But just to clarify, because I'm also having a hard time imagining this, an LTE antenna in a cell phone can beam data to a satellite and have it picked up? Even at whatever low kbps? That is insane to me!
With (I assume) cell phone use prevalent in every single classroom in the nation that hasn't banned them, and school shootings a minuscule probability, "much rarer" is doing a lot of work here hah.
I use this extension extensively. It's not auto-wrapping, but you can bind it to an easy shortcut and wrap when you need to. I find it almost indispensable. I wrote a vscode extension to do the same thing, then discovered this one which does it far better.
I will give that one a try, might at least speed up things, but it still misses hyphenation and justification. Hitting enter when reaching the guide line takes the least effort but this might be really handy when editing existing comments, especially with auto wrap enabled.
I have what is probably a dumb question:
How can a Raptor turbopump need almost double the HP of a F1 while putting out 1/3 or 1/4th the thrust? (Assuming Elon's 100k HP number was correct, and/or hasn't changed). That just doesn't settle out for me. If it's got double the power, it should be moving double the fuel, so double the power, no?
The formula for Isp - the important measure of efficiency of the rocket engine - says that the speed with which the engine throws away hot gases grows with the difference of pressures - before nozzle and at the exit of the nozzle.
The whole idea, by the way, of the full-flow combustion is to extract some more energy from the fuel - before sending that fuel to the chamber, and at the temperature which the turbine of the turbopump can tolerate - so that energy could be used for pumps and more pressure could be created in the chamber. More energy than "more conservative" closed-cycle engines.
The pump power is equal to the volume flow (how many cubic meters, or, say, liters of fuel the pump transfers per second) multiplied by the pressure (which pressure is at the exit of the pump). So, it's not the flow - it's the pressure where Raptor has a big advantage over F-1, and that pressure allows to have a better Isp.
And of course the better Isp allows to reach bigger characteristic velocity (or just a velocity in a free space, where gravity or atmosphere don't get in the way) using the same amount of fuel.
The logic goes roughly like that. Every rocket engine designer wants to reach bigger Isp. For that, using a particular fuel, one need to reach bigger pressure in the chamber, and we move from pressure-fed engines (like the first French orbital rocket, Diamant, which had pressure-fed first stage) to pumps, because high-pressure tanks are too heavy. Pumps initially are open cycle, or gas generator cycle, but we throw away enough gases after the pumps' turbine, so next improvement is we get a closed cycle. With closed cycle we can choose to use all fuel or all oxidizer to move the turbine, but as soon as some component is used fully, we can't get more energy for pumps. Eventually we go to the more complex full-flow cycle, which uses both components and reaches the highest pressure in the chamber.
The next step would probably be a detonation engine :) which uses somewhat more efficient process to convert chemical energy into speed, but it's not yet developed enough. We can also talk about more heat-resistant turbines which would allow to extract more energy from the fuel and to increase pressure some more... but there we also have a lot of R&D ahead of us.
Maybe fuel might play a role. The Raptor burns methane, the F-1 refined petroleum. Another possible reason is that the designs may make different efficiency vs power trade-offs.
Maybe something to do with pressure. Maybe it is higher chamber pressure and maybe higher pressure even with lower flow rates could require more power.
I had a subscription to the WSJ for awhile. I liked it because it is consistent. It definitely has a conservative slant, especially in the opinion section, but you can "lead the shot" so to speak. You can account for it. It is reliably and consistently conservative, and being conservative is relatively consistent.
The NYT or Atlantic or New Yorker, etc? God only knows what new thing has been declared off-limits/"problematic" in the online progressive world this week, and the tone of self-righteous goodness from the progressive media is insufferable.
I feel like Matt Stone from South Park: "I hate conservatives, but I really fucking hate liberals."
I beg to differ. The Globe is the worst of the lot, and I say this as a Boston resident. The NYT, for all its faults, is far superior. The Globe quite literally employed fresh-out-school undergraduates for COVID reporting (whose job, apparently,was to get scare quotes from fear-mongering local academics); outside of Tim Logan the newsroom is packed with NIMBYs; Renee Graham makes it clear she doesn’t much care for white men as does Shirley “pale and male”Leung; international coverage is sparse and superficial; and it’s frequently uncritical of the Democratic political machine, something absolutely fatal in an uni-party state like MA. Overall the Globe is an amalgamation of its midwit, upper middle-class, blue, 495 suburban beltway newsroom staff and editorial board. For its $38/mos subscription price, I want something that will inform, not inculcate.
Edit: my info on the Globe is a couple years out of date now. Perhaps it has gotten better recently, maybe I should sign up for a trial and give it a second chance.
The WSJ opinion section has been a running gag for 50 years. It’s where they let the cranky old conservatives let off steam. But the newsroom is separate and more measured and middle of the road.
