kettlecorn

10 ms·

61.
by kettlecorn 1y ago
It's pretty good! I peaked a little bit under the hood and most of the size is going into the 3D models and secondly the sound effects. The largest single asset is the looping music track which is 2.3 MB. The 3D models are compressed w
62.
by kettlecorn 1y ago
One of the most impressive things about this is that it transfers only 5.7 MB of data on initial load and then caps out at 17.5 MB for the final load. It seems to be making smart choices about compression techniques. This is a good showcase
63.
by kettlecorn 1y ago
I think Apple is doing fine and is reasonably well positioned. The pre-Cook years basically established the skeleton of the company and Cook has fleshed it out with flesh and muscle. Now the company is far more of a Goliath with vast resour
64.
by kettlecorn 1y ago
> I think a more realistic (but depressing) goal is modest loss to inflation (so prices go up by 1-2% less then inflation). If you read between the lines that seems to be what Canada's approach to house affordability is going to be.
65.
by kettlecorn 1y ago
One of the Rust ecosystem's biggest mistakes, in my opinion, was not establishing a fiercely defensive mindset around dependency-bloat and compilation speed. As much as Rust's strongest defenders like to claim, compilation speed a
66.
by kettlecorn 2y ago
The Rust ecosystem has long downplayed the importance of compile times. Many foundational crates, serde for example, contribute much more to compile times than they need to. I spent a long time reinventing many foundational rust crates for
67.
by kettlecorn 2y ago
It could help us reconsider the routing and design of highways, particularly in dense urban environments.
68.
by kettlecorn 2y ago
Algorithmic feeds are useful. Algorithmic feeds that promote primarily people who pay the platform, downrank links, and are likely manipulated for political reasons are far less desirable. On X it meant that I was discovering far less quali
69.
by kettlecorn 2y ago
I miss the Google of yesteryear which had an altruistic streak and felt that enriching the world's ability to share and process information would ultimately accrue benefit to Google as well. The Google of today is far more boring and l
70.
by kettlecorn 2y ago
In addition to what the other comment said BlueSky is also so hackable that I think people will continue develop more sophisticated techniques to better moderate. X was locked down in a way that seemed to be giving the bots and trolls a sig
71.
by kettlecorn 2y ago
BlueSky's platform choices are encouraging far more signal than noise. X / Twitter is doing the opposite. It's rotting into a place where meaningful discussion is hard to have and you have to put up with tons of trolls /
72.
by kettlecorn 2y ago
I'm trying to avoid national politics on BlueSky simply because I want to take a breather from it. I'm seeing vastly more signal and less noise on topics I care about like game dev, urbanism, art, and tech.
73.
by kettlecorn 2y ago
Community Notes is a great feature. But on X too much value was / is being lost due to policy and algorithmic choices that discourage signal and encourage noise. I used to go there for critical discussion of various tech issues or smar
74.
by kettlecorn 2y ago
Not true. If someone can make a point honestly and in good faith I do my best to respect it even it's "harsh". I myself am no stranger to being very blunt when trying to make a case for something. What I consider "toxic&
75.
by kettlecorn 2y ago
The competitive advantage to BlueSky, over Twitter / X, is that there's tremendous value in connecting intelligent and kind people while maintaining a certain quality standard. Twitter / X, for political reasons, allowed extr
76.
by kettlecorn 2y ago
I was sort of hoping that this was about sustaining the web itself and preventing things like link rot and centralization of content in non-web privately owned platforms. Still, this is important too.
77.
by kettlecorn 2y ago
Two small anecdotes about Ballmer from my internship there: At an intern event an intern asked some question along the lines of "What's one quality of a competitor you wish Microsoft had?" They were clearly asking about cultu
78.
by kettlecorn 2y ago
I'm talking about parking lots and roads. If every destination needs parking for nearly its peak capacity then that creates substantial sprawl. Similarly if an area gets a high volume of peak car traffic then over time it will tend to
79.
by kettlecorn 2y ago
A horse carriage takes up similar space to a car, yes. But if 80% of day-to-day trips are walked and 20% are horse-carriages that's much more efficient in terms of space than a world where 80% of trips are via car and 20% are walked. T
80.
by kettlecorn 2y ago
"Highly walkable" means many people would choose to walk even if able to take a car. To be walkable a city needs to be quick to walk between destinations and pleasant to do so. Most US cities are too spaced out, require waiting at
81.
by kettlecorn 2y ago
Those add substantial crossing time and are quite costly. None of the world's great walking cities heavily uses bridge crossings like that.
82.
by kettlecorn 2y ago
Those very "tarmaccy" US cities are what you get when you "stretch" cities to accommodate the scale of cars. Other US cities are gradually moving towards that design by adding incrementally more parking and highways, but
83.
by kettlecorn 2y ago
I am making the case that the advantages once enjoyed by cars have been substantially reduced, for day to day life where most people live, as most people need a car. The irony of your argument is that very few people who want more car-light
84.
by kettlecorn 2y ago
My point is about the average space taken up on a trip. In the far past some trips were taken via horse + carriage but tons more were taken via walking and transit. Our built world has scaled to account for that increase in space used on
85.
by kettlecorn 2y ago
It matters because there are far fewer delivery of goods than people getting around for day to day trips. If you look at the average amount of space taken up by a person traveling around if they walk, or take transit, for most trips then th
86.
by kettlecorn 2y ago
People bought into cars early because they could get around quickly to more destinations, not because walking was uniquely awful. In Philadelphia's paper in the early 1900s there was a daily column about "pleasure drive" rout
87.
by kettlecorn 2y ago
Salt Lake City has a huge volume of parking lots, highways, and many roads. While individual streets may not have scaled up there were other parts of the built environment that did to accommodate cars.
88.
by kettlecorn 2y ago
Horse-drawn carriages were typically used for moving goods or for shared transit, not for most individuals in single horse drawn carriages going to all sorts of day-to-day trips. The point is that the default mode of transportation requires
89.
by kettlecorn 2y ago
The problem with your argument is why would people buy cars if they were so terrible? While the infrastructure was obviously worse than today clearly they afforded tremendous advantages which motivated their adoption! In the early days that
90.
by kettlecorn 2y ago
I have a very loose mental framework for thinking about cars that I think is helpful: If you look at space taken up length-wise in a lane the length of the average car in the US is 14.7 ft. For a person standing on a sidewalk the average pe

More ›