An underwater Nabataean temple in Italy really shows how deep ancient trade ties ran, until shifting Roman politics changed everything for smaller players like the Nabataeans.
Heroku reminds me how the tools that helped us grow can eventually turn into limits we outgrow. In tech staying dynamic means keeping the freedom to adapt not just scale.
I put MoCA and a TP-LINK Omada setup (unified control of all AP's - you define the network, adopt the AP's as they are plugged into the network, and they offer the SSIDs and options you want) in my in-laws' house a couple of years ago. They went from almost-undetectable WiFi in most places to a solid signal throughout the entire house. They love it. They even asked why their ISP didn't do it. I told them that $400 of gear and two hours of expertise in setting it up was not in Charter's budget. My MIL even said oh, we'll pay for the gear, you didn't need to spend that much. No, you won't, it's a gift from me (because it means that my wife and I won't have to worry about nonexistent WiFi when we're at your house).
WiFi 7 will fix that for sure, it says on the box that it ‘will finally make true multi-gigabit WiFi throughout the home a reality with faster speeds, less interference, and better performance for today's many high-bandwidth online activities.”
Key problem with all the wifi standards is the bandwidth upgrades are real, but they mostly give you more headroom for dealing with interference.
Which is good, but it's why we always have this delta. It does feel like at some point we might end up with apartment building standards requiring 2.4ghz/5ghz mesh in the walls to attenuate cross-talk signals between apartments or something (and then maybe phone-tower micro antennas to provide signal for 5G).
>It does feel like at some point we might end up with apartment building standards requiring 2.4ghz/5ghz mesh in the walls to attenuate cross-talk signals between apartments or something (and then maybe phone-tower micro antennas to provide signal for 5G).
I've had it both ways, and I can't say that it is better either way.
In dense neighborhoods (especially stick-framed apartments), Wifi is problematic due to co-channel interference, as you've addressed. This can be resolved somewhat by increasing the density of my own access points.
But things don't get completely rosy with isolation, either. My current dwelling has aluminum siding, low E windows, and even some metal lath in the walls. This all conspire to make it resemble a Faraday cage.
Wifi works great indoors, but it's a struggle to even load up the most basic of web pages (like HN) using wifi on my front porch.
It is fixable by adding some low-power access points outside and I probably will do that at some point. It's just still not exactly ideal, either.
Can't we fix this with better beamforming? Lots of stuff doesn't use it at all, there's probably a lot of spectrum to be gained just with very basic stuff.
If they improve it enough and make it cheaper, the WiFi people could rename anything without beamforming to wifi lite or something so everyone knows to avoid it if possible.
With decent planning though and PoE it's substantially easier to add new APs to cover dead spots due to signal attenuation then it is to try and reduce signal attenuation after everything is built though.
I can fish new wires through walls, I can't easily wrap my building in mesh.
So now an algorithm can interpret the law better than a judge. It’s amazing how technology becomes judge and jury while privacy rights are left to a good faith interpretation. Are we really okay with letting an algorithmic click define the boundaries of privacy?
Funny how we're constantly pushed to recycle, cut water usage, and drive less to save the planet, while the richest 1% jet around like there's no tomorrow. A progressive carbon tax might sound fair, but how do you enforce it on those who practically make the rules?
Reducing two mathematical proofs to being 'essentially the same' just because they reach the same conclusion overlooks something crucial: each proof isn’t merely a path to a result but a unique expression of understanding. A proof has its own logical and conceptual structure, and that structure isn’t interchangeable without losing some of its inherent value. Comparing proofs shouldn’t just focus on a shared outcome: the path taken, the relationships it establishes, and the concepts it explores are as fundamental as the conclusion itself. Perhaps it’s time to view mathematics not just as calculation, but as a real act of knowledge that in its diversity deepens our grasp of reality
Proof A and Proof A' are identical, except that Proof A says "and therefore" where Proof A' says "and so we see that". Different proofs?
Proof A'' is a faithful translation of Proof A into French, is it now different? Or is it a trivial translation of the same proof into different language?
This is, in fact, the topic of the Fine Article. The layman (myself included) sees easily that proof is something more durable than the exact words chosen, or even the language the proof is written in. Mathematicians (and patzers such as yours truly) will tend to view trivial transformations of a step in a proof, or trivially equivalent tactics, as resulting in the same proof.
What makes such a transformation trivial? Good question.
computational reducibility/irreducibility is a big topic in computer science and is incredibly interesting. It allows us to prove that certain "computers" are the same through proofs and that they can carry out the same tasks regardless of the actions that take place within them. I would suggest looking into that as it really opens your eyes to just how similar computationally so many things are
Spending $7 trillion on in-house fabs sounded both ambitious and crazy. Reality finally kicked in. If they’re done dreaming big, let’s hope they keep the quality
Removing view counts and dates feels like another step towards making YouTube a black box. If they hide engagement metrics it’s a lot easier to push certain videos without users catching on. Wonder if this will really improve our experience or just make it harder to find what we’re looking for.
I don't agree with all of it. In particular I don't believe a lot of your metaphysical claims.
I think the idea of intelligence as understanding how probabilities are distributed is compelling. I don't understand all of your ideas. But I can see value in what you're thinking and writing about.
If you want to be someone's undeceiver, you need to ask more questions and tell them less of what you think. Think along the lines of how Socrates engaged with people. It's not because of anything to do with the content of what you think. It's because people don't change their mind from hearing what you say. They change their mind by entertaining a new perspective that's fresh to them.
Or don't do that. It's just my two cents. If I appear to give a command, it's just grammatical/rhetorical. You do you.
Well, thanks for the vote of confidence. And remember, like those posts which speak to you! Karma hemorrhaging accounts apparently loose the ability to comment.
If you’re curious about more of that “metaphysical” stuff, check my threads before they’re white-holed!
For sure. If you do lose the ability to comment here for any reason, my email is in my profile. You are always welcome to write me. I am bad at responding though so I can't promise I will respond, and if I do it will probably take a long time.
