brianshaler

I think the point GP was making was that the co-founder was basing their judgment secondhand from stories from friends and headlines.

Another bit I found peculiar was the mentions of anarchism while seeming to have a rigid idea of what the event should or should not be. It's certainly far less anarchistic today—placements, permits, law enforcement—but it's not exactly anarchism to say it isn't allowed to evolve to fit the scale and culture of the participants.

I assure you I don't have any wishes one way or another.

What tickled me into making the comment above had nothing to do with whether adoption rate was used by the author (or is used generally) to mean market penetration or the rate of adoption. It was because a visual aid that is labeled ambiguously enough to support the exact opposite perspective was used as a basis for clearing up any ambiguity.

The purpose of a time series chart is necessarily time-derivative, as the slope or shape of the line is generally the focus (is a value trending upward, downward, varying seasonally, etc). It's fair to include or omit a label on the dependent axis. If omitted, it's also fair to label the chart as the dependent variable and also to let the "... over time" be implicit.

However, when the dependent axis is not explicitly labeled and "over time" is left implicit, it's absolutely hilarious to me to point to it and say it clearly shows that the chart's title is or is not time-derivative.

I know comment sections are generally for heated debates trying to prove right and wrong, but sometimes it's nice to be able to muse for a moment on funny things like this.

There's another axis on the charts.

> Have you read the graphs?

Yes. The title specifically is beautiful. The charts aren't nearly as interesting, though probably a bit more than a meta discussion on whether certain time intervals align with one interpretation of the author's intent or another.

It maps pretty cleanly to the well understood derivatives of a position vector. Position (user count), velocity (first derivative, change in user count over time), acceleration (second derivative, speeding up or flattening of the velocity), and jerk (third derivative, change in acceleration such as the shift between from acceleration to deceleration)

It really is a beautiful title.

> What is the price of a Carice TC2?

> Prices for a TC2 start at €44.500 excluding taxes (€53.854 including 21% btw/Dutch tax).

I think that's nearly exactly what I paid for 2x32GB at a retail store last week. I hadn't bought RAM in over a decade so I didn't think anything of it. Wish my emergency PC replacement had occurred a year earlier!

In 2008 I was given 2 offers from a company: WFH or paid relocation to work in-office. I chose the former, which came with a 26% lower salary, and have been remote ever since. Just comparing the salaries in that case is a little disingenuous, however, since the relocation was from a low cost of living city to a high cost of living city.

A large impact on the extent to which WFH may need to come at a discount is specialization: If you're easily replaceable with an in-office worker, why would the company deal with remote? If you're not so easily replaceable, the company is more likely to be willing to work with you on your terms.

There's generally been a large disconnect between the job market in the tech sector and the rest of the economy, at least until a few years ago. There's now much more of a bifurcation within the tech job market, where rank-and-file and entry level software engineers are suffering while experienced and specialized software engineers may be doing better than ever. This plays into the RTO/WFH discussion because some people may not have the option to get their preference at any discount, or given either option in the first place.

You can use spherical harmonics to encode a few coefficients in addition to the base RGB for each splat such that the rendertime view direction can be used to compute an output RGB. A "reflection" in 3DGS isn't a light ray being traced off the surface, but instead a way of saying "when viewed from this angle, the splat may take an object's base color, while from that angle, the splat may be white because the input image had glare"

This ends up being very effective with interpolation between known viewpoints, and hit-or-miss extrapolation beyond known viewpoints.

This is a little off-topic and nitpicky, so I waited a day to avoid cluttering comments while the thread was on the front page..

I believe the term "going concern" means exactly the opposite of what you were trying to say here. Generally, comments about pedantry aren't helpful or uninteresting. This case was amusing to me in the context of assuring people Cohere is likely to stay around by boldly stating Cohere is at risk of being insolvent or ceasing operations ("Cohere is not a going concern"). Beyond that, I think it's pretty interesting how understandable it is to look at the term without knowing its meaning and assume the presence of the word "concern" must mean people are concerned about it going [bankrupt?].

I'm sure given the context nobody got the wrong impression. If anything, it makes me wonder if the term could, at least in informal contexts, reach a point of semantic inversion.

> can't justify buying two watches

I managed to eke out a couple more years after Pebbles were discontinued by finding replacements on ebay. If this is a low volume run, I'm contemplating the opposite—whether I can justify not buying multiple while I still can.

It's absolutely essential to be able to differentiate between gross profit and net profit to establish unit economics, especially as the scale of a newly founded operation may drastically change relative to some amount of fixed capex or SG&A expense.

Re the second quote and response:

One pattern I bump up against from time to time is the delta between using a perfectly defensible technique for a given use-case (safe delimiters when constructing an input for a specific function) versus a desire to have each decision be driven by some universal law (e.g. "if you're streaming data between services, using null bytes as delimiters might not be safe if consuming services may truncate at null bytes, so NEVER use null bytes as delimiters because they can be unsafe")

It's not even a matter of one "side" being right or wrong. You can simultaneously be right that this is perfectly safe in this use-case, while someone else can be right to be concerned ("need to consider possible") because the code will forever be one refactor or copy/paste away from this concatenated string being re-used somewhere else.

I'd rather have flagship specs in a smaller package. The smallest in the iPhone (SE) and Pixel ("A"?) lines are still too big and tend to have previous-gen specs