skysight-inc/HackerNews huggingface dataset:
You're talking about the company that over the past 15 years introduced consoles with motion controls, touch screens, autostereoscopic 3D, proximity-based data sharing, wireless HDMI streaming, and seamless docking support?

That one? That company lacks innovation?
You're correct in saying there's no real difference between objects and collections, but there is a meaningful distinction between mesh data and objects, in the object just being a container for the mesh. The modifiers, including array, actually work on the underlying mesh data, not the at the object level, and produce a mesh object as an output. As such, the array modifier does not utilize instancing but actually copies the mesh data multiple times in memory (both RAM and GPU memory), which is definitely not what you want with large, complicated scenes.

So it's not actually about the modifiers being able to be used for what you want in one scenario and not being usable in in a slightly different scenario; the array modifier is not really the tool for the job here at all.

The tool to be used for both of the use cases here is instancing, not the modifiers. Setting up your scene with multiple levels of collections and using proper instancing (which the array modifier is not) certainly is possible, there's just a couple of pieces of the puzzle that you seem to be missing (or unobvious hoops you have to know about, depending how you look at the UX).

Instead of arguing about philosophy and good UX design, I hope you don't mind me elaborating in a more step by step way on how to actually set a scene such as your example up.

You can spawn a collection instance at the location an "empty" type object, by selecting "collection" as the instancing type at the instancing section of object properties. You can have many of these empties and position them manually if you were so inclined.

The other thing is that you can use a mesh to spawn instances of an object at each face of the mesh. So you can create a mesh object, and set up instancing to spawn aforementioned "empty" object, that in turn spawns the whole collection, at each face of the mesh. (You do this by parenting the empty to the mesh, and setting instancing type to "Face" in the instancing panel).

This mesh would typically be rather simple, for example just a couple of disjointed faces scattered where you want your collections to spawn. Or just a single face, and mesh modifiers applied to it, such as array. So instead of arraying the collection, we array a mesh consisting of a single face, and each face of the arrayed mesh spawns an empty that spawns the collection, but the end result is the same. (No idea why each face can't be set to spawn the collection directly and we need an intermediate "empty").

You can also set instances to appear from particle systems etc, for example if you want your houses to just be randomly scattered on a surface of an object (like mesh in shape of the city or so)
Many of my friends from Meta (the AR guys) went to Oculus. Zuck acquired Meta.com (the AI guys) like half a decade ago.
I remember reading plain text books from PG at work ~20 years ago. The network was monitored so I had to bring them in on a 3.5" floppy. Having probably read thousands of pages that way, it's a bit odd to see plain text described as "unreadable".
> If there is going to be a metaverse, I'm not sure I want Facebook to own it. It's like a bad sci-fi pulp story.

I'm confident I don't want them to own it - or for it to be owned by a single party of any kind, for that matter.

> Given their investment and research, I wonder if they should open it all up (even if contradictory to short-term gains in ad revenue) so it has a chance to grow?

I mean, that would be nice for users, but:

a) I don't think Facebook is constitutionally* able to give up ad revenue gains: what they do is maximize ad revenue, basically

b) I strongly suspect they have other means at their disposal to maximize growth. After all, every FB-IG-WA user is a Meta user now, right? How much would it cost to just send every one of them an Oculus headset for free?

And if that sounds insane, consider that this announcement is basically saying "we're betting our entire brand on this particular future" - I suspect they'll do everything in their power to make that bet succeed (or appear to succeed).

* in the sense of "this is the fundamental basis and goal of the company," not in a U.S.-founding-document sense
Well I don’t think the acronym for Facebook Amazon Apple Google would’ve been palatable
That's why the key is to help people understand the cost and benefits of the system overall and not try to change their perspective on individuals.

If the system is effective for the vast majority and the cost of those abusing the system is less than the cost to prevent the abuse then that's generally a win. (Of course you have to be careful of second order effects and unintended consequences. If people can easily get away with abuse will abuse of the system grow?)

