It seems the problem is looking for a single picture to represent the whole. Why not have generative AI always generate multiple images (or a collage) that are forced to be different? Only after that collage has been generated can the user choose to generate a single image.
I have been looking for a solution where I can remote into my company laptop in a pinch from my phone. Many of our cloud resources are moving to be private IPs and VPN only, which can only run on corporate managed devices. I have a few PIs sitting around and it seems like it would be $100-$200 even with a PI to build (pikvm hat is $150 and tinypilot wasn't obvious what the BOM is).
Is there a lower cost or simpler solution? Company hardware is windows and VPN is fortinet and WSL2 is allowed
The cheapest secure option with built-in software is probably SSH port forwarding of RDP. If you have to, you can have an SSH client connecting out from the laptop, reverse port forwarding back from a server you control.
Ideally you'd configure RDP to only listen on loopback.
Any software solution would be detectable to all the corporate monitoring tools vs. hardware as discussed in the article (which I guess someone could figure out via USB/device IDs but seems less likely to be noticed than open ports/RDP connections).
Looks good. We use CoCalc for similar collaboration benefits. There is a self-hosted option which was important to us. CoCalc has been a game changer as we've all moved remote. Once Deepnote adds the self-hosted / cloud option (I see it coming soon) we'll check it out.
Seems like an advertisement for a book to get access to the content. The book is authored by the same person who wrote the article and the poster is new. I flagged it
I am sharing a visualisation - and the book which shows you how to make one is advertised on the same page. Is Show HN: not for showing something you made yourself?
> Is Show HN: not for showing something you made yourself?
It is, but the website itself contains no explanation of what it is. Yes your submission has a short, descriptive title, which is good, but the site is still very confusing to land on as a first-time visitor. Especially with the table of contents that goes nowhere.
Couple that with the fact that the website is mostly made up of ad banners for 3 separate products, it makes quite an odd Show HN submission (unless the Show HN is actually "Show HN: I wrote a book called Data is Beautiful", in which case I'd suggest updating the title.
Thanks for the feedback, paired with my other reply below, I'll be working on the presentation soon. I'm not a fan of the Bootstrap "jumbotron" for the banners myself either so I'll look for something else.
I understand that naming conflicts make things harder to search for, but I don't like the notion of a 'we' saying how things can be named. People should be free to name their projects how they see fit and whatever connects with them. A person would likely need to search for 'unicorn emulator' anyways and it comes right up.
Obviously you are free to name your project whatever you like, but I think it is important to avoid clichés. Part of fixing any problem is pointing out its existence. If I could actually dictate rules, I would start by barring music video directors from including any audio that is not in the single from their work.
There is likely a sizable number of your trial users from HN who signed up merely to better understand it and see if it actually works. It crossed my mind to do it, so presumably others too. The initial spike could be largely driven by technical curiosity instead of real need.
Nice work. A few thoughts came to mind after reading other comments.
I wonder how the tree concept works when responses are long or short. It seems to me that short would encourage more of a "ping pong" style thread which may be desirable in a tree form instead of a long-form question and reply.
It may be interesting and enjoyable to contribute to a site if there was a short length constraint placed on the reply. For sake of example, let's say it was 140 characters. That would force replies to be concise and give more of an anchor for others to jump off on in the conversation.
It could also make it more of a competition -- who can succinctly reply to the question with the most clarity?
Lastly, I think this could go a long way towards mitigating the curse of knowledge when people communicate. I see this and experience this when I participate in technical forums. It's easy to use jargon or advanced topics that the person may or may not understand. The tree approach gives a simple way for a follow-up question around the topic.
You may even consider tying this into the "five whys" which is a common questioning approach
Thank you kindly Joebo and thank you for your awesome ideas. In fact we have thought about this exact thing, and there is a set height to the answer window to encourage short answers beyond which the users will have to scroll down and there is a page numbering system to show you how many pages there are/are left. We didn't go all the way and put a hard limit though but it is a very interesting idea and will see if others like it as well. The idea of the competition for succinct bullseye answers is also awesome! Since answers can be voted up and those with long answers requiring the scrolling may not be read as much or questioned more, there is an indirect route to this end effect currently implemented but may need improving. Please check it out and give feedback if possible.
Ah the "curse of knowledge"! That is such a bulls eye, home run, out of the park, spot on, accurate assessment and perfect read on your part! The curse of knowledge alienates most of the brightest minds from the rest us which is really sad and simple access to structured questioning could help remedy that age old problem.
As far as I remember the "five whys" should end in a feeling. Right now I feel really energized and inspired by your input since I now know that there are those out there like you who I really need and hope will get directly involved in helping this thing grow in the right direction! Do please keep in touch will ya!?
This looks similar in many ways to mithril[1] -- somewhat similar api - mount, view, r("input") vs m("input"). The counter example[2] looks similar[3] I'd be interested in seeing comparisons between the two.
In terms of API, frankly all the frameworks are more or less similar. Mithril has been around for a while, so obviously all the common observations apply (i.e. it's been more battle tested, it has a more mature community, more libraries, etc)
Taking a quick glance at the Radi.js code, I noticed a few things that could still use some improvements (e.g. the comment regexp someone else had pointed out, the handling of attributes not accounting for things like SVG, etc)
I didn't see support for lifecycle methods in the Radi.js code, and it's not clear to me from the docs whether keyed lists and fragments are supported. Keyed lists are extremely important in cases like `someArray.unshift()` and any list containing stateful dom (e.g. inputs or link tabindex). Lack of fragments would not be a deal breaker, but IME they're super nice for building lightweight abstractions, especially in Mithril's case, where they can have lifecycle hooks.
Inside, the difference is that Mithril uses a virtual dom.
Outside, with Mithril you don't need the l() function to bind attributes to vdom nodes. I also suspect there are things this framework can't do that vdom frameworks like Mithril can.
Aside, this framework's author seems better at marketing than the Mithril community. Notice the multiple comments on this article lamenting how React's size and complexity make it less suitable for small projects even though it has advantages for large ones. Mithril is suitable for both large and small projects, but you'd think it didn't exist.
