Totally agree. I’ll also add that although I am often tempted to work alone, sharing my work or ideas or output with someone else boosts motivation a lot.
Complete novice question: Would it be possible to build a language that could read your source code and tell you, at compile time, which expressions have values that depend on RNG? And on cryptographically secure RNG?
So that you could annotate a variable as needing to be cryptographically secure and the language could check that, somewhere along the way, its value depends on an adequate RNG function?
As I understand it, the hard part of a masonry layout is ensuring that items are laid out with the first items near the top of the screen and the last items near the bottom of the screen.
If you just plop your items into columns, the first items will all appear in the first column and the last items will all appear in the last column (left to right), which is not the behavior you want.
To my knowledge, the correct behavior cannot currently be created in CSS alone. (Or if it can, it must be a wild hack.)
If people want to choose where things land they can do that. Therefore I assume we're talking about a scenario where the items are not known in advance - i.e. they come from a database query or similar. Is there no way to SELECT every Nth item when doing a query? Return a count and select where count MOD N = k? Dump those in a column.
This feels like "I want my layout algorithm to be part of the standard." and if you don't think so, see the part where they also want the equivalent of "colspan = 2" for some itmes - possibly with another pattern to define which ones.
Hi HN! A few years ago, I began creating Leopard, a Scratch to JavaScript code converter. (Since then, I've received help from a few awesome open-source contributors. Thank you!)
I started using Scratch when I was in 2nd grade. I made over 500 games and projects, working with Scratch all the way into high school. I eventually moved on to JavaScript, but the transition was a difficult one. Much of the JavaScript world was unfamiliar, and learning to do everything new all at once was challenging.
Leopard is meant to be a transition tool that helps ease this learning process. It outputs human-readable JavaScript that is as close to a 1-to-1 translation as possible.
You can enter any Scratch project URL to convert it. If you don't have one on hand, here are a few examples:
Or, if that’s too hard, leave the orbit the same but slow the spin down a little so each day is longer. A 0.35% decrease in spin speed seems fine right?
According to Wikipedia [0], 70 million years ago the earth rotated about 7 more times per year than it did today, meaning we just need to wait about another 10 million years and it'll happen on its own.
I remember doing a physics problem way back in high school where the teacher asked how long it would take to slow the Earth down 1 m/s if everyone on the planet started walking in unison westward and never stopped. The population was several hundred million less then than it is today, but I think the answer was still measured in centuries.
The live-streaming software OBS has a “virtual webcam” feature that can make a generated video feed behave like a hardware webcam. Perhaps something similar is being used to feed generated video into zoom?
Genuine question: Does anyone here have a good sense of how easy/hard it is to moderate a platform like YouTube? My sense is that the answer is VERY HARD, so I tend to give them the benefit of the doubt when things go wrong. But perhaps I’m being too generous. Is this something that could be prevented if YouTube just tried harder?
It's basically impossible to do it right - when you have such a wide audience, every single decision you make will upset potentially millions of people, be illegal/legal in some parts of the world, will impact both good and bad actors, etc. And you have to relay on automation a lot, as it's not cost effective to have meaningful review by humans.
But that brings obvious follow up question - should then such a big platform exist? IMO, even with all those problems - yes. Being able to easily share content with people around the world is and remove barriers for acquiring knowledge is a huge advancement. But I can totally see people disagree with that.
Here's an easy solution: only allow people who have proven their identities to have videos promoted by YouTube's algorithms, so they can be held legally liable if they publish videos that break the law
YouTube could at least make it harder for scammers by not promoting streams through the algorithm or at least not showing them unless there's a subscription. I would also argue that they shouldn't just give everybody the ability to livestream at first given how many of the scammer accounts are new. That strikes me as a common sense solution.
If both were implemented I suspect these sorts of scams would no longer be worth the effort.
This doesn’t seem like a very useful characterization. To the best of my knowledge, visualization ability falls on a spectrum, and some are better than others. Aphantasia is a useful word to describe a low ability to visualize. Just because you aren’t at zero doesn’t mean you’re average. (Also, for the record, I find the things you describe very difficult. McDonald’s/Apple logos are borderline doable, but the other things you listed are not happening for me.)
> Use it or lose it. You can get it back if you want.
I genuinely really hope you’re right. As someone with subpar visualization skills, gaining them would be wonderful. If you have advice for how to achieve this it would be much appreciated.
I think the problem I had was that they told me it was defined as no visualization. Its discoraging and most people think that is what it means, zero.
Do you not have the ability to think of what shape a laptop is? I used peptides to change my brain, cerebrolysin for instance may really help, but you need to do more to visualize since its like a muscle.