In other words, you don't need to convince people that abuse of the system isn't wrong or that it is impossible, i.e. the "don't judge" comments, you need to convince them that the system is effective in both costs and outcomes.
Facebook changes its name to Meta in major rebrand
The reason was because of stocks:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Big_Tech#FAANG
I certainly get "use it every day", for sure. Clubs, celebrities, enthusiast groups.

"love it" though?

Feels to me that it's a necessary evil, like car insurance.
Facebook to be called Meta in nod to its 'metaverse' vision
Because no one has ever made a living designing graphics before NFTs?
Exactly, this whole things screams “we don’t know what people want”. The video looks like a very well made parody.
I know it sounds like a fudge factor that can be made to do anything, but the truth is that particle models of weakly interacting dark matter can only be made to do a few things. If any distribution of matter imaginable could be created through dark matter, you're right, that would be an empirical fudge factor, but only a few distributions of matter can be created this way, and it's noteworthy that one of them matches the one in real life.

An example of a limitless fudge factor is epicycles. They could be made to do anything - now through our understanding of the Fourier transform, we can make them draw elephants. That's not what CDM is like because it can't be made to draw elephants.
I imagine when the branding is complete we'll get the following gem:

<meta property="og:title" content="Meta">
<meta property="og:site_name" content="Meta">
<meta property="og:url" content="https://meta.com">

Joking aside, in my view the branding (and branding ability) of the name change to Meta is impressive given their long term vision.

However, I do get the feeling that Meta will aim to eventually become a household proprietary name and thereby water-down what can be considered one of the broadest, most abstract terms we're all familiar with.
You provide enough value without over reaching to gobble up the planet's engaged time. You know massive ad engines which make the social media concept profit driven will not stop existing as a driver for the metaverse. We would need to pay to play in this space or accept a terrible freemium model which is likely to cause unintended consequences. The worst outcome would be a combination of both.
centralization also caused a natural pressure to prune all the mild content, it was inefficient (lots of politics and stuff like that) but it made a kind of ladder.. internet creates puddles, anybody can join, so they do and they had little value
Socket.io client depends on engine.io. That's probably why there isn't much in the socket.io-client: https://github.com/socketio/engine.io/search?q=pingInterval
The base Debian docker images don't come with `ps` either, which caused me a world of hurt earlier this year.
Most toolkits now use client-side text rendering which makes using X strictly worse than VNC for remoting.
> I mean, women were basically property at one point, with changing degrees of freedom. You might not get out of the house much, depending.

Can we please stop just repeating cliches that are not even obviously true? While certain countries certainly had these notions, this is not a universal.

And even in cultures with strong 'female ownership', the picture you're painting is incredibly wrong. While women may be considered 'basically' property, they would constantly be socializing with one another. They would be out of their house often with other women and their children. The appearance of 'ownership' would only be from the vantage point of men.

For example, looking at Middle Eastern society, it's completely false to say women don't get out of the house. Women have entire portions of the house to themselves, where they and their female friends can get together, talk, interact, and gossip without any interference from men, including their own husband.

Today we are way more atomized. Many people work, watch TV, and sleep. That's sad. We used to spend most of our day with friends and family. Even the slaves would.
And if they profited from it, isn't that enough? There's a market, however small, and they produced enough. I would argue that TE knows its customers really well.
My kneejerk reaction is that some projects with "meta" in the name might get into legal troubles out of the blue.
This person called it a week ago which I just think is impressive

https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=28931821
Next thing, you'll be telling me my Lettuce, Guacamole, Bacon, and Tomato sandwich is in poor taste.
If there wasn't a committee, the change would have been made and a lot of people would have suffered. In this particular case, the time spent in following the process is negligible compared to the damage this change would have caused.
Have you heard of white coat syndrome?
https://www.healthline.com/health/white-coat-syndrome

Recently learned about it, and based on my own measurements, seems I have it to some extent.
Howard Hughes had severe allodynia in an age in which there was no real medical treatment for it

Still, to this day, there is no amazing treatment for it. Especially because there are more than a few not well understood causes of it. Some medications work well for some, but not at all for others.

Hughes was, by all accounts, essentially a prisoner of his unrelenting misfiring nervous system. I think he lived out his final years with it in a fairly reasonable way.

Speaking as somebody with a moderate case of allodynia caused by a functional musculoskeletal condition, if my case was a bit worse, with no hope for treatment in sight, and I was loaded like he was - I too would likely spend my time in isolation and on a lot of drugs, really anything that would relieve the sensory pain, no matter how cognitively impaired it may make me.
1000% this, it's only a matter of time.
Your reasons are valid but way too U.S.-centric for me. I look at FB (the global company) in a global context and am shocked and disgusted at their "profits yes, responsibility no thanks" approach in, say, most non-English speaking countries around the World.
I would argue that early adopters/technologists of VR are comparable to PC gamers and Quest adopters are comparable to console gamers.

Both have a purpose, both are subsets of the same demographic... but both vote very differently with their wallets.

Personally, I don't mind FB taking over the casual market. There are still alternatives and the technology will advance faster with such a big company behind it.

That being said, I won't be touching the Metaverse unless I can't avoid it.
Facebook finally caved to their rapidly aging demographic's clamoring for a VR metaverse
https://forum.beagleboard.org/t/the-future-of-beaglev-commun... Sadly their current prototype is not becoming a production model though they are working on other board designs.
I'm talking about a single function being compiled into three separate processes.

fn onclick(ui, db, worker) {
ui! { spinner = true };
let value = db! {
value = value + 1;
value
};
worker! { notify(value) };
ui! {
spinner = false;
value = true;
};
}
Change happens in small steps. First, supply of clean energy. Then abundant supply. Then economic superiority. Then oil-powered tankers disappear.

If you try to put the last step first, the whole thing falls apart.
>There is no black and white argument why natural immunity should be superior - it can be worse, similar or better than vaccine-induced immunity. It all depends on the amount of viral particles you were exposed to in the first place.

Logical arguments for a position don't equate to empirical truths. Data is preferred over argument/opinion.

>Any study that compares natural immunity to vaccine-induced has to deal with a selection bias (as stated in the quote by somebody who is a professional at designing such studies).

Do you have any evidence that the study you linked to is biased? If so, why even link to it?

In any case, I think this thread is not going anywhere, so I will just let you have the last word.
> I could have been more clear here, I meant a custom-loop, not an AIO since they're a sidegrade to a top-end air-cooler at best.

Custom loop and an AIO of the same size are going to perform the same. I don't understand why you're suggesting that water cooling costs "10X" as much as air cooling when that's clearly not true.

An AIO and a custom loop with the same size radiator will perform the same. I've done custom loops and I've done AIOs. There's nothing special about a custom loop other than you get to mix and match different components.

Also, the top-end air coolers like Noctua perform almost as well as liquid cooling these days.

> I don't see the contradiction - you can have a quiet SSF build, and you can have pretty powerful SFF builds (enthusiast GPUs might be a problem), but you can't really have both at the same time... at least not under load.

I'm telling you - I have a 5950X and a 240mm AIO in a SFF and it's quiet. I could move the same CPU and the same AIO to a big case with sound dampening and it might be marginally quieter, but not by a huge amount. The only real difference is when I'm running the GPU at full tilt during gaming, but it's undervolted and I can't hear it over the game anyway so I really don't care.
You are right. Pride comes before a fall, and Zuck thinks he is better than Cook, Musk, Bezos, by building the multiverse he will restore his place as the greatest technologist of our time
Hell will freeze over before we get an international court.

The US literally has a law on the books to invade the International Criminal Court in the Netherlands if GWB is ever held trial for war crimes (wars of aggression have been a war crime since the end of WW2).
Couple quick things: Zuck's speaking has improved an incredible amount. So, props there.

Zuck's said a few variations of "building blocks are there" or "it is coming together" but also, "Even though it is still a long way off..."

This projection / demo video of the metaverse seems like a distraction to me. If FB doesn't have this to deliver, it is a lot like the old microsoft product concept videos. [1]

What is the intent? To see Zuck as a visionary? Does his speaking deeply on this subject attempt to position him / Meta as an authority?

Unless Facebook / Meta is setting expectations way lower than where they're about to deliver, I don't see how this will be viewed as anything other than a temporary salve to fill the vacuum sucking oxygen out of Facebook.

[1] https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=w-tFdreZB94
Facebook changes company name to Meta
Autocorrected from honest or personal I believe.
I must be a weird outlier. While I can agree with the article's opening ("Close to 100% of people who take antidepressants experience some form of sexual side effects") I can't, at least from personal experience, subscribe to the main message.

As my wife can attest, when I was on SSRIs, I was hornier than usual.
So they finally caved to their rapidly aging demographic's call for a VR enabled metaverse.
> I wonder what the business model is for this

Addicting people to living in a fake world where anything is seemingly possible, and then exploiting it. Basically the same M.O. as their other products, but on a "next level."
With women, birth control is the other obvious problem.

My wife took birth control for a day or two in her twenties before we married, had the symptom, and threw the pills away.

It's very sad. Women's sex drives are as strong as men's, and much stronger when ovulating.
Well, the article outlines how oil companies influenced our lack of climate action. So the question is not "did they have an impact", it's "how much impact did they have". And given how the feedback loops of climate inaction and climate change work, even a little push in the wrong direction is likely going to be responsible for millions of deaths before the century is out.
In the American urban gay community, neither LSD nor meth were nearly as popular as prescription amphetamines (pills) until the 1990s, when bathtub meth (crank) manufacturing really took off. They were all always available, but the pills were so cheap & easily obtainable that they were a natural favorite.
> Microsoft

Folks, here’s a good example of why you should read the article, or at least the title, or at least the thread you’re replying to before you comment.
Their new logo looks like a sagging pair of tits.
tcsh on my system:

$ tcsh --version
tcsh 6.21.00 (Astron) 2019-05-08 (x86_64-apple-darwin) options wide,nls,dl,bye,al,kan,sm,rh,color,filec
$ tcsh
% command -v command
command
% command -V command
command is a shell builtin
% builtins | grep command
%
This seems like a video for investors, not users.
https://meta.com

which redirects to

https://about.facebook.com/meta
What would you prefer? For scientists to throw up their hands and say there’s a discrepancy whose cause is unknown but it sure looks like a weakly interacting particle?

Oh wait, that’s the definition of dark matter
As soon as I get linux GPU drivers that don't crash randomly, I'll consider the need for a parallelized GPU implementation to be important.
> If you drop the launch costs by 100x, this means being able to launch 100x JWSTs for the same price

As the GP pointed out the launch cost of the JWST is a small fraction of the program's overall cost. Launching a hundred JWSTs would mean building a hundred JWSTs and doing so is not cheap. Even with economies of scale producing various components for the hundred JWSTs those all need to be tested and verified. That's an expensive process that doesn't really benefit from economies of scale.

For an instrument the size of JWST you can't just spam launches with the assumption some will fail. It's a giant instrument. A catastrophic failure would see it land mostly intact in a populated area or fill a huge orbit with dangerous debris. Even if it was just non-operational it would not occupy an orbital slot that's unusable by other instruments.

Launch costs are almost always a small portion of overall mission costs. Just because launch costs go down doesn't mean space missions can magically scale up. The goal is to launch useful scientific/commercial instruments or space vehicles. We don't just launch hunks of lead into orbit for funsies. Lower launch costs are nice but they're not going to magically make all space missions cheap or easy.
Yes that's right - unsigned is defined to wrap, but ints have undefined behavior if you add to the max value (or do other silly things with them). Thus the int version given could be optimized to do whatever when a positive integer is passed, since it only doesn't have UB when negatives or zero are passed.
I picked psilocybin for you.