"shift/control-clicking to get multiple things is a flat no-go from a UX perspective" - Do you mean that this is NOT how you should do multiselects? If that is what you mean, then how _do_ you do them? If I have a list of items and I want to select 10 or 15 of them in a row, I currently don't know of a better UI to do that with than shift+click.
Most normal users (aka if you read Hacker News, you're not one of those) don't and won't know about shift and control clicking. A more UX-friendly alternative is to have checkboxes; you can still have shift/control-clicking on top of that (for selecting many things quickly), but it shouldn't be the only option.
HTML has had checkboxes since at least version 2 (1995), so just use those if you want to do multi-select using checkboxes. I don't think you can do shift-clicking to select ranges though (without resorting to js) but control-click is of course redundant as that is just the default behavior for a list of checkboxes.
This is pretty much correct, though I feel there's some finer points depending on the number of options (5? 10? 50?) and the expected number of values chosen (2? 4? 10?).
Tag-style multiselects are fairly common (see https://react-select.com/home for an example). These are good where the number of values a user is expected to have selected is small (less than five imo) but the number of options is large enough to make checkboxes impractical. If you're expecting a higher number of things to be selected, you could have the option list stay open after an option is clicked, so they user doesn't have to reopen it each time they want to add an option (and, in fact, the "Animation" example does precisely that).
Yeah, shift/control-click is a longstanding workflow for multiselect and macOS, Linux and windows all support it with various platform-specific subtleties. The worst part of the web is losing all these sorts of features because some web designer thinks they’re a “bad UX”
The nice thing about native behaviors is you only have to teach them once. Custom behaviors per application make it harder for people to develop a model of how their computer works because you have to learn a new interaction model per application. I’m pretty anti the notion that UX is intuitive in any sense: all human-computer interaction is learned at some point and we should focus more on educating people how to do tasks like this than pursuing some lowest-common denominator concept of “intuitiveness” or “discoverability”.
Anyways, my favorite multiselect paradigm is the old windows one with two list boxes side by side and buttons in between.
Django has a version of that widget in the admin panel and I really like it.
I actually like native web multi-select widget because I know how it works and it works well. But most people don't know how it works, no one is going to teach them, and they aren't going to look it up (they probably don't even know what to search for to learn!). So you need one that works just with clicks and no modifier keys or most people won't actually be able to use it. In other words, it's not accessible.
Why not do both? Gmail's a great example of this. Hold shift while clicking two checkboxes in a range of emails, and watch as the entire range is selected for you to manage. :)
As someone who also lives in Central Oregon (and was born and raised here), I will say this: this article is profoundly misleading.
They state that the Upper Deschutes CFS goes from ~1200->~65, and state that is from irrigation. But they don't actually prove that. Much of that CFS decline could be observed out of irrigation season, because that section of the Deschutes dumps a ton of water into lava tubes/back into the ground. You'd have to measure the CFS at the end of that section prior to irrigation getting turned on, then after, and then the difference is what is going to irrigation. And CO Land Watch doesn't do that. Hell, they don't even state where their data is coming from.
That is for the year 2021, when that article was written. You can see the drop in April, which is when irrigation starts. It's about 500CFS,or ~half the river at that point. That is NOT 95% of the river, as CO Land Watch would have you believe. (Side note: CO Land Watch has a bit of a reputation around here. This is a bit of an exaggeration, but it seems like they would gladly end all farming in Central Oregon to save a few salmon.)
The chart I care about is the 'city vs everything else' one, TBH, and that one is broadly accurate.
There's a lot of room to provide more water for both fish and farmers by 1. eliminating waste and 2. fixing some of the weird water rights stuff where people are really just wasting it.
About every quarter, I get together with a group of friends a few hours away and we have an all-weekend LAN party. They all live in the same area, and have wives & kids so usually people are in and out as their schedule permits, but we all hole in up a house and play games for a few days. It's fantastic.
It's also allowed me to completely deal with any video game addict urges that I get. If I feel the urge to start playing some recently released game, I just tell myself "Ah, I'll play it at LAN", and then I don't need to play in the moment. The urge goes away. So now I only play 2 days a quarter at LANs (maybe 8 days a year total), whereas previously years of my life would go into games. It's been a hugely positive thing for me.
This is a nitpick, but their "Claude 2 on 200k Context Data" graph doesn't actually extend to 200k, only 100k. Would be curious to know if that _is_ actually the graph for 200k with the wrong axis, or if its the 100k graph.
I've been wondering if all of the jailbreak-fixing/rlhf-tuning that is happening to GPT4 is responsible for "nerfing it" (Still unsure if that's actually happening or if people are just noticing the gaps in its understanding more now).
Imagine someone who is perfectly politically-correct and never says anything even remotely edgy/original. When I imagine people like this (who I've met irl), they are genuinely a little bit stupid. And I wonder if the "make this model never output anything "dangerous" process" causes a model to become stupider.
Anyway, I'm off to go see if Claude 2 will help me stage a coup in a third-world country and become its dictator. Adieu.
