There is nothing wrong with it, and RSA is still commonly used. In fact, RSA is better against quantum computers compared to ECC.

It's still a VSCode fork. Even Cursor's own About window tells you it's VSCode.

  Cursor
  Version: 3.4.20
  VSCode Version: 1.105.1

(Not the downvoter)

I can see how it appears that way but ultimately that's nobody's goal of course. Might be worth actually talking to someone who you feel is in that group and realizing that they have the same morals and end goals as you and me, just seeing a different path to get there

Many would actually say we should reduce the well-being, if you want to take it literally, but specifically of the richest 10% of people or so, such that everyone can be at an equal lifestyle that earth can sustain, since it's not fair if 90% needs to live far under that common standard so that the rich can be rich. That could be something to agree or disagree with (most of us here are in that top 10%; I certainly am), but I expect you'd not find 99% of "them" having an unreasonable stance when you hear them out

I've seen https://kyc.rip but haven't tried it so far.

That's just using Trocador with referral fees.

You could just use Trocador directly and skip the "hackerish" aesthetic and save 2% on fees.

I tried this with Opus 4.7. Doesn't do anything, it can continue the conversation and even repeat it back to me.

Depends how much total RAM your application needs and how much money RAM access tail latency costs your business.

When you use a FOSS product more, the person that wrote the code doesn't end up spending more money. When you use a free service more, someone is paying for that usage and resources.

My Hacker News items table in ClickHouse has 47,428,860 items, and it's 5.82 GB compressed and 18.18 GB uncompressed. What makes Parquet compression worse here, when both formats are columnar?

Sorting, compression algorithm +level, and data types can all have an impact. I noted elsewhere that a Boolean is getting represented as an integer. That’s one bit vs 1-4 bytes.

There is also flexibility in what you define as the dataset. Skinnier, but more focused tables could be space saving vs a wide table that covers everything -will probably break compressible runs of data.

Parquet has a few compression option. Not sure which one they are using.

Plus isn't the least wasteful format, native duckdb for instance compacts better. That's not just down to the compression algorithm, which as you say got three main options for parquet.

You could download the data and run that analysis yourself. I’d be interested to see it, especially your method of identifying “political shit-slop” and “AI” and the relationship to COVID. Sounds like an interesting project.

Browser killing the tab way before it happens

A microphone + ADC is hearing though, that's the whole reason we even produce microphones. So that our electronics can hear sound.

So according to you when can you qualify something as capable of hearing

1. Vibrate according input to the sound, is that hearing?

2. Generate electrical signals according to the sound, is that hearing?

3. Amplify electrical signal, does we cross the hearing mark?

4. Record the signal to a cassete tape (or use an ADC -> mp3), are we hearing yet?

5. Play it back through a speaker. Sure, we should be hearing now!

At which point exactly would you say the thing is definitely hearing?

You can reduce the human auditory process to a similar mechanical list. At which specific point would you say a human is hearing?

You've fallen into the trap of human exceptionalism but you don't seem to be aware of that fact. Are you a substance dualist or not?

>You can reduce the human auditory process to a similar mechanical list.

You can't. Because we don't know at which point sound gets registered in consciousness.

Because you can't even define what consciousness is, let alone objectively test for it.

You are entirely wrong though. You most certainly _can_ reduce the human auditory process to a (bio)mechanical list.

You have unilaterally, arbitrarily, and without justification added consciousness to that list.

>Because you can't even define what consciousness is, let alone objectively test for it.

Exactly. So if we understand "hearing" as something registered by consciousness, then implicitly things that are not conscious cannot "hear".

>reduce the human auditory process

Yes, human auditory process, yes. "Hearing" no. I see that you cleverly switched to the "auditory process" instead of "hearing". moving goal posts, are we?

Alan Watts talks about this.

If a tree falls, does it make a sound? It depends on whether there is somebody to ultimately perceive the vibrations that the falling tree made (either directly or via recording).

It is easy to answer this if we define sound as the sensation. If there is no sensor then there is no sensation. If we define sound as the vibration of air. Then yes, it will make a sound.

Most of these questions feels perplexing because some of the underlying terms are loosely defined. If we strictly define those terms, then the question answers itself.