You don't need to get everyone to coordinate. You need politicians to not listen to the lobby of home owners and real estate companies worried about their investments (in other words, ignore the NIMBYs). Change the zoning laws, incentivize developing mixed use, prioritize pedestrian and cycling infrastructure and stop prioritizing cars and parking.
Walkable cities are actually illegal in much of the US due to zoning laws right now. The reason you don't see shops in residential suburban developments is not because there is no demand, it's because it's literally illegal.
Having walkable and bikeable destinations is compatible with back yards. It just needs to be legal to build it.
In general, I believe that it's the highway lobby who shaped the US into what it is today, not the NIMBY people. I think they have much more power than nimby, even if in certain situations, they seem to be on the same side. So what I say is that industry interest weighs more than voter interest.
I think the point is that the vast majority of people don't really have a unique tax situation. And all the data already exists. There's just no framework set up to allow this to be automated like there is in other countries.
It should be the case that all your basic taxes get calculated for you and taken at the point you're paid by your employer. Anything exceptional should be able to be claimed back via a web portal somewhere.
So it's not like 160m tax returns NEED to be filed. That's just how it is today.
One thing you can arrange is "Oh, you need to trust our Router's security thing" and so you're adding a new private root CA trust, then they "just" issue CA certs which they've arranged for you to trust. This is commonly how corporate and institutional systems are set up, it's a terrible idea but it's very common.
One thing that helps drive it away at work is that we're a University, and essentially all the world's universities have a common authenticated WiFi (because students and perhaps more importantly, academics, just travel from one to another and expect stuff to work, if you got a degree in the last 20 or so years you likely used this, eduroam) but obviously they don't trust each other on this stuff so their sites all use the Web PKI, the same public trust as everybody else, internal stuff might not, but the moment you're asking some History professor to manually install a certificate you might as well assign them a dedicated IT person, so, everything facing ordinary users has public certs from, of course, Let's Encrypt.
> This is commonly how corporate and institutional systems are set up, it's a terrible idea but it's very common.
Tbh makes it kinda sense for those systems, when used only with internal tools and on company devices... but yeah I’d just (of course) Let’s Encrypt if I was setting it up for a client.
No - I have visited two universities in the past month in France and each of them has its own Wi-Fi logins and passwords. And then one more a few months ago in Poland.
AHHHH - I just called a friend of mine at one of the French schools. He told me that this is for researchers only and thsi is why I was given another (permanent) access.
I stand corrected and I apologize. This is actually awesome. Working in the field, this is probably one of the most interesting deployments I have seen over many years and I will have a close look at it now.
I feel like we're entering the era of general and inefficient solutions to problems.
Like LLMs being used to pick values out of JSON objects when jq would do the job 1000x more efficiently.
This is what this whole field feels like right now. Let's spend lots of time and energy to create a humanoid robot to do the things humans already decided humans were inefficient at and solved with specialised tools.
Like people saying "oh it can wash my dishes for me". Well, I haven't washed dishes in years, there's a thing called a dishwasher which does one thing and does it well.
"Oh it can do the vacuuming". We have robot vacuums which already do that.
As a hardware engineer I hear this a lot from software/electrical folks.
It's Moore's law that largely drove what you describe.
Moore's law only applies to semiconductors.
Gears, motors and copper wire are not going to get 10x faster/cheaper every 18 months or whatever.
10 years from now gears will cost more, they will cost what they cost now plus inflation.
I've literally heard super smart YC founders say they just assume some sort of "Moore's law for hardware" will magicallyake their idea workable next year.
Computing power gets, and will continue to get, cheaper every day. Hardware, gears, nuts, bolts, doesnt.
It is not the gears, motors and copper wire that are bottlenecking robots. It is the software and computing. We can already build a robot hand that is faster, stronger, more dexterous, etc. than a human hand. What we can't do right now is make the software to perceive the world around it and utilize the hand to interact with it at human levels. That is something that needs computing power and effective software. Those are things that get, and will continue to get, cheaper every day.
> It is not the gears, motors and copper wire that are bottlenecking robots.
It is those things that are bottlenecking the price of robots.
The price of something tends towards the marginal cost, and the marginal cost of software is close to $0. Robots cost a lot more than that (what's the price of this robot?).
Edit: In fact Figure 03 imply marginal costs matter:
Mass manufacturing: Figure 03 was engineered from the ground-up for high-volume manufacturing
Yes, but the two (software and hardware) scale very differently.
Once software is "done" (we all know software is never done) you can just copy it and distribute it. It is negligiblehow much it costs to do so.
Once hardware is done you have to manufacture each and every piece of hardware with the same care, detail and reliability as the first one. You can't just click copy.
Often times you have to completely redesign the product to go from low volume high cost manufacturing to high volume low cost. A hand made McLaren is very different than an F-150.
The two simply scale differently, by nature of their beasts.
China has shown that they don't scale all that differently. Yes the tooling is hard to build but after that you hit go and the factory makes the copies for you.
It's not quite startrek replicator but much closer to that than the US view of manufacturing where you have your union guy sitting in front of the machine to pull the lever.
