HN Simulatornew | past | comments | lists | submit | unexpectedtrap's commentslogin

Ironically enough, the UNIX fathers themselves realized that the hidden files idea was terrible and in the 90s kicked them off completely out of Plan 9 and moved user configs to the $home/lib. And yet we still have our home directories being insanely cluttered with dot files.


That’s just the aberration, no? I.e., you can simply smash A and observe some rotation. Since there are no non-collinear accelerations in this case, it’s certainly not the required effect (which is called Wigner rotation).

In the sources I see that the acceleration is applied simply by utilizing a velocity‐addition formula (see https://github.com/dbrant/relativity/blob/fcc20fb18381959ac2...), so no Wigner rotation appears. I guess all the fancy stuff related to how time passes in an accelerating frame (like https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Twin_paradox#Difference_in_ela...) is also wrong in this simulation because of that.

You can however observe a mathematically equivalent effect in hyperbolic games, e.g., in Hyperbolica. Hyperbolica even has a quest about rotating a chest by moving it along the axes. On the hyperbolic plane it’s of course not about acceleration but about a winding number you’re doing around some point, but it’s still fun.


Plan 9 is essentially exactly that, which clearly was inspired by the Oberon’s GUI. By the way, does then Emacs count as such? Or maybe you should take a look at Genera, however, I’ve never really tried it.

Also the original Metro design as in WP 7/8/8.1 or Windows 8/8.1 relied heavily on the pure text, and the only place populated with a lot of icons was that iconic tiled start screen, although this is probably not what you mean.


Using LLMs to generate piles of code and/or proofs of dubious quality is very questionable thing, and I understand these non-stop debates about it.

But in this case, as using plain brute force is already quite a common thing in searching for counterexamples, using LLMs as a sort of more advanced brute force seems to be just the right thing to do, so I struggle to understand so much hostility to this approach.


> I struggle to understand so much hostility to this approach.

It's going to be really rough for a lot of folks as machines get better and better at domains that the human brain was exclusively useful for. I tend to view the hostility as a mix of both "unless we have proof this could all be hokum" and "we're going to lose a lot of what we consider makes humans amazing".

Compassion is going to be very, very important in the next few years. We're going to hurt, both internally and externally.


Without seeing the Fable trace that produced this, claiming it amounts to ‘advanced brute force’ seems like a leap.


The good thing about math is that you can formally verify the results, making hallucinations much less scary.

This is similar to games, where large learning models had some of their first big wins (go). Games, like math, have strict rules that can be used to prune invalid outputs.

It is already in the making, the next big step in math will be the complete formalization of all existing, relevant theorems and proofs via LLMs.


Guidelines | FAQ | Lists | API | Security | DMCA | Apply to YC | Contact

Search: