I love this, and I wish more people would just fire up a text editor and write HTML like it's 1994.
If you do this, it's a good idea to learn about the handful of meta tags you'll need so your page doesn't look weird in search results or social media. But word to the wise, it's easy to go overboard with HTML "best practices."
I've run my own servers for over 20 years now, but I guess I don't understand the pain point. Can you elaborate? They write:
> Our system delivers all the hardware and software you need to run cloud…
To "run cloud?" Does this mean treating your own servers like "serverless?" Does it mean running Kubernetes? Is this primarily for people who want to self-host LLMs?
I'm literally so old that I write programs that run on a server and never think about infrastructure.
I agree that's a bit awkwardly phrased, let me send in a patch for that.
> Does this mean treating your own servers like "serverless?" Does it mean running Kubernetes? Is this primarily for people who want to self-host LLMs?
Not exactly any of that. We let you treat an entire rack as a single pool of resources, spinning up virtual machines that our control plane manages for you. Think "VPS provider but you own it." There's an API, but if you want to see what our console looks like, you can poke around with a demo here: https://console-preview.oxide.computer/
> To "run cloud?" Does this mean treating your own servers like "serverless?" Does it mean running Kubernetes? Is this primarily for people who want to self-host LLMs?
Congrats! I'm currently a Granola user, and wanted to build this myself a while back. But I probably wouldn't have gone as far as fine-tuning a small model for meeting summarization. Can't wait to try it out!
You have an icon with the Finder face labeled "Open Finder view." I would expect this to open the app's data folder in the macOS Finder. Instead, it opens an accessory window with some helpful views such as calendar view. I'd encourage you to find another name for that window, because it's too confusing to call it "Finder" (especially with the icon).
I'd also add a menu item for Settings (and Command-comma shortcut) in the Application menu.
You also need a dark mode at some point.
Finally, I'm not sure where note files end up. Seeing that there's an Obsidian integration, I would love an option to save notes in Markdown format into a folder of my choice. I'm an iA Writer user, and would love to have meeting notes go directly into my existing notes folder.
I'll let you know how the actual functionality is working for me after my next few meetings!
I understand, but that is not exceptional for a Mac laptop. You could say all Apple Silicon Macs are exceptional, and I guess I agree in the context of the broader PC community. But I would not point at an individual MacBook Pro with 64 GB of RAM and say "whoa, that's exceptional." It's literally just a standard option when you buy the computer. It does bump the price pretty high, but the point of the MBP is to cater to higher-end workflows.
To emphasize this point further, at least with my efforts, it is not even possible to buy a 64GB M4 Pro right now. 32GB, 64GB, and 128GB are all sold out.
We can say that 64GB addressable by a GPU is not exceptional when compared to 128GB and it still costs less than a month's pay for a FAANG engineer, but the fact that they aren't actually purchasable right now shows that it's not as easy as driving to Best Buy and grabbing one off the shelf.
They're not sold out—Apple's configurator (and chip naming) is just confusing. The MacBook Pro with M4 Pro is only available in 24 or 48 GB configurations. To get 64 or 128 GB, you need to upgrade to the M4 Max.
If you're looking for the cheapest way into 64 of unified memory, the Mac mini is available with an M4 Pro and 64GB at $1999.
So, truly, not "exceptional" unless you consider the price to be exorbitant (it's not, as evidenced by the long useful life of an M-series Mac).
thank you for providing that extra info! i agree that $2000-4000 is not an absolutely earth shattering price, but i still wonder what the benefit one receives is when they say "2.5 year old laptop" instead of "64GB M2 laptop"
I like the comparisons! I think it's 100% fair to compare the "out of the box" images from the iPhone to other cameras. With that said, some notes:
I think a lot of the differences you're seeing are the result of FOV differences; the iPhone camera is a ~24mm equivalent, which is much wider than most people would shoot on a dedicated camera. That wide-angle distortion is just a natural part of the 24mm focal length, but not really the iPhone's fault.
The other effects you're seeing are related to Apple's default image processing, which, at this point, most people would agree is too aggressive. This difference goes away if you shoot in ProRAW and process your photos in an app that allows you to dial down (or ideally turn off) local tone mapping.
If you have an iPhone that shoots 48MP ProRAW, don't be afraid to crop the image significantly, which increases the effective focal length and makes the image look more like a dedicated camera. It also increases the apparent bokeh, which is actually quite noticeable on close-ups. With the RAW you can then quickly edit the image to end up colors which are much more faithful and natural.
If anyone out there doesn't have a Pro model, they can shoot RAW photos in 3rd party camera apps, including Lightroom, which is free.
> As for the amber stream pouring into my gas tank as I stand at the self-service pump on my way to Walden, I now take it and all the other plant-based fossil fuels to be an infinity of petrified sunlight, best understood through the compound lens of the Lyell-Darwin eye.
