> the first example is “buttons with corrected icon spacing”, and the image on the right looks much better than the one on the left

For me the better image appears on the left.

The left image has the icon in the centre of the radius and the right image has it in a random place.

But it's the concrete that has been listed and not the various forms of art performed there.

Similarly, a road that is frequently travelled by risky drivers is a risky road!

For some reason I was expecting a large wheel hub.

Neat. I did a related project a little while ago. I wasn't interested in how far I can see from everywhere, so much as what I can see from one place in particular.

So in mine you can click on a spot and it draws black lines over any land that is occluded by terrain, within 100km.

(But all with AI-generated JavaScript, not cool Rust and SIMD stuff)

https://incoherency.co.uk/line-of-sight-map/

I am not sure if I'm experiencing what you describe. I just see a radiating circle of black lines, no matter where I click. I decided to click a local, notable "long line" viewpoint -- Lick Observatory outside San Jose. From here, on a clear day, you can see Half Dome in Yosemite, 120mi away. I still just see a black circle.

Are you standing on a raised platform when you see the Half Dome?

This is what I get when I set the observer height to 20m, and increase the "max distance" to 300km (200km = ~124 miles so may not be enough).

https://img.incoherency.co.uk/6478

It's also possible that the half dome is too short and the sampling rate of the line-of-sight jumps over it!

It seems that sometimes it fails to load the height map, try reloading the page. You should see terrain shading if it's loaded properly.

I think the lines indicate areas that you can't see?

It's buggy. Mission peak shows much of the bay area occluded.

Isn't cross language function calling expensive? I assume it is significant.

It is a common saying, but the saying is "couldn't care less"

They are commonly used synonymously. English as she is spoke is not a logical language.

https://www.merriam-webster.com/grammar/could-couldnt-care-l...

https://dictionary.cambridge.org/dictionary/english/could-ca...

The only confusion is in the use of the term "woodworking".

For the power tool user, "woodworking with hand tools" isn't their craft.

For the CNC user, "woodworking with manual machines" isn't their craft.

Conversely, https://www.astralcodexten.com/p/come-on-obviously-the-purpo...

Scott aggressively missing the point of Beer’s maxim is not a counter-argument. Making a specific point would be more persuasive than a mere link.

I don't have a view on the main thrust of the comment, but "the purpose of a system is what it does" is very obviously wrong (as detailed in the linked blog post) and that is what I was responding to.

I believe we say "the purpose of a system is what it does" is to also poke at the fact that there are mechanisms and design decisions (tradeoffs) at play that lead to certain results, and that if we want to change outcomes, we need to change the system.

Votes matter more in some systems than others. Preference voting allows for smaller parties to more easily gain seats while first-past-the-post supports two-party systems. In the UK and AU, the prime minister must hold a seat, and so can be removed from parliament through (a subset of) citizen votes removing them from their seat, even if the majority party stays in power. In the US, the President (who can issue executive orders) is elected by an electoral college--none of whom are directly elected by citizen votes. Maybe it's not a big conspiracy, but these systems are doing what they are known to do, and will do so unless they are changed.

Of course there are systems in place to change these systems, which are also quite hard to utilise. And strangely (or not), no one is rushing to improve voter power and representation. So there's some interesting questions there around what changes can be made that would best improve representation, and what could be blocking those changes from being made.

> But it doesn't matter, because LLMs that try to use a class will get an error message and rewrite their code to not use classes instead.

This is true in a sense, but every little papercut at the lower levels of abstraction degrades performance at higher levels as the LLM needs to spend its efforts on hacking around jank in the Python interpreter instead of solving the real problem.

It is a workaround, so we can assume that this will be temporary and in the future the ai will then start using them once it can. Probably just like we would do.

Thw entire AI stack is built on a lot of "assumes" about intelligent selection.

Reminds of evolutionary debate. Whats important is just because something can learn to adapt doesnt mean theyll find an optimized adaption, nor will they continually refine it.

As far as i can tell AI will only solve problems well where the problem space is properly defined. Most people wont know how to do that.

Is this a parody? It seems obviously made-up but the other comments seem to be taking it at face value?

> Re-read it again and again until you get it.

OK, now I get it.

"This is my room. This isn't your room. I'm the most important person here. You should be honoured to be standing in the same room as me. But you're not here to help make decisions. I already made the decisions. Good luck"

Right? "Go find outsized success, but I'm going to put a non negotiable cap on the size. You can pick a bad direction for good reasons, but only you will be responsible if there are no good directions."

To be more clear: Failure can happen due to both internal and external forces. This advice enshrines internal power structures and ensures their systemic faults are permanent. It's not a seat at the table if you don't have a say.

To be fair although he did say he was seated, he wasn't clear as to whether the seat was at a table or not.