I build my entire career doing exactly this and after three decades in the industry, last one as a contractor, this is one of the very core things I do…
Sad that autism has become such a trend. I have a niece on the spectrum and it was obvious at a very young age luckily she is more high functioning now via years of therapy.
No one wants to hear it but there is a vast difference between those on the spectrum and those not. I am in tech and i have never met anyone autistic. This is because the sad reality is that autism makes it that hard to hold down a job even if high functioning.
It is grossly over exaggerated by many and used as an excuse. This is not saying anyone here does that but in media it is extremely common. This only makes it harder for those who do suffer from it. The majority of autism stereotypes are almost all on the high functioning side. Closer to the low functioning side, it is very sad.
People are tired of being forced to do bullshit meaningless or net negative stuff, obey people they don't respect on a deeper level etc. People live in a way like captive animals in a zoo. Everything is urgent, the sky is falling, but all behind a glass screen.
But the only vocabulary they have to express all this is therapy speak and mental health. So everyone has ADHD, autism, PTSD, anxiety, depression, bipolar and more. When it's often actually a lack of purpose, a lack of enduring value, being a standardized cog in a machine, ripped of context and roots, atomized, etc. But this is not valid vocabulary, we are modern people, we have chemical imbalances and not nonsense medieval concepts. Medical labels still have power even in a lifeless bureaucratic corporate HR hellscape. Medical diagnoses and credible claims of unsafe work environments. Anything else, they sleep. These two and they listen.
> we have chemical imbalances and not nonsense medieval concepts
That is not how the brain works. The whole chemical imbalances thing is a gross over-simplification. Honestly how it is used in pop science is often very analogues to the medieval theory of Humorism.
> When it's often actually a lack of purpose, a lack of enduring value, being a standardized cog in a machine
If you are subjected to an toxic environment it is a very healthy and good reaction to be unhappy about this.
Yes, psychologist mostly focus on the individual. That is their job. They can't fix unemployment, alienation of labor and so on. Those are societal issues that need political solutions.
However, this does not mean ADHD, autism, PTSD and so on are not real issues.
If I lived in a perfect utopia, I would still have ADHD. If ADHD were made up, why do my genetic children also have a 40% chance of having ADHD? Why would that not be true if I adopted someone?
These are real and disabling things that need specific treatment.
I agree with most of this. Though it gets really conceptually murky what a mental illness is and the DSM diagnosis checklists are quite different from how diagnoses work in "body"-medicine. The psychiatrist blogger Scott Alexander has written a lot about this.
For the common person, psychology and therapy are a new skin on spiritual guidance, shamanism, or rituals like Catholic confession.
> That is not how the brain works. The whole chemical imbalances thing is a gross over-simplification
I know and I was implying disagreement by the placement of that sentence in the context. I was trying to present what the common notion is. If it's a chemical imbalance, it can't be your fault. We trust science, we are physicalists. It has to be imagined as some miswiring or chemical problem for it to be respectable and taken seriously.
> If I lived in a perfect utopia, I would still have ADHD. If ADHD were made up, why do my genetic children also have a 40% chance of having ADHD? Why would that not be true if I adopted someone?
Personality and temperament differences exist yes. What we decide to label as a disease diagnosis is an entirely orthogonal question. ADHD is often diagnosed in rigid school environments that look nothing like homo sapiens' evolved natural habitat. It's not necessarily a disease not to flourish there. Yes I understand that given the environment, it makes sense to try to help as best as we can, and we can't single-handedly change society with a magic wand. Of course.
Ok, I slightly misunderstood and I see now better where you are coming from.
Yes, you are not wrong but as a ADHD person it comes off as super invalidating.
It is kind of like discussions where gender radical people tell to trans people that gender is just a social construct. Like it is but that doesn't exactly help trans people.
I mean I am sure you recognize this as you wrote.
> Yes I understand that given the environment, it makes sense to try to help as best as we can, and we can't single-handedly change society with a magic wand. Of course.