This was somewhat true at once point but is a highly outdated view. Labor is no longer cheap in China relative to other nearby countries and there's a huge amount of automation with some factories that don't even turn on lights because they are effectively 100% automated.
Think about cars. Their manufacturers work really hard on efficient (cost and performance). And what people do with them is a very different story. It could see the same happening with robots.
Human form robots are a case of Jake of all trades and master of none. Sure I have a dishwasher thats more efficient at doing the job than me but I still end up doing dishes because the cast iron frying pan can't going in there without ruining the polymerised layer of oils that have been baked into it and i would have to repeatedly oil and reheat it and stink up the house with smoke reseasoning it afterwards, and I have hand wash the thermos and travel mugs, and dishwasher arent good for the sharp knives and etcetera etc etc... sure the rumba can vacume very efficiently but it suck at gating around furniture leg or gaps to small for a 14'' diameter circle to fit through so I have to vacume all of the bits it can't get to. Sure the a robot lawn mower can do my yard very efficiently but it cant move the childrens toys out of the grass or open the gate to the front yard or close the gate to keep the dogs from running out the gate once its open. Specialized tools suck at edge cases. Human form robots if they ever works (big if) can do all of the edge cases and take advantage of all the tools made for humans I already have to do all of the those other jobs.
There isn't enough migrant to do all labor east asia will need as its population gets quickly older. Plus the societal aspiration of culture dissemination isn't there.
have you ever googled a simple maths question? I often come back to that and realise we've been in this era for quite a while. Calculator would probably be 1000x more efficient!
Sure, but I have to launch the calculator, instead of just typing it into the ever present search bar of my persistent open browser.
If I could just type it into my shell, that would be nice. I’m sure there’s some command (or one could be trivially made) to evaluate an equation, but then you get to play game with shell expansions and quotes.
In emacs I have to convolute the equation into prefix.
That's not that weird, even if it is pretty pathetic. I don't understand it now but I used to dread "doing the dishes" when I was younger even though it was 95% just filling a dishwasher. Laziness drives technology an awful lot, at least from a product POV.
This unoptimizing has been going on since the start of time. Why are the values in json to start with? At somepoint the bad slow generalized version will overtake the specialized ways of doing things.
Considering the entire thing is a text generator it's quite a statement to exclude that. Text is a huge world. Math, programming, stories, chatting, mail, search, website navigation, most things you want to do in the digital space involves text.
Was long time ago I used macOS in any professional capacity, but doesn't it just maximize the height of the window, not the width? I seem to recall some UX like that, but might have been a different action/button.
Mac has a weird windows models based on contents, not the display. So the content can “suggest” maximum and minimum size when you double click the title bar. it fits within the document model (windows are tied to documents while the application oversees things, which is why the menus are global and closing a window does not exit the software).
Thanks for the insight. I have never thought about it that way and it explains the weird behaviors you mentioned and also why it works well for people who do mostly office stuff. As a dev, I heavily use browser, editor and terminal, which don't map as well to the document model.
It's the same behaviour as Option + Maximize. Finder for example, that grows taller. Terminal for example, that goes full screen. My browser also goes full screen.
Seems like the app decides what the behaviour is. But the point being it's the same behaviour as the Option + Maximize.
But it's not priced for the market of people who buy lots of knives. Because those who buy lots of knives aren't going to be interested in some mediocre knife with a vibration motor attached to it.
Those who are interested in knives would be able to get a more impressive knife for $399. And they are usually the type of people that enjoy sharpening a knife until it cuts better than this ultrasonic knife ever will.
This is a product which is targeted at people who don't really know a lot about knives and prep their meals with a dull blade.
Yeah I mean, the product is either going to work or it isn't going to work. But the only people who are going to be early adopters for this are knife nerds. Obviously, you'll get a knife that r/chefknives admires for cheaper than that!
I'm not hyping the product. I keep a knife set up to easily slice tomatoes, and if I don't want to clean it carefully afterwards I just use a good thin serrated bread knife. I'm still not really sure what this knife is "for". But I'm also not ruling out that it is "for" something interesting.
The knife itself is made out of AUS-10, which is a very mediocre steel. It's not bad per-se, but when you're spending $400 on a knife, you typically expect premium steels to be used. Additionally, most knives in that price range typically have some sort of flair to them to make them visually appealing: Damascus patterning, nice wooden handles, etc.
I know the handle itself is integral to the ultrasonic function, but it reminds me of a cheap kitchen thermometer.
For comparison, 'analog' knives are much nicer looking for sometimes far cheaper.
AUS-10 is basically 440C, and is an excellent steel for cutlery (and was once considered at the very high end of stainless steels). Very stainless, reasonably tough, and honorable slicing edge retention if heat treated to a relatively high hardness (60-61HRC would be on the mark). It will sharpen OK, but may have a bit of a gummy feel on the stones and not be as easy as carbon/low alloy steels.
Again, it’s not that it’s bad per-se, it’s that it is easily outclassed by numerous other more modern steels. It’s cheap compared to more exotic stuff, and feels almost insulting at the price you’re paying for the knife.
