Tech person - there's only one contributor, it's less than 48 hours old, and appears to be primarily vibe coded with the assistance of Claude Code. No mentions of types of stitches even though it's crucial to understanding how a garment is made. I wonder too if this grammar can represent a glove made from a single strand of yarn.

If I understand what you mean, that's more in the realm of knitting which does already have several rigorous notations in common use.

This is for pattern drafting, which assumes knit or woven fabric as the raw material for the garment construction, along with the pattern.

That said it still does not seem suitable for this task based on my experience sewing from and modifying patterns.

It looks like it's missing so much that you'd need even to hand-sew a pattern at home. There's no mention of interfaces or bindings.

This looks more like something for making clothing as digital content - e.g. Marvellous Designer. Possibly more straightforward even.

Edit: found interfacing. It calls it "interlining".

Stitches are load-bearing, so specifying a bartack or a flatlock seems pretty important to unambiguously specifying a garment. Along the same lines, I don't see a way to specify hardware that isn't for closures, e.g. the rivets used to reinforce denim pockets.

I know, I make clothes too. Probably unlike the creator of this thing.

But the comment I was responding to seemed to be using "stitch" in the way knitters use it, not the way sewists use it. No pattern drafting system can represent the stitches necessary to create a panel of knit fabric, that's simply not the level of abstraction they work at.

This thing isn't good but not for the reason of being unable to represent a one-strand mitten or whatever, which is what I think they were getting at.

Is this even able to specify patterns? Or is it just how to assemble the pieces of cut cloth?

If old teaching styles / standardized testing / standardized schooling represent this moribund, stagnant thing that haven't changed at all and haven't kept pace over the past century, why wouldn't you expect measured learning performance to hold steady as well instead of declining? The students basically have the same brains that they've always had. There isn't as much lead in the water as there used to be, in the atmosphere as there used to be, and parents take prenatal vitamins. They're starting from the same raw stuff that they've always been starting from, if not better. So why would they be getting worse? Children one generation ago didn't need individualized curricula and testing to achieve the performance that they got. Why does the current generation need that, and by what mechanism would that improve their performance?

The way of teaching and testing has changed so much in just the 25 years since I’ve been in school it’s almost not recognizable for some subjects. At least for the public schools my friends and family’s kids attend.

The standards have also plummeted overall, along with expectations. This also seems to translate into parenting and home life as well for many. A neglectful parent likely is far more impactful on performance these days since the kid isn’t out roaming the neighborhood getting into trouble and learning how to get out of it - they are sitting in front of a screen of some sort simply consuming.

It certainly is not an unbiased opinion but I am totally unsurprised at the reduction in academic performance. The writing has been on the wall for an extremely long time. You can only reduce standards and game the numbers for so long before the real world impact is impossible to hide.

If Uber had an internal policy of only ever hiring convicted rapists, didn't tell anyone using the app this, didn't warn about unsafe rides, didn't record ride information, and (crucially) also didn't tell their employees to do anything other than to be decent, good, hardworking drivers -- what do you believe their liability should be in this case? Nothing? I'm trying to "steelman" the implications of your point of view but I'm struggling here. When does liability kick in for you - is it only if they enshrine it as policy to do the criminal act?

But Uber does have a hand in it, by choosing to not properly vet their drivers or lower the risk. Uber is not a marketplace - they choose the drivers and they are, more or less, assigned to you. Uber is their employer.

If the employer makes choices that leads to an unsafe working condition, then that's their responsibility. If that might, potentially, mean the current business model is not viable, well... yeah, too bad so sad. Nobody has a god given right to run a business however the fuck they want.

But I don't think that's the case here. Uber can take steps to mitigate this, it's not like theyve exhausted their options. Frankly, they haven't even tried.

What incentive would there be for a gig company like Uber to not deliberately hire criminals if Uber isn't liable, but other companies could be? Reputational damage isn't enough to hurt the bottom line and to change behavior - if it were, they would've already done more, but they didn't because they were operating under the assumption that they were legally insulated.

> My job running the website and twitter has always been to give the people a voice. I think that's important, don't you?

Do you truly believe in your heart of hearts that people posting neo-MOASS wish fulfillment suffer from a lack of a voice, and no place for them to be heard? Take this seriously. More important than "a voice" is consistency and clarity of communication. The people involved in occupy wall street in 2011 weren't occupying it because they wanted to eventually join it, and I don't think that their form of economic justice would be for Wall Street to lose money in a gigantic market crash that again would result in taxpayer-funded bailouts that spurred the first protests. For transparency's sake, what are your market positions today?

I'm hanging out in a bunker in Omaha rooting for the Japanese people, who've gone through great hardship for several decades to checkmate Wall Street.

They're the true Occupy Wall Street and all I'm doing is recognizing their achievement.

Is the aircon any good?

Afghanistan is a landlocked country on the other side of the planet, the soldiers didn't grow up with knowledge of the terrain, they had no knowledge of the language, culture, customs or social networks, no one locally (with few exceptions) wanted them there, and crucially they only lost once they left, and when they left, there were no penalties for the people who started the war; no US politicians were in any danger whether the war was won or lost, no land was lost, and no truly important geopolitical goals failed.

On the flip side in any domestic insurrection, the soldiers know the terrain, language, customs and culture of the people, the supply lines are nothing (rather than having to airlift materiel and people thousands of miles, you drive them on regular roads), the infrastructure supports espionage, most people support the regime and will collaborate to return to stability (since they voted for it), the regime never leaves (you can leave Afghanistan, you can't leave your own country or it ceases to be a country), and if you lose, you lose territory and/or politicians run the risk of violence. The stakes are why these comparisons are never relevant.

But at the same time a domestic insurrection means your enemies have direct access to all of your most important infrastructure and logistics and supporting economy. It might be expensive to fly or float materials and people over to the middle east, but you don't gotta worry about 1000+ miles of pissed off insurgents potentially around every bend and tree or mixed into your own military or logistic personnel.

What do you believe the frame rate and resolution of Tesla cameras are? If a human can tell the difference between two virtual reality displays, one with a frame rate of 36hz and a per eye resolution of 1448x1876, and another display with numerically greater values, then the cameras that Tesla uses for self driving are inferior to human eyes. The human eye typically has a resolution from 5 to 15 megapixels in the fovea, and the current, highest definition automotive cameras that Tesla uses just about clears 5 megapixels across the entire field of view. By your criterion, the cameras that Tesla uses today are never high definition. I can physically saccade my eyes by a millimeter here or there and see something that their cameras would never be able to resolve.

Yep, Tesla's approach is 4% "let's build a better sensor system than what humans have" and 96% "let's salvage it in post".

They didn't go for the easy problem, that's for sure. I respect the grind.

I can't figure out your position, then. You were saying that human eyes suck and are inferior compared to sensors because human eyes require interpretation by a human brain. You're also saying that if self driving isn't possible with only camera sensors, then no amount of extra sensors will make up for the deficiency.

This came from a side conversation with other parties where one noted that driving is possible with only human eyes, another person said that human eyes are superior to cameras, you disagreed, and then when you're told that the only company which is approaching self driving with cameras alone has cameras with worse visual resolution and worse temporal resolution than human eyes, you're saying you respect the grind because the cameras require processing by a computer.

If I understand correctly, you believe:

1. Driving should be possible with vision alone, because human eyes can do it, and human eyes are inferior to camera sensors and require post processing, so obviously with superior sensors it must be possible 2. Even if one knows that current automotive camera sensors are not actually superior to human eyes and also require post processing, then that just means that camera-only approaches are the only way forward and you "respect the grind" of a single company trying to make it work.

Is that correct? Okay, maybe that's understandable, but it makes me confused because 1 and 2 contradict each other. Help me out here.

My position is: sensors aren't the blocker, AI is the blocker.

Tesla put together a sensor suite that's amenable to AI techniques and gives them good enough performance. Then they moved on to getting better FSD hardware and rolling out newer versions of AI models.

Tesla gets it. They located the hard problem and put themselves on the hard problem. LIDAR wankers don't get it. They point at the easy problem and say "THIS IS WHY TESLA IS BAD, SEE?"

Outperforming humans in the sensing dept wasn't "hard" for over a decade now. You can play with sensors all day long and watch real world driving performance vary by a measurement error. Because "sensors" was never where the issue was.

Yeah, Tesla gets it, except they’ve been promising actual FSD for a decade now, and have yet to deliver. Their “robotaxi” service has like 30 cars, all with humans, and still crashes all the time. They’re a total fucking joke.

Meanwhile Waymo (the LiDAR wankers) are doing hundreds of thousands of paid rides every week.

Denial of Service is an attack, is it not?

It did always strike me as funny that Cronenberg had a movie about "what if TV was evil and made people murderous and the studio execs had to pay", and a movie about "what if video games were evil and made people murderous and their creators had to pay", but never a movie about "what if movies were evil and made people murderous and film directors had to pay". Obvious bias aside I wonder if it would work as a story - movies don't seem as hypnotic in the public consciousness, I believe.

The game one being eXistenZ? Only recently got to see Videodrome and quite liked it so will check it out.