runnerup

> No. The first page is the "fact sheet." The other 693 pages is the rule-making document.

You are incredibly rude for someone who is also incredibly wrong. It is strange that whenever we are one of those, we all seem far more likely to be the other as well.

Only the last two pages before the appendix is "the rule-making document", and the 4 pages of appendix A - just six pages in total. The rest is a dialogue on why the rules are needed and provide context to understand the intent of the rules. The rule starts at "X. ORDERING CLAUSES" on page 394 and is less than 2 pages long in total. It will also be necessary to fill in references made to "Appendix A" which is an additional 4 pages (397-401).

It's not surprising to me that both you and the other poster couldn't figure this out -- it's very easy to miss a section so small when it's titled similarly to sections like "IV. ORDER: FORBEARANCE FOR BROADBAND INTERNET ACCESS SERVICES" which are mostly discussion. That contains language like:

> Petitioners ask that the Commission reverse, vacate, or withdraw the RIF Remand Order, and request that the Commission initiate a new rulemaking to reclassify BIAS as a Title II service and reinstate the open Internet conduct rules. Collectively, petitioners make several procedural arguments for why the Commission should reconsider the RIF Remand Order. Common Cause et al. and Public Knowledge each assert that procedural deficiencies in the process the Commission used to adopt the RIF Remand Order are cause for reconsideration. Common Cause et al. argue that because the Commission failed to open the record to receive comment on the impact of the COVID-19 pandemic, it failed to adequately consider harms of reclassifying BIAS as a Title I service on public safety, pole attachments, and the Lifeline program.

Which is clearly not an order - it is a discussion with a goal towards justifying parts of the order.

There are also only 434 pages. Not anywhere close to "693". It would be very rude of me to point out that you might be "unable to read past the table of contents". To the contrary, I understand that it's easy to misinterpret the indexing of the table of contents as pages rather than sections, and I have empathy for someone making that mistake, even if it does demonstrate that someone probably hasn't tried to use the table of contents to actually read the document.

This is great wisdom for software. I’ll definitely carry this parable with me.

> Some apps deviate from this but that isn’t the fault of iOS.

Then I suppose it's the fault of the App Store reviewers. The point is that Android handles the activity stack on the OS level and has much stronger control over what a back button does.

Makes me want to build an FPS games from the ground up with only audio and no video!

I remember another post that was very well-received where an individual hacker wrote his own homebrew iMessage client for his own personal purposes. HN really liked that!

I think HN exists at an intersection of individual hackerism and business. If a project is clearly by-hackers-for-hackers it gets a lot more leeway for unsustainable concepts / implementations. But this is building a business on adversarial interoperability, and many people who LOVE the concept and technical achievements will still post mostly critical things about the business model because it’s fairly clearly a very very challenging business model.

Also just realized it could be an FTC violation.

Maybe the “right” grayhat/blackhat way to handle it is to use high-quality, convincing sock puppet accounts to manufacture consensus against the “conspiracy theorists”. It’s not ethical but its the more effective alternative if you’re already at the point of locking threads where people continue to point out that you still haven't fixed the problem.

I still dont think its normal to resort to violence just because someone will only make $400,000 this year instead of $4 million as a result of whistleblowing. Or even no change to their income but their company will make less profit as a result of whistleblowing. Or they’ll “be embarassed” as in the case of eBay.

That’s not a “threat” - they’re in no danger.

I love all his videos. But this one is amazingly mind-expanding. Thanks to his previous videos and a fluids engineering background, I had the right intuition for what would occur...but holy shit his experimental method was so far beyond what I expected. I kept wondering how he was going to show us the level of detail he was teasing in the title and introduction, and seeing the resulting visualization was just so incredible and inspirational.

Really he may be the best technical YouTuber for true nerds who don't want things dumbed-down but still want it to be reasonably accessible.

Digital simplifies the design a great deal. Analog you have to worry about so, so many things. With digital, as long as the levels aren't too out of whack, you can "just" focus on the theoretical logic and ignore most real-world effects.

I say "just" not only because the theoretical logic is still fiendishly complex, but also because there are still real-world effects and flaws in your components which both rear their ugly head often (all abstractions are leaky). You can never completely ignore the analog world, but digital design is almost always much, much simpler than analog for anything beyond rudimentary levels of complexity.

Obviously if you're designing the silicon for digital components, you care very much about the analog reality of signals. But those silicon wizards are the ones who are building the digital abstraction of the analog world so that the rest of us can "safely" ignore it, mostly.

> The design of MLX is inspired by frameworks like PyTorch, Jax, and ArrayFire. A noteable difference from these frameworks and MLX is the unified memory model. Arrays in MLX live in shared memory. Operations on MLX arrays can be performed on any of the supported device types without performing data copies. Currently supported device types are the CPU and GPU.

Weird and unfortunate that a framework made by Apple for Apple Silicon doesn't support targeting the Apple Neural Engine.

You figure he’s driving the culture at SpaceX more than Gwynne Shotwell is?

This site hasnt worked for me for 2+ months. Stuck on captcha.