

> As we are moving more and more towards physics-based rendering, engine are shifting from imitating what's observed to properly defining the world and its interactions and get realism as a byproduct.

Sigh. Anyone who’s done physically based rendering will tell you it’s all bullshit. Even Maxwell’s equations are a special case of a much broader set of interactions. But a few decades ago you’d think that’s all there is. You don’t get realism as a byproduct, you get “looks real, ship it” as a byproduct.

It’s approximations. And that’s perfectly fine.

> For some context, Google’s largest fine so far was €4.34 billion (approximately $4.7 billion), issued by the EU in 2018 over antitrust violations related to Android — minuscule next to Russia’s current demand.

Yes, Russia is aware of this. It’s just a comical play poking fun at EU and the fact that Google won’t pay up.

> Nevertheless, the behavior of large groups of people can be described quite well using mathematical models.

The whole article is amusing. What absolute fucking puffery lmao.

> But a good graphics rendering engine will do it.

Correlation/Causation: lots of things in graphics rendering work because of observed phenomena. A “good graphics engine” is only as good as the eyes that implemented it. Todays engines still fall short of what is in front of us, and not because of a technical limitation.

> Pretty sure I saw scenes where shadows were purple despite a green sky.

If it’s a stylistic effect then it’s a stylistic effect. But otherwise, purple shadows are literally everywhere. Shadows can have an immense amount of chroma and vibrancy to them, or they can be incredibly cool and muted. It all depends on the context.

Next time someone says “gee I’m glad we aren’t anything like Reddit!” I’ll have the replies in this thread to point them to.

Keep ‘em coming fellas.

In case it isn’t obvious:

You pay a salesforce architect (like the ones in this thread) thousands of dollars per day and not get jack shit in return for years.

Or you can DIY one of these small shopify sites, grow from a small business to a large business, and be one of these success stories that Shopify is attracting.

(nb. Shopify already covered some of this in various podcasts awhile ago, so Bloomberg as usual is asleep at the wheel.)

No it isn’t. It fucking sucks. Most everyone who learns HTML comes across the validation attributes, the god awful built in date pickers and other shit, and they throw it out in favour of custom built better UX implementations. Maybe in the past we would have been clueless because, well, they didn’t exist, but today they do. And they’re junk.

Call spade a spade. Don’t call it heavily underused.