I remember when bitcoin post appeared first on HN. It was trending and lot of people were curious about technical details and people joking about viability as currency.
I even started mining for a brief time on work desktop which I had to uninstall immediately of course.
Yeah I remember the white paper being posted in 2009, took another 2 years before I got into bitcoin.
The reason I know bitcoin has hit the mainstream and isn't going anywhere is in sort due to HN. This bubble has spurred zero posts as far as I can tell, or zero that gained any traction.
In part this is because there is nothing new to discuss. But in the past there was nothing new either, but it gained traction because of the numbers of comments.
Now I guess the naysayers have moved on the criticism of AI and the defenders don't feel like it needs defending anymore.
It did make sense for quite a while..I bought and sold stuff online and between 2011 and 2015/16 it was easier and cheaper to pay Chinese suppliers in bitcoin than trying to send international transfers. Think 20p a transaction Vs £25 flat fee for an international bank transfer.
It did make sense and it did happen. However it has now evolved into another asset rather than a currency.
Main challenge with this approach is change management of models scheme. Apart from Consensus for updating schema, maintaining versioned models across services becomes a challenge. Let’s say someone deprecates a field in schema, all services needs to update the business logic based on that which is challenging and against the ethos of distributed services.
It's a challenge but in principle it's doable with contract testing, in the style of Pact, where there's a contract broker that disparate services all coordinate through. If you've got that, you can publish your new model version as a new contract version, and everyone can see immediately where their APIs need to change. Contracts do get a passing mention in the article, but it's not a focus.
I am waiting for a day when all phone hardwares defaulting to Gaussian splatting to take 3d images without expensive sensors. It may be computationally expensive but probably cheaper than adding expensive sensors and adding more weight.
>> Right now everything is going wireless. Video is wireless. Lights are wireless. Sound is wireless. It’s all good, but there’s a lot of congestion on sets with all those things combined. Sometimes those nice tools don’t work because there’s too much technology on set
I’ve been there. Too much tech and compatibility among them is a major source of frustration. For a movie tech guys I see that as opportunity to come up with an OS where everything can be integrated where all stakeholders being users and multiple technologies working together with cohesion
> The triangles are well aligned with the underlying geometry. All triangles share a consistent orientation and lie flat on the surface.
When I first read "triangle splatting," I assumed Gaussians were just replaced by triangles, but triangles being aligned with geometry changes everything. Looking forward to seeing this in action in traditional rendering pipelines.
Normal aligned 3DGS was already proposed earlier[1].
This seems more like an iteration on getting performance improvement by moving from the theoretical principle closer to what the hardware is already doing well and finding a sweet spot of brute amount of features, fast rasterization method and perceived image quality.
It's already noticeable that there doesn't seem to be one fits all approach. Volumetric feathered features like clouds will not profit much from triangle representation vs high visual frequency features.
There are various avenues for speeding up rendering and improving 3d performance of 3DGS.
it's surely a very interesting research space to watch.
I think the major computational task is sorting the primitives, which works great on GPUs but not so much on CPUs. Im sure there is some research happening on sort-free primitives
Patents are mostly theoretical.. they are done by researchers in companies. Companies consider them as assets and holds them which sometimes increases valuation of company itself. This does not mean they want to spend money into building that may not bring them business in near future.
Best example is car companies. I heard from one of the employee that they already have research and patents to build more efficient cars but the production of those are delayed for getting the value for the research done.
Not really, one often needs to prove how the innovation works even if algorithmic (for example a gene sequence identifying itself was justifiable for many companies, and proved they weren't making stuff up.)
Patents sound vague on purpose, but I assure you real money and mountains of expensive studies were done prior to publishing any claims. =3
Stepping back a little and try to projecting that logic onto humans, are we more like super organisms? Interestingly, Our social constructs does have similarities of both superorganism and non- superorganism
It's even more extreme than that. If you took a random sampling of humans to a version of Earth that had never experienced humans, it would not go well. We're heavily dependant on society and modern technology. We've evolved together.
I used to use Google Reader a lot. I used to love reading through the feed but once Google killed it, I did not continue the RSS collections. Perhaps its time I get back to finding a new reader.
Heuristics for picking the most valued content is not always good. I see some posts on niche subs without much engagement, but align with my interests. Perhaps I can let a local LLM prioritize the feed based on my history or preference which I can tune as per my requirements rather than some black-box algorithm
I even started mining for a brief time on work desktop which I had to uninstall immediately of course.