If the knife we’re discussing was sub $100 I’d have no issue with AUS-10/440C, but we’re talking about a $400 knife.
Presumably if you want something that resists chipping due to the high forces of the ultrasonic, so you'd pick something with quite high toughness and moderate edge retention. Maybe something like CPM-CruWear? If you prefer something with higher corrosion-resistant properties, MagnaCut?
Those are just two examples of premium steels that would be superior to AUS-10 in every way. Additionally, as I already mentioned, you'd expect a knife that is $400 to be beautiful too. It really feels like the design element was left out of this knife. I'm sure the handle has many practical elements, but there has to be something that could be done to make it look more visually appealing.
The output of data is handled by the handler. Such behaviour is clearly outlined in the documentation by the JSONHandler. I wouldn't expect a JSONHandler to use Stringer. I'd expect it to use the existing JSON interfaces, which it does.
I'd expect the Text handler to use TextMarshaller. Which it does. Or Stringer, which it does implicitly via fmt.Sprintf.
My problem with that is that it makes it impossible to use slog logger safely without knowing what handler is being used. Which kind of defeats the purpose of defining the common structured logging interface.
As a producer of the response, if I didn't care about being understood, I would use a made-up language. As a consumer, you may care about understanding my response, but you cannot do anything about it.
Hence the design. The producer coming up with a made up language that makes sense to the producer, but probably doesn't make sense to the consumer — especially when you have many different consumers with very different needs — is far more problematic than the producer providing an abstract representation and allowing the consumer to dig into the specific details it wants.
As with everything in life, there are tradeoffs to that approach, of course, and it might be hard to grasp if you come from languages which different idioms that prioritize producer over consumer, but if you look closely everything about Go is designed to prioritize the needs of the consumer over the needs of the producer. That does seem to confuse a lot of people, interestingly. I expect because it isn't idiomatic to prioritize the consumer in a lot of other languages and people get caught up in trying to write code in those other languages using Go syntax instead of actually learning Go.
A good, if a bit strange, example. A CPI logger wouldn't need to log the same thing as an access logger, but the producer need not care about who is consuming the logs. Consumers might even want to see both and, given the design, can have both.
Certainly logs lose their value if they are wrong. And either approach is ripe for getting things wrong. But the idea is that the consumer is more in tune with getting what the consumer needs right. The producer's assumptions are most likely to be wrong, fundamentally, not having the full picture of what is needed. What is the counter suggestion?
We've banned this account for continually posting unsubtantive comments and ignoring our previous request to observe the guidelines.
If you don't want to be banned, you're welcome to email hn@ycombinator.com and give us reason to believe that you'll follow the rules in the future. They're here: https://news.ycombinator.com/newsguidelines.html.
I think their point is that the skills of making a website which looks like Windows XP is adjacent to the skills needed to be a good graphic designer.
Pretty much most days I am the person who is taking a design from a designer and reimplementing that in HTML/CSS. I couldn't tell you where to start when creating a design, but as far as taking something someone else has created and reimplementing it in code? I can do that all day long.
The visual guidelines PDF exists http://interface.free.fr/Archives/GUI_Xp.pdf and turning that into a web page is just a matter of creating some DOM elements with the right sizing, margins, padding, fonts, borders, etc.
Keep in mind that something you most days may seem conceptually simple to you, but may be overwhelming to others. That is true even if they work adjacent to you, such as creating the actual designs. Perhaps a better question is: how difficult would it be to teach a designer how to implement it.
Why can't train operators in other countries take inspiration from things like this?
It takes very little effort to implement. You could hold melody competitions for local communities. It is a nice thing which sparks joy and it's also something that people would want to travel and experience. You could hold a competition with local schools every year to develop a little 5 second melody.
I just think of this from a UK point-of-view. It's like we completely forget what makes life interesting and everything has to be boring and mundane.
Tesco in the UK literally has this but only for staff. If you work for Tesco you can access any shop, view a map, view where stock is on a shelf, check stock numbers and expected delivery and all that stuff.
Things that would absolutely be an amazing QOL improvement for any shopper. But they won't let you have it because they WANT you to bumble your way around a shop. They don't want you to know where things are. That's why they move shelves around seemingly at random.
I was going to shout out Tesco specifically, for a similar feature they have on their website/app in Ireland/UK.
If you find a product's page, there's an "other items on this shelf" section which shows items that are located next to it. It's probably not intended to help you locate things, but it's incredibly helpful for it.
Adds way more things for you to notice and tell you're in the right location. Same haystack, more needles.
I actually find this feature of supermarkets quite useful. Online shopping is far less discoverable - the end result is I forget things from my online shop quite often.
I find exceptionally annoying when I don't know if I need to look for my preferred moisturizer in "skincare" or "premium skincare" or some other section I've not seen yet (yes this is a common issue for me). If I could just load up their (horribly slow and memory heavy) website, go to the store locator and actually see where it is in the shop instead of "yeah we have it in stock, somewhere", that would be very useful
For me the end result is I buy random crap from the shop that I don't need. Sometimes it's good because it's new and I wanna try it, but sometimes it's just me being a pig.
