I read this announcement mainly as proving the success of the new support for SDK's. Previously, supporting another platform required invasive hodge-podge of CMake tangles at best.
Swift SDK's are a way for anyone to support any platform, as proven by the Android guys doing it on their own. There are also SDK's for Linux, wasm, and embedded (and soon, windows?). So long as you play by SDK rules, Apple won't stop you from porting Swift to a new platform, even on competitive platforms like Android.
(The inter-op story with the JVM languages is still being written; it reduces to either the C/C++ FFI or the two incomplete duals of Java's legacy JNI and newer FFI/Memory interfaces. Prototypes work fine when the semantics are the same, but beyond that, there be dragons. Cross-platform UI frameworks are similarly (and likely eternally) afflicted with bright and dark spots.)
Fine, remodeling. Incessant semantic pedantry doesn't change the fact that Trump is not destroying the White House.
Most people understand that to do any sort of "remodeling" or "renovation" you often have to do some demolition first.
With temp = 0 if the model is off by one bit at step k, all subsequent steps are deterministically wrong.
Your previous example shows the best case, which is a model can sometimes follow a textual recipe for long multiplication on short inputs. That's not the same as learning a length generalizing bit exact algorithm.
Basically what you shown is the model can describe the algorithm. It doesn't show it can execute it at scale. Without writable state and bit exact ops, errors grow with length and "focus more" only slows that failure, it doesn’t eliminate it.
I'll confirm (and then nerdily complicate) your thesis for the art-form I practiced professionally for the first half of my adult life: yes, every serious actor I've been privileged to work with knows of previous performers, and studies texts they leave behind.
I owned at one time a wonderful two-volume anthology called Actors on Acting, which collected analysis and memoir and advice going back... gosh, to Roman theatre, at least. (The Greeks were more quasi-religious, and therefore mysterious - or maybe the texts just haven't survived. I can't remember reading anything first-hand, but there has been a good deal of experimental "original practice" work done exploring "how would this have worked?"). My graduate scholarship delved into Commedia dell'Arte, and classical Indian theatre, as well as 20th century performers and directors like Grotowski, and Michael Chekhov, and Joan Littlewood. Others, of course, have divergent interests, but anyone I've met who cares can geek out for hours about this stuff.
However, acting (or, really, any performance discipline), is ephemeral. It invokes a live experience, and even if you (and mostly you don't, even for the 20th c) have a filmed version of a seminal performance it's barely anything like actually being there. Nor, until very recently, did anyone really write anything about rehearsal and training practice, which is where the real work gets done.
Even for film, which coincidentally covers kinda the same time-period as "tech" as you mean it, styles of performance - and the camera technology which enables different filming techniques - have changed so much, that what's demanded in one generation isn't much like what's wanted in the next. (I think your invocation of film directors is more apt: there are more "universal" principles in composition and framing than there are in acting styles.)
Acting is a personal, experiential craft, which can't be learned from academic study. You've got to put in hours of failure in the studio, the rehearsal room, and the stage or screen to figure out how to do it well.
Now, here's where I'll pull this back to tech: I think programming is like that, too. Code is ephemeral, and writing it can only be learned by doing. Architecture is ephemeral. Tooling is ephemeral. So, yes: there's a lot to be learned (and should be remembered) from the lessons left by previous generations, but everything about the craft pulls its practitioners in the opposite direction. So, like, I could struggle through a chapter of Knuth, or I could dive into a project of my own, and bump up against those obstacles and solve them for myself. Will it be as efficient? No, but it'll be more immediately satisfying.
Here's another thing I think arts and tech have in common: being a serious practitioner is seldom what gets the prize (if by that you mean $$$). Knuth's not a billionaire, nor are any of my favorite actors Stars. Most people in both disciplines who put in the work for the work's sake get out-shined by folks lucky enough to be in the right place at the right time, or who optimize for hustle or politics or fame. (I've got no problem with the first category, to be clear: god bless their good fortune, and more power to them; the others makes me sad about human nature, or capitalism, or something.) In tech, at least, pursuing one's interest is likely to lead to a livable wage - but let's see where our AI masters leave us all in a decade, eh?
Anyway, I've gone on much to much, but you provoked an interesting discussion, and what's the internet for if not for that?
> Those details matter, yes, but they’re the type of detail that I can delegate now
No...
If you're building a skyscraper, there's no world where you can delegate where the steel or bolts come from. Or you'll at least need to care about what properties that exact steel has and guarantee every bit used on your project matches these constraints.
If you don't want to care about those, build residential houses with 1000x less constraints and can be rebuilt on a dime comparatively.
You might be thinking about interior decoration or floor arrangement ? Those were always a different matter left to the building owner to deal with.
Yes. The problem is that it's common in the industry. But it's ultimately up to the patient. Maybe alone. Pretty much guaranteed scared. Undereducated, worrying about their likely life threatening potential illness or injury. That's basically under duress.
I recently jumped into typst for creating a course syllabus to learn programming. The experience has been great, especially compared with the LaTeX memories from grad school.
The ticketing system might very well be the oldest.
AFAIK the very first large-scale commercial deployment of what we now call "distributed cloud apps" was SABRE, a ticket reservation system built back in 1960s, still in use today.
> Which should make no sense because the teachers themselves work odd years in one school, even years in the other school.
Peers make a huge difference. Before university, I split my high school between two schools - one that was near the top academically, and one that was quite poor. The latter did have some smart students intellectually, but almost none did well academically because it wasn't valued by their peers.
Then I went to a very average state university for undergrad, and a top school for graduate studies. The difference wasn't that high in terms of teaching (the average school actually had much better teachers, but offset it by low expectations). The real difference was in the peers.
You like engineering? You like coding? Want to do some cool side project? Very hard to find someone like you in that average university.
Then when I started working, I started tutoring some middle school kids. The kids seemed totally capable mentally, and I was trying to figure out how they can't retain simple facts like number of months in a year. Until finally it hit me. They don't have problems learning things. It's just that no one in their orbit (peers or parents) care if they know these things. When I was a kid, I'd be an idiot amongst my fellow students if I didn't know it. So I did. Everyone did.
But if you're around people who think it's OK not to know how many days are in a year, chances are you won't know it, no matter how intelligent you are.
This is very interesting to see on here. My mother was the dissenting vote on an FDA panel on this. There are articles about it. I'll copy her words (as reported by something but seems legit)
> She said that the FDA's plan doesn't go far enough.
> "It's hard to dismiss an anecdotal report when you are the anecdote. When a patient is finally tested and found to have gadolinium retention, there's no FDA-approved antidote. So what does the patient do?"
And I want to reiterate that she was "the" no not "a" no. I don't know if her vote alone is what's caused more research into this. But it's probably the thing I brag about her the most. Even though everybody else said it was fine or abstained, she stood strong. If you look up the articles from the time of the panel (2017) you'll see a lot of articles about this panel and how she was the sole no vote. Included in that was a public post from Chuck Norris praising her. He was going to come out to meet us but I think it was a bad Texas hurricane season so that fell through
There were some temporary stops, but mostly they resolved pretty quickly. I think an issue is that the US requested that tariffs be paid upfront at the sending end and a some couriers aren’t set up for that. Or that they needed time to set it up.
Many of the postal and courier systems that suspended service have since set up the systems they need, and are happily moving packages into the US, but it tends not to make the news.
But given our track record, a little humility would go along way.
When a highly educated doctor tells you that something is safe, a person is going to assume that means that someone somewhere has proven that the substance is safe. If what they really mean is that no one really knows, but so far, no experiments have been able to prove danger, then we should say that instead.
For anyone that's interested in formalizing mathematics but wished there was an easier way to do it, I've been working on a different sort of theorem prover recently.
The idea is that there's a small AI built into the VS Code extension that will fill in the details of proofs for you. Check it out if you're interested in this sort of thing!
To be clear, I would not ordinarily ask these kinds of questions. I understand that things take time. That's why I'm resigned to the idea that Asahi will never again be roughly up to date with the latest Apple hardware. I only asked this question because hanikesn seems to think that Asahi will magically suddenly be up to date once they've upstreamed everything.
Interesting approach using AVFoundation for the video playback. I've worked with streaming video on macOS and found that AVPlayer can be quite memory-hungry when handling multiple streams. Have you considered using VLCKit instead? In our testing, VLCKit used about 40% less memory and handled network interruptions more gracefully.
One potential enhancement would be to add support for adaptive bitrate streaming (HLS/DASH). Most live streams nowadays offer multiple quality levels, and automatically switching based on available bandwidth/CPU makes a big difference in reliability. The AVPlayerItem.preferredPeakBitRate property gives you basic control, but implementing a full ABR solution with VLCKit gives much finer-grained control over quality transitions.
Also curious about your strategy for handling screen sleep/wake cycles. We found that AVPlayer instances sometimes get stuck in a bad state after sleep, requiring a full teardown and reinit. Using notification observers for NSWorkspaceDidWakeNotification helped catch and recover from these cases.
It's kinda hilarious to watch people make themselves redundant. Like you're essentially saying "you don't need me, you could have just asked ChatGPT for a review".
I wrote before about just sending me the prompt[0], but if your prompt is literally my code then I don't need you at all.
The grand exchange (auction house) and the trade restrictions that landed at the same time pretty much killed the game for me.
Prior to the G.E., RuneScape had a thriving, complex economy. Players made money transporting goods from harvesting areas, either on behalf of someone or by paying independents for their goods so the independents could avoid going back to town. Players made money buying and selling goods - geographic arbitrage was very much a thing, as well as across time, and also across servers. People made money turning cheaply available goods into more expensive goods.
When the G.E. landed, it basically killed most of the economy. Harvesting stuff could still be profitable, and players could still make money transporting goods from harvesting areas to the nearest bank so people grinding levels wouldn't have to leave, but basically everything else became irrelevant. There's no point in selling anything anywhere yourself when you could take it to the G.E. and get a sale with no effort.
Less of an issue but still sad, the trading restrictions also killed the generosity of veteran players. 'drop parties', where a rich player leads a group around town dropping valuable items, died off as valuable items would no longer appear in the ground for others. Gifting people stuff was no longer possible if it exceeded (fairly low) thresholds. Very sad.
Swift SDK's are a way for anyone to support any platform, as proven by the Android guys doing it on their own. There are also SDK's for Linux, wasm, and embedded (and soon, windows?). So long as you play by SDK rules, Apple won't stop you from porting Swift to a new platform, even on competitive platforms like Android.
(The inter-op story with the JVM languages is still being written; it reduces to either the C/C++ FFI or the two incomplete duals of Java's legacy JNI and newer FFI/Memory interfaces. Prototypes work fine when the semantics are the same, but beyond that, there be dragons. Cross-platform UI frameworks are similarly (and likely eternally) afflicted with bright and dark spots.)