Precisely. What changed between then and now is that major labels no longer control distribution, and thus they no longer hold a oligopoly over what music we can consume. This is clearly something that benefits everyone, except the major labels.

This fact alone makes me very sceptical of this blend of blog posts. It clearly pushes to go back to a time where everyone was screwed over by the music industry.

Again, a siege is not prohibited under international law. The civilian population being to leave would be one example. Allowing humanitarian relief would be another. Along the lines of what I said above, the question of humanitarian relief only arises later into the siege when there is actually a humanitarian problem. And Israel reversed course on some decisions and allowed aid even before that. Gallant did not say Israel would prevent Gazan civilians from leaving to Egypt (e.g.).

This was said at the heat of the moment. I do realize it's hard for random people on the Internet to understand the shock Israel was under at that time. It's also fair to expect the minister of defense to moderate what they say. It's also still very much a cherry pick reduced to a propaganda line item.

Lo and behold -- unfortunately not quite all, but certainly a lot of the provocative / uncompromising language he Palestinian side is, in essence, coming from a place of anger or other distressful emotional states as well.

/s

> I can’t help but wonder if there’s a reaction-diffusion-model-esque effect at work here as well

There are continuous approximations of the game of life that show this, for example this implantation:

https://smooth-life.netlify.app

    const foo = () => {}

    const foo = () => {}
    console.log( foo.name );

   const test = () => ( () => {} );
   const foo = test();
   console.log( foo.name );

Is this behavior required by the standard ?

  var foo = function() {};

function foo(){} is also callable if bar is defined before foo.

  const foo = function (){}

I haven't figured out if people consider this a best practice, but I love doing it. To me the list of called functions is a high-level explanation of the code, and listing all the definitions first just buries the high-level logic "below the fold". Immediately diving into function contents outside of their broader context is confusing to me.

Hoisting also enables cross-imports without helper unit extraction headaches. Many hate js/ts at the “kids hate == and null” level but in reality these languages have a very practical design that wins so many rounds irl.

This is not true I believe. There are plenty of papers out there revolving around dynamic/animated splat-based models, some using generative models for that aspect too.

There are also some tools out there that let you touch up/rig splat models. Still not near what you can do with meshes but I think fundamentally it’s not impossible.

With regards to dynamicism, there’s some papers yes but with heavy limitations. Rigging is doable but relighting is still hit and miss, while most complex rigs require a mesh underneath to drive a splats surface. There’s also the issue of making sure the splats are tight to the surface boundary, which is difficult without significant other input.

Other dynamics like animation operate at a very gross level, but you can’t for example do a voronoi fracture for destruction along a surface easily. And again, even at a large scale motion, you still have the issue of splat isolation and fitting to contend with.

The neural motion papers you mention are interesting, but have a significant overhead currently outside of small use cases.

Meshes are much more straightforward, and with advancements in neutral materials and micropolygons (nanite etc) it’s really difficult to make a splat scene that isn’t first represented as a mesh have the quality and performance needed. And if you’re creating splats from a captured real world scene, they need significant cleanup first.

Maybe the various chat interfaces already do this behind the scenes?

This means it’s not UBI, and that’s kind of the whole point here. With UBI this welfare cliff wouldn’t exist; if you work, you still raise your income. That means, unlike the current German system, UBI still incentivises people to work to increase their income/wealth.

Of course actively disincentivising people to work will cause them to not work. That’s just rational behaviour, you cannot blame anyone for that.

Nobody is saying that the carrot (personal financial gain) needs to be removed from the equation. Just that everyone is guaranteed some basic level of financial support.

Society already produces enough wealth to cover the expense of UBI. Remember it would replace any other welfare systems in place today.

Personally I think I might take a bit more risk, and choose to do something that I personally believe is of actual value to society rather than please some corporation or VC.

I’ve never seen this math worked out.

Also, some benefits are inherently lumpy. A special-needs or chronically-ill person needs (and receives) resources that wouldn’t be covered by a broad-spectrum UBI.