I never understood why Program permissions is such a big deal on Android and IOS, but not on Desktop Windows/Linux, where any application can to everything.
Status quo and inertia. Smartphones had it from the beginning. On Windows there was a struggle just to make default user accounts non-administrator. Personal software for Windows has for the most part adapted to UAC. There's plenty of legacy enterprise software that requires installation with local administrator privileges, domain controller privileges, remote desktop access, no firewall, etc.
I'd love permissions for desktop apps too, but it's not as big a deal because on a desktop I have root access and can monitor what applications are doing myself. I can see which files or hardware is being accessed and when. I can see what network traffic is being sent and to where. I have full control over what applications are installed and what they are allowed to do. I can even fully sandbox apps or run them in VMs.
The phone in my pocket isn't mine, I paid for it, but it belongs to Google, and they make changes to it all the time without my permission and without giving any indication to me that something was changed on my device. Google prevents me from being able to see what the apps on it are doing, and prevents me from changing how they run, or from monitoring all in/outbound communication.
Google's shitty permissions system is such a big deal for mobile because it's literally all we have "protecting" us, and that isn't much. Naturally that leaves us with zero protection from Google itself. but that's the price we pay for having a mobile device that gives us more freedom than Apple ever would.
I'm confused... you are right that it takes no additional torque to keep a frictionless rotor rotating at the same angular velocity, but in the real world there is friction and air resistance where you have to keep applying torque to keep something spinning at the same rate. and if you are applying torque to someone, then that thing is applying an equal and opposite torque back... is it not?
> if you are applying torque to someone, then that thing is applying an equal and opposite torque back
Yes, just like with a force.
> but in the real world there is friction and air resistance where you have to keep applying torque to keep something spinning at the same rate
Yes, but I think you are forgetting one thing: If the friction is between the rotor and the body, then this friction does not only act on the rotor, but also on the body. I.e. the friction creates a pair of torques which the engine can perfectly counteract with it's own pair of torques.
If the friction is between the rotor and the air, then yes, the spacecraft needs some kind of counteraction or it will start turning.
The error messages you mentioned in here have been completely overhauled. In fact, most things in SciML are now caught and throw very high level error messages. We also revamped the whole documentation and added docstrings everywhere. See https://sciml.ai/news/2022/10/08/error_messages/ . We're also in the middle of rolling out a new documentation (https://docs.sciml.ai/Overview/stable/) that has a lot more of a split between tutorials and references. It's not complete, but the core push of this should be completed in about 2 weeks. As for loading times, we've transformed those as documented in https://sciml.ai/news/2022/09/21/compile_time/ (taking a core case from 30 seconds to 0.1 seconds), and Julia v1.9 is releasing a feature where package precompilation can store LLVM-compiled binaries.
So I think most of the blog post has already been addressed?
The one thing we haven't done is improved type printing. I am with you on that one, and actually opened a Base Julia issue about it way before your blog post: https://github.com/JuliaLang/julia/issues/36517 . It requires a Base Julia fix though, so that's a bit out of my hands. Also, I think it would be good for Base Julia to do a bit of the error message interpreting that SciML has done, specifically for broadcast (https://github.com/JuliaLang/julia/issues/45086). So there are some more improvements to be done, but I don't think the blog post is up-to-date given the overhauls that were done in the summer of 2022 (thanks to your feedback).
It would be nice to hear updated thoughts when you have a chance to try all of these improvements (especially when v1.9 comes out with the cached binaries)!
> It would be nice to hear updated thoughts when you have a chance to try all of these improvements (especially when v1.9 comes out with the cached binaries)!
I finished my Master in physics. Now, I'm working in IT, and even tough physics will always have a special place in my heart, I probably will not return to physics.
If I will find myself doing Numerics, I might give Julia a second try, but I don't think I will find myself doing numerics anytime soon.
Maybe if I buy a SDR and have some fun with it, I might use Julia.
Tell HN: Copying and pasting from ChatGPT unsolicited sucks
> I can understand why you might feel that way. Copying and pasting from ChatGPT without permission can be considered rude and disrespectful. It's important to always ask for permission before using someone else's work, especially if it's for a public forum like Hacker News. Not only is it the ethical thing to do, but it can also prevent potential legal issues. Additionally, using someone else's work without giving them credit can take away from their hard work and efforts. It's always best to give credit where credit is due and ask for permission before using someone else's work.
If you translate it so that it does exactly the same, the resulting code has a modern language but is even more horrible than the original COBOL code.
If you translate it so that is does effectively the same, the resulting code is nice.
Unfortunately only the former can be automated. Also, you need to understand the code to do the latter. But reading it is hard and the ones who wrote it are dead/pensioned.
"We described the article to the government before publication."
They use this as a defence; how can something be "treason" if it was literally approved by the government?
The NYT depends on government approval to publish some stories, including probably every international story. Not uncommon to have ex-FP/NatSec people in foreign editor roles.
It's easy to see why: if they don't work with the government, the government won't work with them and some other newsroom will get superior access.
