joonazan

It is the best on the market but unfortunately they just use Google underneath plus their own blog index. And at least to me it seems it isn't going in a better direction.

The US sounds extremely expensive. In the EU 1500$ a month will pay for a very nice apartment close to work.

I feel like the quality of her videos is way down but I am ND and found that video pretty neutral.

I skimmed a transcript just now because I wanted to understand why people are so disproportionately mad about it. She mentions Autism Speaks and does not immediately condemn it. Is that it? I wouldn't say that counts as being wrong on everything.

I'm tired of (especially internet) discourse where shouting which camp you belong to is most important. One good example is when people accused Amnesty of siding with Russia because they reported on Ukrainian warcrimes. Nothing is truly neutral but I much prefer information or thought experiments over the virtue signaling that has taken over the internet.

You will not convince people to change their mind by shouting in their faces that your point of view is correct. Granted, you usually wont change people's mind online anyway, except entrenching them deeper into their existing beliefs. I don't think that is a good thing regardless of the side they take. It leads to seeing fellow humans as monsters just because they are wrong about something.

it is better than the competition but it will never be like Google before 2019 because they'll never build their own index.

The car/bus comparison is useful, the others aren't because they travel at different speeds.

Probably walking can still move more people than cars. If walking is 5 kph and driving is 50, people need to take 10x less space to break even. They probably do, as cars need to keep distance.

Pyre is an interesting sports game IMO because it doesn't try to look like any real sport.

You don't need to cite, you need to provide source code. The point of GPL is to allow the user to inspect and modify the software. You can even sell it as long as you provide the modified source code under the same license.

It represents each circle as an equation that is only true when x and y are on the circle. By requiring that all three equations are true, you can find all points that are on all three circles.

You can either convince yourself that three circles can only intersect at one point or you can use the fact that two variables and three independent equations means that there are zero or one solutions that satisfy all equations.

You could actually even make a system that only needs two distances (and the depth)! Two circles can only intersect at two points, so you just need to figure out which one of the two you are. That can be done by looking at which of the landmarks is on the left when looking towards them.

Now the really difficult thing here is to figure out why this works even with inaccurate inputs, as the math presented on the site assumes that everything is perfectly accurate.

You can actually formulate different ways of computing the position that differ in how they react to measurement error. One way to investigate that is to take the derivative wrt. to one of the radii.

This resonated with me because I once did the same thing but in 3d and with magnetic field strength instead of distance. I never found a satisfying solution because magnetic fields are capsule-shaped rather that spherical. The shape is described by a 4th degree equation, so its exact solution is too large to be useful and the whole system of equations cannot be solved symbolically.

I hope that didn't get too intimidating.

It would be nice if we could upvote interesting posts rather that posts that we agree with.