That's really cool. I was looking at them and thinking "I could probably make these with vanilla html/css but it'd be pretty tedious." Perfect use case for AI. I need to work on developing a reflex for it.
I've also started doing this, and it's surprisingly enjoyable to both do and even to read. The end result is often more readable to me than using a 3rd-party JS visualization library, because I only need to know standard HTML/CSS concepts to understand what's going on. And a side benefit is smaller pages with less bitrot due to being able to skip the dependencies.
"From" other countries is overly broad and I assume not what you intended. I am actually interested though in the idea of legislating how frequently home owners have to actually be within range of the home, for example. A friend has had a hell of a time with a landlord in Malaysia who's never seen the property.
They do it by citizenship, and you might be surprised how many investment properties are vacant homes, but I’m not necessarily advocating for this in any case. The real cure would just be right to build laws.
The problem is, you can’t do that at the federal level, and the people who vote at the local level are the homeowners who benefit from housing restrictions.
The federal government has a very difficult task. They want to make home prices basically stay flat for a long time, and they have limited tools with which to do it since they can’t do the one thing every economist agrees would solve the problem.
Could homeowners be convinced with truckloads of money? As in, yes if you increase density beyond demand the value of each individual home decreases, but the value of the land dramatically increases if suddenly your single family home with a lawn could be converted to a 9 story tower renting out units to 20+ households with infrastructure spending diverted to your area to improve it. Are landowners unaware or just do not care about the profit potential?
I just don’t think it works that way. The developers don’t buy existing homes, they buy farms and golf courses and large vacant tracts. They don’t frequently just like buy 4 homes and put 20 where they had been.
Most people have most of their money tied up in their home equity and would lose an amount that hurts
Many countries prohibit non-citizens from owning any real estate or businesses at all, even if they have a long-term resident status. Thailand is one example. Ownership is limited to 49%, a local partner must own at least 51%.
does that work out in their favor in the end? seems like that would really deter investment in the country. I'm not familiar with any large thai corporations.
At least in my case, I'm pretty sure I can afford to own all the music I listen to. I only listen to 5,000 minutes per year of mostly the same few hundred songs. I've spent 8 years x 12 months x 13 = $1248 on Spotify in my life so far, so even at $.99 per song (which is above average if I buy albums), I'm losing money
Imagine all the incredible fan works that could spark careers and businesses if e.g. the original star wars trilogy were public domain, or how many indie dev studios could get started by riffing on pokemon. But alas, fans of both franchises continue to make works but can't profit from them and need to pray that Disney and Nintendo won't send lawyers after them if they get popular
Fan works of Star Wars have long been as good or better than the official releases. The world would be a much richer place if anyone was free to create whatever they wanted.
Attracting the ire of the music industry seems like a huge, unnecessary risk. I wish they had performed this as some kind of other entity to try to keep the ebook archive protected from the fallout. I fear this will not end well.
It would have been better to leak directly to the government. If it he wanted the public to see it he could have leaked it directly to the public. It's the 21st century.
I raise an eyebrow and speak, nervous of the down vote I just received But does it really? there is no explicit reference to academia vs industry, which is a fair game. Im just saying the presentation is superfluous.
I always found "wave function collapse" to be a terribly overcomplicated name for a pretty intuitive concept. The first paragraph does a good job explaining the term, but still I wonder how many people stray away from such things when the name alone is overwhelming.
I prefer the name given in mathematical optimization, which is Constraints Satisfaction Problems; instead of using an imprecise physics metaphor, it gets a descriptive logical term of what's going on.
In CSPs, each cell is a 'decision variable' with a 'domain' of values, which get pruned by 'constraints' that propagate to values invalidated by the decisions made in the connected variables, until the whole 'problem' gets into either a solution which 'satisfies' all the constraints, or a contradictory state where a variable's domain is empty, causing the algorithm to backtrack.
CSPs have the advantage of having clear and efficient methods to go back to a previous state and keep exploring every alternate possibility, rather than having to restart from the beginning. The article hints at that possibility ('saving checkpoints' or'reverse the collapsing of a cell'); there's a whole field of study dedicated on the best ways to do that on a large scale for very general problems.
Boris the brave coined the term "Constraint Based Tile Generators" (CBTG) [0], which is a specialization of the more general CSPs to this particular domain.
Personally, I find CSPs overly general and mired in esoteric, byzantine terminology. It's a large cognitive load to put on people to run through the glossary of terms just to talk about the problem set up. I don't think the quantum mechanic analogy is great but I can see it being much more intuitive than the obscure language of CSPs.
Surely the 'solving' part of CSPs may be obscure, but the basic concept can be readily explained with the metaphor of crosswords and sudoku (both are very direct instances of CSPs); there's not much obscurity to that. In fact, the article resorts to that same metaphor to explain with precision what the 'waveform' metaphor couldn't.
Of course terminology for CSPs will get confusing when you get to represent them mathematically; but that happens to anything that you turn into math. The core concept is quite familiar and intuitive.
There was a very similar discussion on lobsters the other day. You might be interested in reading it.
In general, I agree with the idea that writing everything yourself results in a higher quantity of low quality software with security issues and bugs, as well as a waste of developers' time. That said, clearly supply chain attacks are a very real threat that needs to be addressed. I just don't think eliminating package managers is a good solution.
reply