phkahler

>> Paying 0.055 EUR per GB of traffic sent to French residents makes video streaming fundamentally unprofitable.

How so? If you're paying a few EUR to watch a movie there's should be plenty of profit left.

How is it possible to collect enough of this stuff? Seems like it would not be financially viable product.

Pretty strict board requirements. They give an example motor controller, but then require your board to be 1oz copper. Motor controllers in particular often use 2oz for high current. No buried vias is an interesting requirement too. I'm not sure how often our guys use them but dense designs probably need them.

Still, looks super cool and I don't think the price difference is very high for a company doing prototypes.

>> OpenAI is explicitly not taking credit, btw.

We have a big announcement! But we are not taking credit.

We or organizing all these people to figure out how to process our latest fabulous output. But we didn't do anything? Nope, no credit here.

I dont recall being graded on math homework in college. Its the recommended practice for exams.

59 wafers for kimi?!?! That sounds like some kind of architecture problem to me. I suppose if they're after a high tokens per second and this allows them to run a lot of agents at once and at high speed it might be ok.

Demon Seed holds up pretty well asking how far the AI will go to escape. IIRC it is considered horror.

>> I've wondered for a long time why ear clipping + optimizations has won on triangulation over stuff like Seidel's trapezoidal method, which has O(nlogn) time complexity

In solvespace we use a simple ear clipping algorithm but I'd love to have something O(nlog(n)).

I have yet to see one that's both small and comprehensible ;-) If I were to attempt it, I'd just add a spatial index to make the check for anything inside a triangle O(log(n)) and make sure we check for new ears adjacent to clipped ears. With that it should be n*log(n), but my old spatial index is 3D and on a HD somewhere.

I have yet to see a model of galaxy rotation that doesn't use the shell theorem, which does not apply to disks. I've seen it in very advanced (over my head) math stuff on Wikipedia.

Im half convinced its gonna be a stupid mistake like that. Whoever finds the correct "advanced" math that allows the mistake to be brushed under the rug could get a Nobel prize.

Yes

>> Very interested in SolveSpace's progress on this really

Its good progress but still too easy to have a failed boolean. Previously you had to know how to work around bugs to cut a fillet off an edge. Now thats pretty easy and robust, but as soon as you do two of them that intersect there may be a problem. Like you said, the list of corner cases never end. I suspect a bit more Claude use might fix that one too.

About a year ago I challenged folks to move solvespace from GTK3 to GTK4. People here were highly skeptical as I was. A couple people tried and the PRs I got were terrible. A few months ago someone did it with Claude and we now have a very nice GTK4 branch which I hope to merge soon. AI has come a long way.

I don't see this moving very fast. On Solvespace we recently had a bunch of commits by Claude to fix NURBS boolean issues. The analysis was actually very impressive and most of the fixes were accepted after a lot of review by multiple experts on the code. I don't see this project getting far on the hard problems they still have open.

IMHO they should have had AI convert OCCT kernel to rust, or just wrap it and use as-is.

BTW we are on the verge of solvespace 3.3 with those AI fixes. After that I'm adding the named parameters that have been prototypes 12 times already. There are also a couple forks out there with MCP server added, but I want to focus on missing features.

Risks have been proposed. Consequences can range from nearly nothing up to world ending. OTOH there is zero upside. Obviously mirror life should be possible but there is no upside in actually making it other than to stroke someone's ego.