zero_iq

The user experience accessing YouTube through a web browser on a TV (the main target audience for SmartTube) is less than ideal.

TV and set-top box browsers tend to be slow and fiddly to use from a TV remote. (And often running on underpowered hardware).

I've seen ChatGPT get stuck in this loop all by itself, generating a long multi-page answer where it constantly catches itself, refutes itself, offers a new answer with the same problem, rinse and repeat... All in the same response!

Because competent lawyers tend to adhere to professional standards and codes of ethics, which makes them more selective in the work and clients they take on.

One possibility is to replace part of the battery. The smaller battery can be designed to lie about its charge, or you can replace with a higher energy-density battery and use the space saved for a detonation system (perhaps even incorporating the battery itself into this) and a small quantity of high explosive, which is pretty stable and safe until detonated. Contrary to popular belief, high explosives are actually relatively safe, and usually even burn safely or are hard to ignite at all in some cases. Package it up into something that looks identical to an unmodified battery. Modify device firmware and battery control circuitry to detonate it on receipt of a specific signal and... boom.

It's also at least as expensive as more advanced machines you can buy already-assembled.

If this was half the price, I might be interested. But if I wanted a coffee maker with open source control, I'd probably just hack an existing cheaper product. And I'm someone who absolutely loves assembling stuff from kits!

Heck, I'd be surprised if someone hasn't already got Doom running on a Sage.

72057594037927936 addresses ought to be enough for anybody... ;)

The models do a pretty good job at rendering plausible global illumination, radiosity, reflections, caustics, etc. in a whole bunch of scenarios. It's not necessarily physically accurate (usually not in fact), but usually good enough to trick the human brain unless you start paying very close attention to details, angles, etc.

This fascinated me when SD was first released, so I tested a whole bunch of scenarios. While it's quite easy to find situations that don't provide accurate results and produce all manner of glitches (some of which you can use to detect some SD-produced images), the results are nearly always convincing at a quick glance.

No, it doesn't.

The phone doesn't need to broadcast anything to control the drone directly. The phone talks to the remote control unit, which is what broadcasts signals to control the drone. You don't need wifi or mobile internet, or even bluetooth to fly a DJI drone (the phone connects by cable to the remote control unit).

(Actually, that's not 100% true -- if you're in a locked zone that requires permission to fly (such as near airfields or other protected sites), you will need internet access to start your flight and unlock the zone using your DJI account. Otherwise the drone may refuse to fly into restricted zones.)

You don't even need the phone at all -- the remote unit is quite capable of controlling the drone in flight with the phone switched off.

Also worth noting that, unlike physical objects, images are not bound by the speed of light. Patterns of light and shadow can move across a sensor at unrestricted speeds.

Possible evidence for this sort of thing in Peru too: "doorways" carved into rock faces etc. at local spiritual sites ("huacas") although little solid evidence of what they were actually used for, or exactly how old they are.

In general no, but the provided example depends on parallel memory accesses at the cache level, so cache effects can indeed come into play with instruction-level parallelism. Did you just miss this detail in the article, or are you suggesting it's wrong?

My hypothesis: it's a kind of performance art... All AI responses, with your score given randomly with a win probability of two-thirds.

Article should be called "Totally Expected Downsides..."

If you want temporal locality, use ULIDs instead.

That's true for very large spaces/distances (except at night) where atmospheric scattering comes into play, but consider looking at a flat surface with stacks of objects on it. Lower elements are typically more occluded from lighting due to shadows from higher and neighbouring objects (ambient occlusion), with objects closer to you getting more illumination.

The brain is known to make use of such cues to gauge depth, and it's used in several optical illusions. (You can even make use of this principle with flash photography techniques to create approximate depth maps for surfaces. It's quite effective.)

I would argue that a model based on close distances of stacked items (e.g. stack bits of card or paper) is generally a better model than one based on large outdoor spaces, as it is a closer analogy in most situations. (Reading on-screen being reading off a relatively-close surface.)

But both can work. Look at screenshots of a game such as Spelunky: dark backgrounds, light foreground objects. The eye is drawn to the lighter surfaces and can ignore the darker background. But if the background was a distant landscape (e.g. Rastan -- don't know why that was my first thought... showing my age!), rather than a relatively close cave wall, your approach of desaturated lighter backgrounds might work just as well, as it would be more realistic. And at night, the opposite would be true.

The last time I coded something along these lines was way back in the day for pulsing the Amiga's power/disk drive LEDs in time to music and sound effects, instead of their usual on/off/half brightness states. Not quite so useful, but I remember having fun coding it :D I was surprised at just how effective it was, without any noticeable flicker.