This is the most nihilistic essay I've read in a long time. It contemplates climate change and the extinction of humanity with a lyrical nonchalance that is misanthropic at best. Keep pumping that liquid sunshine, Lewis.
Every single one of us needs to wake the fuck up. The author is right that the planet itself will be fine without us. If we want to survive as a species, we can't bask in decadence and romanticize the decline.
There is also a sort of blindness to the same sort of processes Hyde is quite reasonably (and evocatively) gobsmacked by: if Darwin could be said to have invented a sort of integral Calculus to grapple with deep time, a differential version is just as needed to look at changes in the rate at which the rate at which changes are changing, and perhaps on to even higher derivatives.
Too many of these melancholy (or as you say, nihilistic) takes are rooted in a model of the form "we are here, now, and if things go on as they have been will inevitably wind up there, by then" and fail to acknowledge that things are not going to "go on like they have been". Things are changing, but the rate, manner and even direction of changes are also changing, and we need to recognize that as well.
> The author is right that the planet itself will be fine without us.
Who would have thought geology would cause people to think they should just go kill themselves to make the world a better place. I mean, I know people are messed up (including first person pronoun) - but we are seriously far gone if we can't imagine people somehow, some way making the world a better place.
Great identification of a problem, big miss on identification of a solution.
"Fine" in the sense that life will probably go on in some form or another. The planet's climate has whipsawed countless times, causing many mass extinctions. My point is: when people talk about "saving the planet," what they really mean is protecting the ecosystems that we've grown accustomed to. I think words matter. The planet is not in danger. We are.
> Every single one of us needs to wake the fuck up.
And how do you plan to achieve that ? The denial of reality of human psychology and politics is one of the reasons denial of climate change is still rampant. Yelling at people with urgency only works that much, and it also amplifies resistance.
In the end, everyone needs to wake the fuck up implies a sheer resolution of the need for change, and you won't bring that by schooling people, yelling at them or even violence. The inevitable is there, do what you think is best, tell what you think is best and you'll probably have maximized your contribution already.
Contemplating how things plays out in the end is not nihilistic, it's a form of acceptance of the real hard truth about the grip we have, as individuals, on the mater.
I guess you're right—if people are not resolved in the need for change now, they never will be. Are you willing to just say our extinction is "inevitable" and face it with "acceptance?"
Donald Trump was on the UK national TV news yesterday, at his golf course in Scotland[1] and the reporter said that he was still complaining about 'windmills'[2] spoiling the view and vowing never to allow any to be built in the USA.
Sorry to make everything about Donald Trump, but in the face of the most powerful country on earth voting a climate change denying party into power where they are happy to shut down green movements for personal reasons, and promised to "drill, baby, drill" what do you, turnsout, think it matters whether we HN peanut gallery "accept" that our extinction is "inevitable" or not? It sure seems inevitable no matter what I do or don't accept and I assume that's the case for most people reading your comment.
[1] where he was caught on camera cheating at golf
[2] off-shore wind turbines visible from his golf course, which he tried to get stopped years ago, and lost, and is now holding a grudge about it.
If we feel hopeless, that works well for Donald Trump. "There's nothing an individual can do" is just a story—a narrative. As an example, the Target boycott had a real impact on Target's revenue. Who knows if that may eventually lead to a change in their policies.
I'm not saying every person in the world needs to become Greta Thunberg, but perpetuating the narrative that we're powerless just makes the narrative stronger. We all have to do what's workable and feasible for ourselves, but let's not treat our extinction with the same "gee, shucks" resigned fatalism that we treat our elections. The stakes are slightly higher.
afaict, the situation can be roughly summarized as :
- global climate is warming by around +0.3C per decade
- its caused mainly by humans burning carbon chains for energy, emitting CO2
- we are currently sailing thru +1.5C above pre-industrial mean temp
- Methane CH4 is also a strong warming agent, around 20x more potent than CO2, on decade timescales
- humans are emitting all time high levels of C02, around 40Gtonnes / yr
- Carbon capture / CCS / DAC need to be millions of times more efficient to be significant
- we dont have enough room or time to plant trees to remove the CO2
- net-zero when we reach it, corresponds to max-Co2 which means peak-heat
- net-zero aka peak-heat might occur bu 2060, by which time we'll be near +2.5C
- extreme events are not linear in increase in temp [ think of shifting the mean of a bell curve ]
Even if we do a great job of electrifying everything, moving away from fossil/carbon fuels by 2060, we still have a heat problem to deal with - will we be able to grow our normal crops under +2.5C, and deal with extreme heatwaves, floods, storms ?
