The status quo. Framing things in this way is something I first encountered in libertarian/capitalist propaganda (when I didn't know better and was basically a dogmatic libertarian). The message is basically: people should focus on the goods the status quo provides, instead of the political power, economic security, etc. that it doesn't.
I don't see why pointing out improvements in quality of life is "propaganda for the status quo" or precludes talking about political power and economic security. We can and do talk about both all the time.
If you know anything about libertarian cranks, this doesn't make any sense and smacks of projection. They're not "satisfied with the status quo" qua political structure or economy.
There's a value in gratitude and recognizing widespread improvements in QoL, in large part fuelled by growth in the past century, and taking advantage of state capacity. That's not tantamount to saying there are no issues today, let alone that you shouldn't care. You can at least criticize accurately and take things at face value.
> If you know anything about libertarian cranks, this doesn't make any sense and smacks of projection. They're not "satisfied with the status quo" qua political structure or economy.
I didn't say anything about "libertarian cranks." I've only first (and mainly) seen this line of thought in "libertarian/capitalist propaganda."
And I think you can broadly break that propaganda down into (at least) two broad efforts, with somewhat different goals:
1. Preventing movement from the status quo in a non-libertarian direction. That's where this kind of thing comes in, because it can be used to distract from dissatisfaction.
2. Advocating that the status quo to change in a more libertarian direction.
Tautologically, libertarian "propaganda" would be pushed by libertarian ideologues. You've revealed that you're conflating libertarian and "capitalist", so I take it that through your interpretation, any remotely pro-market sentiment is "libertarian propaganda" (like plain ol' Liberalism, or, suggesting that zoning reform i.e. the govt getting out of it's own way can improve housing affordability). After all, no one comes out and says "this is propaganda", and you're telegraphing your yardstick.
> Preventing movement from the status quo in a non-libertarian direction.
The fact that you think the status quo is somehow in line with libertarian ideology, as I helpfully hinted at, tells me you have no clue what you're talking about. Developed countries broadly exercise a Liberal democracy with mixed-market economy and substantial government spending and intervention, which has mostly gone up over time. That's something libertarians whine about, not boast about.
> I first encountered in libertarian/capitalist propaganda
you should definitely look up the communist/socialist propaganda on East Germany and Soviet Union. In capitalism there is no such thing as what is provided by status quo, that's the whole point of capitalism, you can have whatever you want as long as you are willing do whatever it takes, unlike socialism/communism where you're allowed to have whatever the government mandates as the max (land, money, etc.) you can have
My only additions to the article would be to study your probability/statistics (can't do efficient path tracing without it) and get comfortable with integrals, especially integrals on a sphere (physically based rendering will be a lot easier to understand).
Where is the "John Carmack" of ML? Where is the John Carmack of physics? This hero worship crap needs to be left in the past. There isn't a singular active researcher you can point to and say "this person has made the field what it is today". There are very influential papers, but they all have multiple contributors. Is that really a valid reason to not engage in a particular area of research or engineering?
And who cares anyway? No matter what you choose to do with your time, chances are that you will not have that much of an impact on your chosen discipline. You should choose how to spend your time based on whether an activity genuinely interests you, not on whether you think it would be easy to get recognition.
Physics is a weird one to bring up, because even compared to other fields, it's one where breakthroughs are frequently the result of relatively singular genius. Newton, Faraday, Planck, Einstein, their discoveries were generally not incremental progress along existing lines of inquiry like most physics research is, they made pretty radical changes to our understanding of the world writ large.
In comparison, Carmack is grossly overhyped. He's like the Feynman of CS: A significant contributor to relatively young field, and a pretty influential communicator, but their contributions were moreso being the first to make a certain type of incremental progress than a paradigm shift.
No, that is exactly the reason I am bringing up physics. There used to be a time when a singular person could make an outsized impact. In the recent past though, this has not been the case: significant breakthroughs are usually the result of coordinated effort of many individuals. Is that really a valid reason to not do physics?
now, if you said "don't get into it because your primary employment prospects would be games or film industry, which are known to be less than stellar towards their workers" - that would be a different story.
there isn't much that is "arcane" about gamma correction itself (as in, the math itself is really simple).
at the fundamental level, if a surface is illuminated with one lightbulb and we add another light bulb, the difference is exteremely noticeable to the human eye. if we add one more lightbulb to a surface that is already illuminated by a hundred light bulbs, there will be no perceptible difference. the exact response can be modeled with a pretty simple power law (with a modification in the low range, as the article mentions).
that's all there really is to "gamma correction". it's a hack that exploits this quirk of the human visual system in order to more efficiently allocate bits for encoding different "lightness" values.
all of the confusion and bugs stem from one or more of the systems in the chain that forms the final image, making an incorrect assumption about what the others are doing. it's a bit like coordinate spaces in that regard.
general rule of thumb is that you never want gamma-corrected values if you intend to be doing any sort of math with them. the only exception is when you want to match the behavior of softwares that actually do all the math with pixel values in sRGB space (I think that's what photoshop does but don't quote me on that).
Dynamic DNS takes setup for every single device, and obviously doesn't work for devices that switch networks frequently. It also doesn't help you if the IP is behind a NAT.
Funneling means opening up the device for the entire internet to access, not just to those with my public key like in iroh. It's limited to 3 ports. It requires setup for each device. It's not peer-to-peer. It has throttled bandwidth.
No, this does not do the same thing as iroh. Not even close.
First iroh was marketed as "solves communication behind NAT". Then we went to application level NAT busting vs node level NAT busting. Then we went to distributed vs client-server, then we went to stable IPs for non-server devices (your original comment).
Now we moved to "true peer to peer" and "public keys".
This just tells me that the marketing site doesn't explain what Iroh actually does.
The fact that so many other people (apart from me) asked about the connection to Tailscale is also interesting.
What you're missing is that they can't charge you for IP's, and someone else already charges you for DNS/domains. They would like to replace your IP's with keys they lookup. It's a cool idea and I would expect that they'll find a market, but I'm not sure this would be a breakthrough product for me
Nothing about Iroh usage as operator or end-user entails billable metering of keys, clients, QUIC endpoints, bytes transferred etc and to be honest you could deploy pretty extensive Iroh-based software without ever having a financial relationship with number0.
Correct, they do not meter keys, it's a subscription. There appears to be a free tier followed by paid tiers for increased usage (https://www.iroh.computer/pricing).
I don't use Iroh so I could be wrong, but the goal is definitely a paid service.
The paid component in question here is not necessary to use Iroh, though. You can have elaborate Iroh-based projects entirely based on the OSS components without losing features and without paying anything. There are public relays and self-hosted relays, anything else is the concern of your application(s).
As for anything being a "goal"? They do have dev salaries to pay and they offer managed control planes with SLAs or consultations with the core devs to accomplish that.
Iroh endpoint ids are just Ed25519 keypairs. We don't want you to charge per id, and even if we wanted there is no way we could.
We charge you for hosted relays and additional insights into your deployment, but the core is and will always remain free. Everything is licensed MIT and Apache2.
not having a vaccine for a deadly disease, or having a vaccine AND a monstrous media machine that will convince millions to not take it?