Still, I do believe that you massively overstate socially constructed aspect of having ADHD and underestimate the physical reality of it.
Yes, my environment makes a huge huge difference. But, as someone who was diagnosed very late in life, it was always with me. Even when I was alone. Even when I thrived. It is a fundamental part of who I am.
Not having a diagnosis earlier set up for constant spirals of failure, for internalized self hate. It did not allow me to find strategies to cope effectively.
I couldn't find or build the environment I needed because I didn't know my needs. This is why the diagnosis must come first.
ADHD is a disability and it is a real as being deaf or not being able to walk.
Once this is on the table, it's hard answer in a way that doesn't come across as being the asshole. But that's kind of my point. People tie identities and emotions to labels. It reframes how people react. Since it's real, you're given support. If it were fake, you'd get scolded. The shift in view that I got from Scott Alexander is that the arrow points the other way around. Since we see people who can benefit from some support, and we generally don't want to be assholes and want the support to be paid by insurance etc, we have to declare the thing as a Disease(TM). But this categorization is in good part necessary due to the bureaucratic system we live in. There are many ways that societies have conceptualized such things. All the way to demon possession. In comparison blindness is much easier to understand mechanistically.
No. Knowing that I have ADHD is something that would benefit me even if I spend the rest of my life on a remote island with no human contact. Yes it is as real as blindness.
> But the only vocabulary they have to express all this is therapy speak
What? I deal with all of that and more at work, and I just roll my eyes (to myself) and think "it's a paycheck."
If you're lucky you might find a sense of purpose and value at work but it's not really normal from what I've experienced. Even if you like the people you work with, the job itself is probably mostly bullshit. The only jobs I've had that weren't were the jobs that had very standardized tasks: making burgers, framing walls, painting, cutting grass. There's not much bullshit in those jobs because it's very clear what you are there to do. And you can turn around at the end of the day and look at the wall you built. That doesn't mean you might not feel like a cog in a machine.
IMO most people should find purpose and value outside of work. Work is just how you pay for those things.
I think this is true with many tools but pronounced here with how ubiquitous language is. For most of human history most people could not read and write. Given llm interaction is almost exclusively written we may take a small step back where a mass of people are lazy using shortcuts and others are not.
It already is, most of my friends don't read anything beyond social networks anymore. This is already happening and was in progress long before LLMs, they are mostly fast tracking the process.
Just the other day, someone saw a pile of textbooks in my room and commented incredulously that I ‘still learn things from books?’
It was one of the most jarringly alien things I’ve ever heard, like being told that everyone has moved on from toilet paper to just using their hands, but I missed the memo.
I can't imagine. I get so much gratification from reading all kinds of things. I enjoy a bit of stuff like this, but to go without things like science fiction, research papers, fantasy, other novels... I'd feel like there was so much missing.
Perhaps Americanized isnt the right term. Fundamentally, there is something at play where the more “known” the less magical the brain is. That is, it doesnt have to think outside the box because the box is seemingly fully explored.
Why do hard thing when everyone says hard thing is too hard. What if there was no everyone? Is thing that hard?
I dont think original thinking is going to go away but i do think it will be owned by those who control the all thing which absorbs it from the mass of information.
Yes, completely agree. Marshall Mcluhan used the term "extensions of man" in the subtitle for "Understanding Media" to refer to information technology (in his day, TV). He said that in the same way a car or our clothes become an extension of our bodies, information technology becomes an extension of our central nervous system, and as the world becomes more connected through information, we begin to form a global village, where people on the other side of the country or even the earth begin to share a common memetic understanding. Things far away become immediate and personal and the layers which we filter them through become thinner, giving a kind of sameness to how we react to new information
This uses a simple delta time to smooth updates across frames rather than attempting something more formal. Based on the sister comment I think this is actually Semi-implicit Euler which still makes me an idiot.
