Hacker News new | past | comments | ask | show | jobs | submit | more yan's comments login

Man, talk about the ephemeral internet: One of my first projects[1] in Haskell was a small tool to go through my Google Reader favorites and download posts I tagged on ffffound.

[1] https://github.com/yan/hhhhoard


This is why i went with tinytinyrss when reader shut down. since i can host it myself theres little danger of it happening again


Something that made filling rentals cars easier: there's a triangle on the dash that points to which side the cap is on next to the "fuel" symbol on all the cars I've been in.


Not just on rentals - I own a Subaru Forester and it has such a handy little triangle on the dash.


Moxie explicitly gave Zizek credit in his speech.


I recently started reading "Sustainable Energy Without The Hot Air"[1], which is available as a free book, and it's been a wonderful introduction to reasoning about alternative energy. The author also gave a talk a few years ago that is very approachable[2].

[1] https://www.withouthotair.com/ [2] https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=GFosQtEqzSE


It's interesting, but his solar PV assumptions are pretty outdated in the book. He talks about utility scale solar being 10% efficient, where as it is around 17% now. Even at 10% efficiency, he says it's feasible, but too expensive. We are now at 2.42 cents per kWh unsubsidized for utility scale solar, in the best case. He says solar PV is 4x as expensive as conventional electricity production, which is clearly not true anymore. And the trend says PV will be 4x cheaper than coal within a couple of decades.


It would be cool to maintain a fork of the book with updated figures. Is the tex source available anywhere?

EDIT: What seems to be the latest version of the source files is hosted at http://www.inference.eng.cam.ac.uk/sustainable/book/tex/.


He addresses that in the book as well. His goal is to give rough estimates and a framework to reason about energy sources, not provide conclusions.


Watching the talk, now at 22 minutes. So far: highly recommended.


When I first discovered Music for 18 musicians, it's all I'd listen to while working and commuting for weeks and weeks.


What most recent topic in the field of programming languages, or computing more broadly, have you changed your mind about in a substantial way?


How? Только != Тока


"Тока" is a misspelling of "только" which you frequently encounter because in fast speech, that "ль" doesn't get pronounced.

Sometimes, it's deliberate; the writer is going for the effect of transcribing colloquial speech - like in English, you might write "innit" instead of "isn't it" to render a casual spoken conversation.

And sometimes, it's a sign of a illiteracy - like in English, when people write "should of" instead of "should have" because it sounds the same and they don't know any better.


I agree it sounds similar, I was just pointing out that it's likely a reference to the plasma device and not a comment on Mac computers.


Given that the tagline for the project is "Fusion Reactor for Rust," I'd guess that the project's name is designed to read to English speakers as "Tokamak" while maintaining a "Russian flavor."

EDIT: Not being a Russian speaker, I completely misunderstood this comment -- I apologize for my blithe ignorance.


Rust is iron oxide. The project namers weren't thinking about astrophysics. If you fuse iron, you wind up with less energy than you had before.


The oxygen is perfectly fusible, at least if you're a star. Less so in foreseeable tokamak designs.

Not to mention the iron hydroxide in rust.


Slightly related, but I had a small epiphany when taking a class on DSP on Coursera. The kernel that is used to blur an image and that which is used to remove the treble/high frequencies from an audio sample are identical, except one is in 2 dimensions and the other is in 1. And this makes perfect sense! A low pass filter removes high frequencies, and sharp edges are high frequencies in the 2D plane.

TFA only mentions Gaussian blur, but a Gaussian blur is just a moving average, with "closer" pixels being valued higher, plus a smooth falloff. When you replace each value with an average of its neighborhood, you "soften" the transitions.


One of the remarkable things about the Gaussian function is that its Fourier transform is also a Gaussian. A Gaussian blur means to convolve a function with the Gaussian. Convolution in the frequency (Fourier) domain is multiplication. Since the Gaussian goes to zero rapidly as you move away from zero, high-frequency components get attenuated whereas low-frequency stuff are preserved.


A pretty interesting point made here last year is that picking x, y, z coordinates from three orthogonal gaussian distributions results in a spherically symmetrical distribution. https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=9446126


Yes, this is the separability property of the Gaussian. It makes it easy to compute Gaussian blur as compared to, say, the circular pillbox filter (lens blur or bokeh simulation) because you can just convolve it different times separately in each dimension. So, blurring an n by n image with a Gaussian of size h would only take O(n^2 h) instead of O(n^2 h^2). When h is large compared to log n, you can use the property I mentioned in my previous comment and do the Fast Fourier transform on the columns and rows of the image to improve time complexity to O(n^2 log n). It doesn't have to be a symmetrical distribution either; but in the general case with a multivariate Gaussian with some d-dimensional covariance matrix S, you'd have to rotate the data to align with the eigenvectors of S, which is lossy.

The rectangular pillbox filter also has the separable property. So does the parallelogram pillbox filter (albeit also rotated), which, by extension, allows us to do blurring by a hexagon (sum of three parallelograms) which can be used to simulate cool-looking bokeh [1].

[1] McIntosh, L., Bernhard E. Riecke, and Steve DiPaola. "Efficiently Simulating the Bokeh of Polygonal Apertures in a Post‐Process Depth of Field Shader." Computer Graphics Forum. Vol. 31. No. 6. Blackwell Publishing Ltd, 2012. http://ivizlab.sfu.ca/media/DiPaolaMcIntoshRiecke2012.pdf


Gaussian blur is the same equation as of the normal distribution. so basically it's a bell curve in one or two dimensions.


it doesn't actually have to be 1 or 2, it can be generalized for n like many distributions. Depends on the context


When you start to look at things as waves a lot changes.


Could you expand on that?


May I ask which Coursera course that was?


i would presume https://www.coursera.org/course/dsp which was pretty good when I did it - https://www.coursera.org/course/images also covered some similar things


That looks like it, great, thanks.

The reason why I'm asking instead of searching on Coursera is that Coursera has become increasingly hard to search, at least in my view, so it's easier to ask directly.


I have a bunch of audio friends that love to do glitch art by processing images in audio processes.

Something like this: https://questionsomething.wordpress.com/2012/07/26/databendi...


Gaussian blur is a low-pass filter.


*is a kind of/is an example of


For anyone interested in DSP, the Coursera DSP class is superbly well done: https://www.coursera.org/course/dsp


It is. ssh-agent caches it though.


Consider applying for YC's Fall 2025 batch! Applications are open till Aug 4

Guidelines | FAQ | Lists | API | Security | Legal | Apply to YC | Contact

Search: