This is awesome. I think I've heard of other research that's similar to try and speed up Navier-Stokes or other water/smoke/etc. simulation.
But this isn't actually recreating murmurations, is it? This is a neural network that's using the Reynolds criteria as a loss function, with Cavagna's topological neighbors?
As far as I know, there's no good research that reproduces the murmations seen in starling flocks. This seems like it would be a good use case for neural networks but I don't know of any publicly available 3d data of actual starling flocks, aside from some random YouTube videos floating around.
Both empirically and theoretically, verification is often much more tractable than discovery.
Software development is a highly complex task and verification becomes not just validation of the output but also verification that the work is solving the problem desired, not just the problem specified.
I'm empathetic to that scenario, but this was a problem with software development to begin with. I would much rather be in a situation of reducing friction to verification than reducing friction to discovery.
Cognitive load might be the same but now we get a potential boost in productivity for the same cost.
I only skimmed, and I was expecting a treaty on how "brand" is the new currency, but instead the thesis is the opposite:
> ... Is there some edifying lesson we can salvage from the wreckage? ... One obvious lesson is to stay away from brand. ... Sure, you might be able to make money this way ... but pushing people's brand buttons is just not a good problem to work on ...
> Go where interesting problems are, and you'll probably find that other smart and ambitious people have turned up there too. And later they'll look back on what you did together and call it a golden age.
I do feel like RSS feeds are one of the easier things to do DIY, custom to people's specific taste of how to list data of this sort. All the 'off the shelf' RSS feeds that I see feel contrived, cluttered and bloated.
It was me. I saw your post from over at lobste.rs "what are you doing this week" [0]. I've had the tab open for a couple days and I thought people over here at HN would like it (and I was right).
Anyway, thanks for the resource. I'm sure people would be interested in the parent page, "Graphics Programming Virtual Meetup" as well:
I'm sorry I don't have better statistics but after the dot-com bubble burst in 2001, I think it took roughly 15 years for the stock market to bounce back. Though I could be wrong, I think unemployment was also high, including in the tech sector.
There was constant sneering at dot-com businesses and venture capitalists. There was FuckedCompany.com [0]. The Pets.com superbowl ad was seen as a cautionary tale.
Startup.com [1] portrayed paying parking tickets online as Sisyphean. People thought the internet was for porn and weirdos. Krugman famously said "By 2005 ... it will become clear that the Internet's impact on the economy has been no greater than the fax machine's." [2]
Clay Shirky: "The truth is no online database will replace your daily newspaper, no CD-ROM can take the place of a competent teacher and no computer network will change the way government works." [3]
A lot of the above was from mid to late 1990s but, in my opinion, living through it, it carried over into the 2000s with people being highly skeptical and quick to engage in shadenfruende whenever a company didn't live up to the hype.
You're completely forgetting "all your jobs are going to get outsourced to India". There was panic that internet connectivity would make local talent obsolete.
Microsoft was in full swing with trying to strangle the computing space. "Embrace, extend, extinguish" was a term coined from that era. Ballmer called Linux "a cancer". [0]
People were in a panic about Napster and how the internet would steal billions of dollars.
It does seem like people are much more against AI now than the dot-com boom then, but it's all looks and sounds very familiar to me.
> You're completely forgetting "all your jobs are going to get outsourced to India". There was panic that internet connectivity would make local talent obsolete.
That was largely in the latter part of the boom and part of the bust afterward. I recall some words from Carly Fiorina being said (“Forget the engineers”) that seemed to foretell the more extractive future.
Depends on how you define "normies". Sure, students happily napstered away, but a lot of adults (even those with no financial stake in the music industry) seriously believed the claims of the music executives that this "piracy" was going to destroy music and needed to be stopped.
Right before the Millenium, mainstream media like the NYT was blaming the internet and "violent games like Tribe, Doom and Quake" for the Columbine Massacre [0] and other similar mass shootings in the 90s.
A lot of those reporters are now leadership at major newspapers like the NYT (eg. Applebome who linked Doom with Columbine and is now the Deputy National Editor for the NYT).
A large amount of reporters (both techno-optimists and techno-pessimists) discussing technology today are literally boomers who have been fighting this battle against each other since the 1990s and taking all the airtime away from alternative younger voices on both sides.
Just seconding this…people have a starry eyed view of the dotcom boom but there was a lot of waste and outright fraud. A lot of theoretical improvements to business processes were lost because…the businesses didn't want to change their processes.
I joined CS education in 2000. There were jobs everywhere. Classmates were leaving after a few months, or working part-time. And this was in Sweden. It was not only creating jobs, but reinventing the IT field, creating lots more opportunities.
Today, the message is that (Dear leaders,) your workers can be replaced by machines. Not that you together can do more with this new tool, but that you can slim down your operation. Maybe I'm just older, but the optimism I saw then is now divided into opportunity (AI consultants) and skepticism (workers.)
This is a narrative the AI industry created, because they want to tap into the huge salary money pool. They tell a story of anti-innovation cost-cutting rather than "do more with these tools."
[0] https://github.com/abetusk/gbr2ngc
reply