If you're doing semi-implicit Euler that's pretty good, per gaffer's article, semi-implicit Euler has the advantage of being symplectic, i.e. its an integration method that conserves the total energy of the system you are simulating (energy conservation! physicists love it!).
the particle motion in your videos looks reasonably natural, there's no obvious signs of particles seemingly gaining energy from nothing (apart from when they are perturbed by the mouse cursor), so as the resulting motion looks natural, what you are doing is fine and there's no actual problem you need to solve.
if instead of simulating independent particles you were trying to accurately simulate cloth or a deformable rigid body e.g. a metallic object crashing into something, where each node in your cloth / rigid body was a particle tethered to its neighbours, that might be a whole different can of worms and justify looking into RK4 or implicit Euler where you need to solve a big linear system of equations each timestep. but you're not doing that, so no need to overcomplicate things!
Let's bear in mind that Australians call their best friends Good Cunts, and try to take it the best possible way :D I don't even disagree with him, it's just too easy to do better.
The friction/damping term you've added is absolutely necessary to counteract the systematic energy gain from Euler integration, and with better integration, you need less / no unphysical damping, leading to more of that delicious chaotic behaviour we're all looking for.
You can even cheese this with infinite amount of computation if you wanted to do it braindead style (which is still super instructive!), by just repeating the step function with a scaled-down dt until the position components agree to within some tolerance.
The rest is an incredibly deep rabbithole, which I've been enjoying since decades :D
I did try a large variety of encodings and the best was delta encoding frames followed by RLE encoding similar to what you describe. It did pretty well. However, when things start to move, it only shaved ~10-20% off the size at a significant complexity and compute cost. This was before I allowed each client to have its own frame and it was more common for there to be significant areas of black.
It'd definitely be tricky to get the computational performance that you'd want out of it. I'd imagine it'd be pretty easy to accidentally bust caches.
To solve for that, you could double your frame size and store the prev/next in an alternating fashion. IE [n, p, n, p, n, p] That way when you xor you are always working with highly local memory sets. You'd want to keep the frame basically global to avoid allocating.
If you wanted to be super clever then you could probably SIMD this up doing something like [n, n, n, n, p, p, p, p]. I'm not sure how you'd turn that into RLE in SIMD. I'm not clever enough for that :D (but I'm sure someone has done it).
But as you said, complexity would definitely increase rather than decrease even though you could get much better compute time.
This sounds perhaps a bit rude but it isnt possible to optimize for every possible use case someone somewhere may have. At the end of the day, a line has to be drawn.
It's not about optimizing, it's about not doing additional work just to break the expected behavior of the web platform. So far there was no explanation of where default behavior breaks keyboard usage, for example, only opinions.
I meant optimizing every possible usecase. Did you know the button on this very site is not selectable? When you use real semantic html with submit inputs, not buttons, there is text that is not selectable. But it is a button? See what I mean? Draw the line somewhere.
As mentioned in other comment, not all html which looks like a button is a button. It does in fact take extra work to make everything selectable. On native apps it is even harder because the frameworks do not have selection as built in.
To be clear, I HATE that almost everything isn't selectable. It is one of many reasons why I never use mobile apps. Still, somewhere there has to be a line to ship anything.
I think this is where semantic HTML comes in. Doing other wack or bespoke things is, IMO, not just bad form - it's more work. Just do things the easy way and it'll work.
200k lines of slop? And zero product to show for it…
This is starting to feel crypto to me. Not the light use of ai for work that most of use sane people see but these ridiculous claims of hundreds of thousands of lines of code with amazing results and zero substance backing it up. It is like the amazing scalability claims of some new blockchain which never materialize.
The only solace is that the only people getting scammed here are those paying money for the tools.
The problem with any system like this is that due to scale it will be automated which means a large swath of people will be caught up in it doing nothing wrong.
This is why perma bans are bad. Id rather a strike system before a temp ban to give some breathing room for people to navigate the inevitable incorrect automation. Even then if the copyright issue is anything to go by this is going to hurt more than help.
Api is slow, api wasnt being gzipd, good snack, give snack to other eng, find more snack.
Oh look product doesnt have metric, get product the metric, now team look good because boss see what team do.
reply