jongala

Very nice post, I think it captures and expresses things that many people in the software and design worlds have thought about a lot in the last couple of years.

I don't fully agree with it — for one thing, I think you can develop taste in a field without actively participating, but you have to engage with it beyond passive consumption. Basically: I think it's possible to be a good movie critic without making movies yourself. Given the collapse of the friction/effort side of things, I think that is really worth unpacking.

I have to say I find the debates about the post's style and em dashes pretty disheartening. There have always been plenty of good jokes to be made about HN's culture, but wow. For a community that has been snarky about fools counting lines of code for 40 years to be out here counting em dashes is pretty damning.

Hilary Hahn did the same thing a few years ago. In one case, played a movement from a sonata that wasn't in the program, and in another replayed a movement from earlier. Both very interesting, and fantastic performances!

> Super Resolution is used in many fields like surveillance, medical industry, forensic and satellite imaging applications.

Computer, generate a list of applications where technology like this should absolutely not be used.

This seems terrifying — wouldn't this, for example, synthesize identifying details about motor vehicles not present in the sample, drawn from training data? About people? Etc etc

This sounds awesome for making a consumer mapping product feel higher quality. Hell, it could even serve an anonymizing function that is pro-privacy ("a roof" not "your roof"). But it feels incredibly reckless to direct this toward those listed industries.

People in surveillance and forensics etc. should be confronted with the limits of the quality of the data they are using, we should not try to synthesize extra confidence in their analysis by making the images seem higher quality than they are.

OK nice. A symlink will go a long way for the average user. The way I read the article it seemed like they would rely solely on the Locations list in finder sidebars.

IMO the other really big deal here is that ~/Library is a hidden folder by default. For most users Dropbox will only be exposed under the "Locations" section in finder sidebars. That feels like a huge regression to me — the whole idea of Dropbox was "a folder, that syncs." An invisible folder that syncs is much worse!

I'm not trying to talk you out of any criticisms of the OS, but just FYI: you can drag files onto app icons in cmd-tab, too. Start dragging, hit cmd-tab, and then hold cmd. The app icons hang around until you release cmd, and you can drop files on them.

I use this all the time to handle things like text, images, pdf etc to open them in non-default apps. I find this a lot easier than dealing with the dock. Hope this helps!

I agree, it feels like a missed opportunity to not explore this. I'd love to see an analysis of the swirl design (or other commonly used manufacturer patterns), with the edges rounded or beveled on the intake face, exhaust face, or both.

Like, even on cut or stamped grills, how much could performance be improved by e.g. sandblasting the finished piece from one or both sides and taking down the edges a bit?

It will be around for a while, as noted in the comments on the article: IEEE 1394B was used in the F-22 and F-35, so unless those are retrofitted the standard will be propped up in some form for decades.

I don't understand the suggestion that cooperation and complex social systems are the province of primates. Haven't they heard of dogs, cats, pigs, deer, or the countless other animals that hunt or defend themselves cooperatively, and which have complex hierarchies in group behavior?

Yeah that's how I'm reading it but then I guess the question then becomes whether the projections were made specifically with a hedge fund strategy in mind or if they would have been the same for a more conventional investment approach.

I'm not trying to discount the take-away that the fees are very high regardless of the projection basis, but I think it's important to understand the difference. If these criticisms are not clearly reasoned or communicated, I think that fuels the perception in the financial community that these complaints are hysterical and unfounded and should be dismissed.

Can someone clarify this? Because the article explains:

> "Over the last 10 years, the return on those “public asset classes” has surpassed expectations by more than $2 billion, according to the comptroller’s analysis. But nearly all of that extra gain — about 97 percent — has been eaten up by management fees, leaving just $40 million for the retirees, it found."

Note "surpassed expectations" in there. That makes it sound not like the total return was $2B but that the return was $2B above projections, and after fees this was functionally erased leaving return at projected level. Am I misunderstanding the language here?