terminalbraid

> please use the original title, unless it is misleading or linkbait

This is a major problem for them because they fragmented their IDE codebase so much properly maintaining it requires resources and people they don't have and would have to invest years of effort to replace. But that doesn't maximize quarterly profit, so it's left to decay and we get hourly LLM plugin updates.

> coopt: to appropriate as one's own; preempt.

The term existed for some time before programming if that's your source of confusion. Now it is a twisted and ambiguous version of itself.

I'm so very, very tired of tech coopting rigorous mathematical terms.

To simulate a water molecule you do so with a weakly coupled SU(1) gauge theory (light does not interact with itself at tree order) problem where the masses of all constituents are orders of magnitude above the relevant energy scales (you can think of it as the electrons and nuclei and particles coming in and out of existence are contained in a renormalization scheme).

We have "good simulation models" of both, but the former is extraordinarily complicated compared to the latter for the reasons stated above.

This is assuming there IS a way to keep the business afloat. It's this framing of thinking that has caused more suffering, frustration, and bad will in all the places I've worked at which are just reskins of this article.

A business is entitled to it's model but it is not entitled to success. This story which is more than just a strawman or anecdote gets it right: The engineers are doing their job the best they can with unreasonable expectations set by people who do not feel they need to be constrained by reality and just have dollar signs in their eyes. The engineers do not share the same type of blame as everyone else at the company. Their failure was enabling nonsense and greed.

The whole point out of this outrage is alternative stores (like f-droid) can wholly and entirely be shut down on a whim without recourse.

If you understood what you were trying to push now you'd recognize that adding in your time dimension to force an argument involving a circle is just a matter of the sign in the 2nd order differential equation. This also falls apart if that sign changes and you get hyperbolic solutions. and I'm sure you'll just say that's just another kind of sphere with negative curvature

At some point you just call it failed.

People are never entitled to their contributions getting accepted to someone else's code base.

https://news.ycombinator.com/newsguidelines.html

> Please don't use HN primarily for promotion. It's ok to post your own stuff part of the time, but the primary use of the site should be for curiosity.

> Don't solicit upvotes, comments, or submissions. Users should vote and comment when they run across something they personally find interesting—not for promotion.

Not sure how I reconcile that for systems with linear symmetry that don't admit a sphere such as a 1D harmonic oscillator (i.e. a spring). You're confusing the fact that spheres require quadratics but quadratics are not sufficient to admit a sphere.

And yet inverse distance laws for potential energy for gravity and electric fields use the absolute value because they require an unsigned distance and how you treat the singularity at zero is extremely important to the structure of those interactions

I'd consider donating, but I find that behavior to be part of squeezing free computing and participating in and advocating for the corporate erosion of ownership of one's hardware environment.

Do you see the problem with your reasoning?

Saying it's safe to "ignore" anything that exposes information is dangerous. You might as well claim social engineering isn't real as long as the person doesn't have direct access to the thing you want.