Readit Newsvintagedave commented on Planetary Roller Screws humanityslastmachine.com/... · Posted by u/everlier
> Planetary roller screws are the gold standard for high-performance joints such as knees, ankles, and hips.
It's hard to understand how these are used for joints. I think of a screw as something that rotates many times. Are these used for things that rotate only a few degrees, as a knee might?
Railway is the spiritual successor. Fly is great too. I highly recommend both.
I really like Railway, and have deployed many sites with them, but got worried by their recent funding round. At some point those investment bills are going to come due.
Also: https://downdetector.com/status/claude-ai/ . Claude's status page says "elevated error rate": https://status.claude.com/
> If "just build it natively" were actually easier, faster, or cheaper at scale, everyone would do just that
Value prop of product quality aside, isn't the AI claim that it helps you be more productive? I would expect that OpenAI would run multiple frontends and that they'd use Codex to do it.
Ie are they using their own AI (I would assume it's semi-vibe-coded) to just get out a new product or using AI to create a new product using the productivity gains to let them produce higher quality?
On a side note, the company I work for (RemObjects, not speaking on their behalf) has a value ethos specifically about using the native UI layers, and encouraging our customers to do the same. (We make dev tools, a compiler supporting six languages (C#, Java, Go, etc) plus IDEs.)
Our IDE does this: common code / logic, then a native macOS layer and a WPF layer. Yes, it takes a little more work (less than you'd think!) but we think it is the right way to do it.
And what I hope is that AI will let people do the same -- lower the cost and effort to do things like this. If Electron was used because it was a cheap way to get cross-platform apps out, AI should now be the same layer, the same intermediate 'get stuff done' layer, but done better. And I don't think this prevents doing things faster because AI can work in parallel. Instead of one agent to update the frontend, you have two to update both frontends, you know?
We're building an AI agent, btw. Initially targeting Delphi, which is a third party's product we try to support and provide modern solutions for. We'll be adding support for our own toolchains too.
What I fear is that people will apply AI at the wrong level. That they'll produce the same things, but faster: not the same things, but better (and faster.)
>This requires calling native APIs (e.g., Win32), which is not feasible from Electron.
Who told you that? You can write entire C libraries and call them from Electron just fine. Browser is a native application after all. All this "native applications" debate boils down to the UI implementation strategy. Maintaining three separate UI stacks (WinUI, SwiftUI, GTK/Qt) is dramatically more expensive and slower to iterate on than a single web-based UI with shared logic
We already have three major OSes, all doing things differently. The browsers, on the other hand, use the same language, same rendering model, same layout system, and same accessibility layer everywhere, which is a massive abstraction win.
You don't casually give up massive abstraction wins just to say "it's native". If "just build it natively" were actually easier, faster, or cheaper at scale, everyone would do just that.
> If "just build it natively" were actually easier, faster, or cheaper at scale, everyone would do just that
Value prop of product quality aside, isn't the AI claim that it helps you be more productive? I would expect that OpenAI would run multiple frontends and that they'd use Codex to do it.
Ie are they using their own AI (I would assume it's semi-vibe-coded) to just get out a new product or using AI to create a new product using the productivity gains to let them produce higher quality?
> This shift coincided with a decrease in adjective TTR below a defined threshold, occurring approximately ten years before Pratchett’s formal diagnosis.
The diagnosis was announced in 2007, meaning the shift occurred in 1997. 1997 was after Jingo and before Carpe Jugulum and The Last Continent, and 2007 was after Making Money and before Unseen Academicals.
The Last Continent is the first identified in the paper as below the cutoff for adjectives which they use to identify the start of the decline.
My own feeling is that many of his strongest works were before 2000, though he had several excellent ones after (the City Watch and first two Moist von Lipwig; I know the ongoing Tiffany Aching series are good, but in terms of writing I found them not as intricate as his earlier books.) I found Snuff harder to read, and Raising Steam, sadly, very difficult. I could tell the genius was there, but my memory of the writing was that it used much longer sentences, had less intricate plotting, and far fewer puns and wordplay. It was this book that made me really feel a sense of grief for what was happening to him, and it was this one where I first felt there was an observable threshold that was crossed.
I have sometimes wondered if it would be respectful if another author was brought into assist in editing or rewriting his last two novels. I know his unpublished works were destroyed, and any writing assistance is not his own voice. Yet I feel, in a sense, seeing books with such clear decline could in itself have let his legacy down. I don't know what his own view was or would be. While I admire Sanderson' continuance of the Wheel of Time, I would not wish such a drastic change in tone for some similar effort for the last of Pratchett's works. Yet I deeply wish that his last books were, somehow, different, more representative of him that I feel they were, in that his illness (in a sense, of course!) let him down. They cause me sadness.
GNU Terry Pratchett. (My own site sends this too.)
vintagedave commented on Hippo's 'Magic' Sweat Explained news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/scien... · Posted by u/thunderbong
Fascinating -- but I also appreciate how older articles (2004, here) are kept online by the BBC. In their original layout and formatting, too!
I’d like to put that in the headline but to follow HN guidelines put the actual ‘haters’ headline instead. I’m not aligned with that terminology. I do think these are fascinating and scary numbers.