It seems we will need Solar Radiation Management Geo-engineering "SRM" in order to survive that peak-heat and buy us a few decades in which to slowly remove CO2 [ even as we move full steam ahead to de-carbonize our energy system with wind, solar, battery packs, hydro, fission, geothermal and hopefully fusion power ]
Particulates from volcanoes are well known to cause a cooling effect, and its now becoming more obvious that particulates in pollution in Asia, and sulphur impurities in shipping fuels were having a measurable cooling effect - we seem to be warming faster now that Asia and shipping fuels are not producing as much particulate pollution [ thus less cooling effect ]
It seems to me the only "Hail Mary" we have to address the heat problem, is to use SRM to exert a cooling effect - we humans geo-engineered a warm planet over 150 years of burning carbon fuels, and we will need to geo-engineer our way out of this mess.
tldr : Abundant clean energy is needed, but we also have to address the heat problem - with SRM geo-engineering
Alas, net zero carbon is not peak heat. It’s peak carbon dioxide. It’s peak rate of temperature change due to greenhouse gases. Global average temperatures will continue to rise past 2060 (or whenever we get net zero). I’m not sure what the models predict. Perhaps the total temperature rise could be 3.5 degrees by 2100.
Complexity is not inherently bad. Browsers are more or less exactly as complex as they need to be in order to allow users to browse the web with modern features while remaining competitive with other browsers.
This is Tesler's Law [0] at work. If you want to fully abstract away GPU compilation, it probably won't get dramatically simpler than this project.
> Complexity is not inherently bad. Browsers are more or less exactly as complex as they need to be in order to allow users to browse the web with modern features while remaining competitive with other browsers.
What a sad world we live in.
Your statement is technically true, the best kind of true…
If work went into standardising a better API than the DOM we might live in a world without hunger, where all our dreams could become reality. But this is what we have, a steaming pile of crap. But hey, at least it’s a standard steaming pile of crap that we can all rally around.
I hate it, but I hate it the least of all the options presented.
I swear, if I had 2c for every <insert computer guy surname> supposed "law", I would be a millionaire now. Slogans make no law, but programmers sure love "naming things." In all fairness, the obsessive elevating of good-sounding slogans into colloquial "laws" is a uniquely American phenomenon. My pet-theory is that this goes back to old days when computer science wasn't considered a "real" science. That is, in "real" sciences there are laws, so the American computer science guys felt like inventing "laws" to be taken seriously.
This article is just misinformed. Source: I’ve been working with color space conversion, HDR tone mapping, gamut mapping and “film look” for 20 years.
It’s clear from their critique of the first screenshots that their problem is not with HDR, but contrast levels. Contrast is a color grading decision totally separate from HDR tonemapping.
There’s then a digression about RED and Arri that is incorrect. Even their earliest cameras shot RAW and could be color matched against each other.
Then they assert that tone mapping is hampered by being a 1D curve, but this is more or less exactly how film works. AAA games often come up with their own curves rather than using stock curves like Hable or ACES, and I would assume that they’re often combined with 3D LUTs for “look” in order to reduce lookups.
The author is right about digital still cameras doing a very good job mapping the HDR sensor data to SDR images like JPEGs. The big camera companies have to balance “accuracy” and making the image “pleasing,” and that’s what photographers commonly call their “color science.” Really good gamut mapping is part of that secret sauce. However, part of what looks pleasing is that these are high contrast transforms, which is exactly what the author seems to not like.
They say “we don’t have the technical capability to run real film industry LUTs in the correct color spaces,” which is just factually incorrect. Color grading software and AAA games use the same GPUs and shader languages. A full ACES workflow would be overkill (not too heavy, just unnecessarily flexible) for a game, because you can do you full-on cinema color grading on your game and then bake it into a 3D LUT that very accurately captures the look.
The author then shows a screenshot of Breath of the Wild, which I’m nearly positive uses a global tonemap—it just might not do a lot of dynamic exposure adjustment.
Then they evaluate a few more images before praising a Forza image for being low contrast, which again, has nothing to do with HDR and everything to do with color grading.
Ultimately, the author is right that this is about aesthetics. Unfortunately, there’s no accounting for taste. But a game’s “look” is far more involved than just the use of HDR or tone mapping.
Yes. There are true facts, but the concept of "rationality" presupposes that there is one correct way to interpret these facts and translate them into behavior.
Two people observe someone beating another person. One person moves forward to intervene and stop the violence. The other moves away to protect themselves. Which person has acted rationally? They may have both acted in complete alignment with their personal philosophies, and they may each view the other as irrational.
"Rationality" is completely subjective to your own values and belief systems. Human behavior is infinitely more complex than formal logic allows.
If you do this, it's a good idea to learn about the handful of meta tags you'll need so your page doesn't look weird in search results or social media. But word to the wise, it's easy to go overboard with HTML "best practices."
reply