"Psilocybin is not considered to be addictive nor does it cause compulsive use" - [0]

[0]: https://drugpolicy.org/drug-facts/are-psilocybin-mushrooms-a...
Zales.com Leaked Customer Data Like Sister Firms Jared, Kay Jewelers Did in 2018
This is a really cool webpage. Are there more webpages for other Apple products or even other companies products?
Optimising a Taskmaster Task with Python
My take away is that they have a great system which allowed for voices to be heard, perspectives to be presented, and for an ultimate decision made in the best interest of Debian users. Doesn't seem a waste of time to me.
Use Plex
I think we would both agree to temper any armchair-lawmaking with the understanding that as any rule becomes more complex it also becomes easier to abuse. But, with that said, I think we would also both agree that including (in this law) something like "Couples who cohabitate may jointly own no more than two properties in which they do not reside." is certainly reasonable.

Unless this was another misunderstanding and you meant to count all previously owned properties to which I would say: If you sell ownership of a property to someone else, you no longer own it.
Ok, shell corp. Done.
People claim others are buying property and keeping it vacant, but this does not seem immediately clear to me. If this were the case, there ought to be multiple vacant properties, but I don't see many.

Why am I being downvoted? Can someone link a study or systematic review that shows there are significant #s of vacant properties.
ummm, 195 bucks?

I can buy a pretty nice mini-itx cube shaped case on newegg for 80.
GAFAM should now be replaced by MAGMA. It better represents the evil that will burn you alive.
Interest and hope is fine. I was responding to the parent poster's stated revulsion for these theories -- and not just any of them but all of them, as though they have a blanket distrust in any unproven theory in physics, uncorrelated with the experimental evidence for it.

> fundamental axioms are proven incorrect

It's not that fundamental axioms are disproven so much as simplifying assumptions are invalidated. The standard model models the particles we understand well, and has obvious extension points for new physics (like new Lagrangian terms / new gauge fields). Nobody thinks that it models all of physics as written; it clearly doesn't account for lots of things.
I also have ADHD, but not hearing problems and suffer some of the problems you describe. However, silence doesn't seem to help my productivity and sometimes makes me anxious too.

What helps me is predictable sounds - like music I've listened to many times before.
It depends where you are doing this? US? Australian outback? Developing country? The places you’d want to use it (outback) probably have low enforcement
As a European, I look at FB in a global context, i.e. less U.S.-centric, and am shocked and disgusted for their "profits yes, responsibility no thanks" approach in, say, non-English speaking countries around the World.
The Blender x Internet project is called Meta! quite unfortunate timing
> It does not feel like a modern "professional" app though

True, it feels better that the standard "modern professional" design that you see nowadays, that it is just boring. Here you see some personality and functionality.
This all sounds like high octane speed-ball (used to be just mixing some basic speed with something like Vicodin, or an Adderral/Ritalin + Vicodin/Percocet), but mixing Meth/Fentanly sounds beyond risky.
They introduced x64 64 bit emulation in the Dev channel several months ago, but it didn't work well at all.

It also was more performant running in a VM on last year's MacBook Air than running natively on Microsoft's flagship hardware.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=OhESSZIXvCA
Just guessing: now Meta is a holding company of various social media "companies" so it'll be a bit harder to make a case that one company has a monopoly on the internet social media advertising.

They can even list Instagram on the market selling maybe a 5% equity.
I've looked into the logistics of "cooking" meth and it is a complex process that, were I not an expert, wouldn't create something I would be comfortable putting into my body.

How is meth "industrially" produced? Is it Walter White-esque clandestine factories? Is it clever people in their garages? Is it done over the border?