yolo69420

7 ms·

1.
by yolo69420 4y ago
the important thing imo isn't the distinction of computing vs running experiment/simulating, but rather the pragmatical aspects around it: how easy is it to set up and execute. if a quantum processor is sufficiently similar to reg
2.
by yolo69420 4y ago
this post is way too optimistic. you're implying the people making the decision that leetcode tests are used are competent enough to know they suck but still use them for the soft-factors you mention. I would bet essentially all of my
3.
by yolo69420 4y ago
There's a world of a difference between doing a PhD with an expert supervisor (in the field) and bootstrapping it completely on your own.
4.
by yolo69420 4y ago
if you work on a non-trivial c++ code base, being vigilant about compile times can literally make the difference between compiling your codebase from scratch in a minute vs. compiling it in an hour or more. 0% exaggeration here. With simila
5.
by yolo69420 4y ago
I don't quite think you understand. The data presented here absolutely does not allow for the conclusions you make particularly in your second paragraph. In fact the reality could be exactly the opposite way (i.e. geography has no infl
6.
by yolo69420 4y ago
It's useful to have differentiable versions of all sorts of rendering techniques. They can be used as input to training for whatever you want to do.
7.
by yolo69420 4y ago
people complain because those whiteboard / algo heavy interviews don't actually test for that ability, and it's trivially obvious. just the fact that people practice them before FAANG interviews and their correctness/suc
8.
by yolo69420 4y ago
Maybe I'm missing something but unless the interviewer expects a 100% correct csv parser that handles all possible corner cases this is basically - read file - start at beginning; if you encounter separator, add new entry to an array.
9.
by yolo69420 4y ago
The specific things he's mentioning are domain specific topics to (it sounds like) OS development that most low-level capable programmers could pick up no problem. I'm talking about programmers working on any kind of application i
10.
by yolo69420 4y ago
phrasing it this way rubs me the wrong way, it gives people without a good understanding of science the idea that scientists are just wildly wrong all the time like the way people are casually wrong all the time. it's more like newton
11.
by yolo69420 4y ago
super late response, but I'm saying we understand. EM radiation from your router is just way too low energy to enact any changes in the atoms making up the molecules in you for even chemical let alone biological effects to start playin
12.
by yolo69420 4y ago
it's just kind of obvious from looking at the distribution of these kinds of posts. lots of people posting blogs about why they use x and y new technology with these objectively good reasons to do so, and then two years later everyone
13.
by yolo69420 4y ago
I would engage with this with a lot of caution. There is a class of psychoactive compounds (psilocybin is one of them) which, from what we can currently tell, increase neuroplasticity in the brain at least to a degree. This has not just bee
14.
by yolo69420 4y ago
Even if it sounds like it makes sense, something tells me that these (not just this one, all of these kinds of 'why x and y is happening') are really after-the-fact rationalizations after some dev or devs decided to engage in a pe
15.
by yolo69420 4y ago
Attention span and related topics are well studied in psychology, with new research appearing almost weekly - much more than becoming not boring, what would really help is if the author would spend their time on google scholar diving throug
16.
by yolo69420 4y ago
We've known the basic physics answer to this for ages, yet even my old physics teacher in high school used to say that he's careful around a lot of electromagnetic radiation like WIFI router at home because he can't be sure i
17.
by yolo69420 4y ago
it's less about democracy and more about the economical systems and hierarchy in use. i suspect an encounter with china for example would go quite differently
18.
by yolo69420 4y ago
science is a pretty long term process. in practice results and consensus stabilizies after around 50 years or so. the reason it takes so long is that the turnaround time for a single result in science is half a year to a year. imagine discu
19.
by yolo69420 5y ago
there are many much more unequal societies than the US where this just isn't a problem. russia or china, for example. their rates of violent crimes like this are far below that of the US. it's a pretty idiotic trend in recent year
20.
by yolo69420 5y ago
why terrible? those wikis are super helpful
21.
by yolo69420 5y ago
in 2006 cpus made a momentous breakthrough by breaking l1 cache access time barrier of 1.0ns and reduced it to 1ns
22.
by yolo69420 5y ago
I wish there was a version that normalized the times somehow instead of showing absolute times. Most of these numbers will get smaller simply because CPUs get faster, but it would be super helpful to get an accurate read whether the ratios
23.
by yolo69420 5y ago
the game gets shit on a lot but for better or worse they are genuinely trying a lot of things that nobody else tries and is probably ever going to try again. the depth of simulation they have going on is insane, unsurprisingly the resulting
24.
by yolo69420 5y ago
Doesn't he have a response on his website? I swear I read it at some point
25.
by yolo69420 5y ago
People really still say this shit in 2022. Our goal should be negative carbon solutions, net zero is a holdover until we figure out how to actually do that.
26.
by yolo69420 5y ago
vulkan runs everywhere except on apple shit, and that is on nobody but apple. they are actively working against open standards. the world is better off if you ignore them and their users.