I mean even assuming that this was strictly a 2-layer board, you can still route traces underneath parts like ICs, connectors, etc.. I could believe it was a simple board (for a phonograph and all), but I'd be interested in seeing how well it actually matched. Did he get a new board fabbed and it just worked?
He said that it got a few resistor values wrong, but other than that it was correct. I assume it was actually a single-layer board. (Nobody's doing this with a mini-ITX motherboard.)
I link to it multiple times in TFA and quote the specific thing I'm talking about here in there to explain that possible confounder. I think I've done more than the work I'm obligated to it.do to make all of the relevant information available to you. You are just refusing to use
I am not finding these links in TFA, I see a link to an issue #929 which (as mentioned in TFA) has over 350 replies, and and opinionated summary of what transpired, including some detailed description of specific posts there. However I did not find the maintainers response.
EDIT 2 (and advice on design): The page design changes backgrounds after the results sections, which kind of conveys to the user that they have reached the end of what was is important and can just skim over the rest (usually pages have a radical change in typography like these when you’ve reached the comment section), however this is what is analogous to a discussion in a typical paper, and is arguably the most important part. I had simply assumed that you just left it at the result and skipped the discussion as a stylistic choice.
> EDIT: Found it! it is in the (untitled) discussion section (after the results).
I also paraphrase Tridge himself explicitly saying that this is why commits/releases have increased:
> Essentially, this isn't a "Claude" problem, it's a "more security work" problem, something that Tridge himself confirmed in his response, describing how a flood of AI-generated CVE reports forced rapid, extensive changes to rsync's attack surface.
> The page design changes backgrounds after the results sections, which kind of conveys to the user that they have reached the end of what was is important and can just skim over the rest (usually pages have a radical change in typography like these when you’ve reached the comment section), however this is what is analogous to a discussion in a typical paper, and is arguably the most important part. I had simply assumed that you just left it at the result and skipped the discussion as a stylistic choice.
Good point, I assumed everyone would read till the end, that's on me. I'll give it a heading.
Anyone have a good source to read up on the current state of the art for daytime celestial navigation? Maybe there isn't too much in the public domain, because things like GPS work so well. But I'd guess that since you can't easily artificially jam celestial navigation there would be military research on this. But I suppose clouds also limit the practicality as well.
Obviously my experience is a little dated (graduated high school in 1997), but Shakespeare was a recurring theme throughout my high school English classes. We read The Tempest, Macbeth, Hamlet, and a number of poems, some of which we had to memorize and recite. I didn’t mind the poetry; I still remember bits of the Whitman, Coleridge, and Lewis Carroll poems I memorized. In addition, we read The Odyssey (which felt like torture to me), various Dickens novels, Jane Austin (also torture), etc.
Despite being an avid reader, I did not enjoy all of the above. However, now that I am middle aged, I count myself fortunate that my public school teachers forced me to do it.
class of '23 here. Not exactly a Shakespeare-heavy curriculum, but was made to read Romeo & Juliet and Othello as well as various sonnets in high school.
>If you have something like 512MB of ram, you can do KDE just fine
The past is a foreign land. Minimum memory requirement for Windows 95 was something like 4MB. I ran OS/2 on 8MB of memory (with a Cyrix 40Mhz 486 clone).
At least part of this is going to be the resolutions at play. In windows 95 era you were dealing with 640x480 resolutions. Maybe 1024x768. Modern displays are doing a lot more than that. 1920x1080 at a minimum.
Beyond that, in windows 95 in the extreme you could be looking at only 16 colors. 256 colors was also not uncommon. 16bit colors became common in the windows 98 era.
1024x768 was super common place. 800x600 next in line. I would say that 640x480 was uncommon for Windows 95. I had been running 24-bit graphics with Windows 3.1. No way that 16 bit color only became popular with Windows98. Even SVGA 1027x768x8 was limited to 256 distinct color on the screen at a time, but the palette was dynamic, and the lookup table was into 18-bit RGB space.
I've been going back and forth on this, and I think I agree with you about 95%. But for some cases, where I don't really have a choice about whether or not I'm going to hear from you, there are certain dullards that I'd rather have filtered through a chat bot. It really would be an improvement over whatever they had to say. Listening to their genuine human output has negative value, but filtered through an LLM might bring that value up to zero.
>The pathology of generative AI is that it too easily allows substantial form without discernible intent.
You can just say it: the problem with AI is a people problem. AI is an amplifier. It allows deceptive people to be more deceptive. Greedy people to be more spammerific. The reckless to less constrained. Exposes more people to the criminally minded, etc. But hopefully there is enough good out there that gets amplified and overcomes the bad. Maybe everyone is valuable in some sense, but surely there are people that you wish could be valuable somewhere far away from your loved ones? We're in a losing battle with entropy. Life and beauty and love need active protection and maintenance. Everything will be of equal value with the heat death of the universe.
We need to encourage the norm that AI is for personal use, and not for spamming others. If anyone wants to know what an LLM will output, we all know where to go to get it. It is immoral to pawn off LLM writing as your own. Doubly so, for trying to cover it up with intentional spelling errors or other "tricks".
reply