taylorius

6 ms·

31.
by taylorius 1y ago
Sounds like they've realised AGI isn't just round the corner, and are retrenching to productise the things their tech can do well. (which is a lot).
32.
by taylorius 1y ago
English lacks the word to differentiate between "public" as "no secret, out in the open" and "public" as in "free for all and gratis". Try using a pair of words. Publicly announced vs publicly accessi
33.
by taylorius 1y ago
Joe Rogan is the grand central station of the network of time.
34.
by taylorius 1y ago
Haha. Thanks man. I dimly remember it took some messing with the arm assembly to get the scrolling fast enough to make the v-sync. And also that we used the hardware mouse pointer sprite to draw the player's spaceship, to get an extra
35.
by taylorius 1y ago
It was something entirely new, of course. In fact it wasn't called a BBC Micro - however it was "endorsed" by the BBC - had the owl logo on it etc. Was indeed a cool machine, and streets ahead of anything else at the time. Ty
36.
by taylorius 1y ago
I think "uncertainty due to the number of trials" would be clearer.
37.
by taylorius 1y ago
Of course. It was Redshift, released by Minerva software in 1990. Someone uploaded a video of it in action https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=VeENpUXvYhg
38.
by taylorius 1y ago
I always loved Acorn computers. My schoolfriend and I released a commercial game on the Archimedes, and in 1994 I wrote a 3D demo suite for Acorn's new RiscPC machine (powered by ARM, of course). The good old days of hacking around!
39.
by taylorius 1y ago
The Archimedes was called a "BBC Micro" because it was part of the BBC's home computing initiative, but architecturally, it had nothing to do with the original BBC Micro.
40.
by taylorius 1y ago
I agree. I think when something is at the cutting edge, and you're creating effects no-one has ever seen before - (the first Jurassic Park, say) - people really go the extra mile to make it look as great as possible. Fast forward to to
41.
by taylorius 1y ago
Chrome has a slightly higher installed base than comet.
42.
by taylorius 1y ago
Maybe destruction is their goal.
43.
by taylorius 1y ago
We have fingers and a keyboard / mouse, because that's the best thing we've come up with. If we could output binary to a bunch of program interfaces directly (perhaps via some neuralink type thing) we would surely take that o
44.
by taylorius 1y ago
Yes, perhaps that's right. Seems pretty dishonest to me though. He's a "serious Harvard scientist", so people listen when he tells us that some rock they've spotted may be an alien spaceship. Even though there is su
45.
by taylorius 1y ago
If I recall, he found a few small bits of metal and declared victory.
46.
by taylorius 1y ago
An issue I have with this, is that it poses two rather contrary hypotheses. 1. When considering a career, people do a bad job of unpacking the detailed day-to-day activities that make it up. 2. When shown these detailed day-to-day activitie
47.
by taylorius 1y ago
When interviewed earlier, the passed-over GenX CEOs only comment was "Whatever, man."
48.
by taylorius 1y ago
Perhaps so - but represented in a trainable, neural form. Very exciting!
49.
by taylorius 1y ago
Probably put together by someone who likes a logo in the foam!
50.
by taylorius 1y ago
The lack of photorealistic fidelity gives your brain a bit of room to use imagination to fill in the blanks in your internal model. This fosters a certain type of engagement with the content that you don't get with photorealistic image
51.
by taylorius 1y ago
The model starts every conversation as a blank slate, so providing a thorough context regarding the problem you want it to solve seems a fairly obvious preparatory step tbh. How else is it supposed to know what to do? I agree that "pro
52.
by taylorius 1y ago
I'm a software engineer by trade, but have played bluesy / rock guitar since I heard Jimi Hendrix as a teenager. I try to run a band, to fuel my mid-life crisis but I've come to the conclusion that it's essentially a hob
53.
by taylorius 1y ago
I'll get voted down, but I hate that cute AI fox, and hope I never see it again.
54.
by taylorius 1y ago
There's a certain change of perspective with modern AI (by "modern" I mean Resnet and beyond). When I was deep into neural nets in the 1990s, they weren't that large, and I would think of them in terms of the number of w
55.
by taylorius 1y ago
But the chainsaws were never developed to the point that the head of wood supplies could ask them to go and chop some trees down by themselves.
56.
by taylorius 1y ago
Tech people like it because it isn't good enough to completely replace them yet. The sophisticated, coherent architecture of a well designed system is (for now) still beyond the LLMs, so for tech people, it's still just a wonderfu
57.
by taylorius 1y ago
Back in the early 90s I did a version of Bresenham's algorithm that would rasterize the hyperbolic curves that perspective-correct texture mapping required. It worked correctly though the technique of just doing a division every n pixe
58.
by taylorius 1y ago
"Liberal democracy". Have you tried voting out a member of the EU commission?
59.
by taylorius 1y ago
I've never been quite clear on how Splats encode specular (directional) effects. Are they made to only be visible from a narrow field of view (so you see a different splat for different view angles?) or do they encode the specular stuf
60.
by taylorius 1y ago
It's interesting - had they acted this schadenfreude out at all? Or did this confession come completely out of the blue. From what you said, it is the latter - and if so, should this person be judged for this unappealing inner thought,

More ›