Without a mantissa, way too much precision is allocated to the near zero range and not enough to the "near infinity" range. Consider that without a mantissa, the second largest float is only half of the largest float. With a 23 bit mantissa, there are 2^23 floats from half the largest to the largest.
You could change the scaling factor to target any bounds you want. On average the precision is equal. The mantissa just adds linear segments to a logarithmic curve.
> On average the precision is equal. The mantissa just adds linear segments to a logarithmic curve.
Yes, exactly; the linear regions are needed to more evenly distribute precision, while the average precision remains the same. Alternatively, you can omit the mantissa, but use an exponent base much closer to 1 (perhaps 1 + 2⁻²³).
My phone is not the only device I use my ear buds with. Having to contantly attach and remove a usb-c adapter would be a complete pain in the ass. It's not just a matter of plugging it in — which would already be bad enough. I'd also need somewhere to store it, and I'd need to pack and unpack it each time. All that, or I could just buy a phone with a standard headphone port.
Any law that allows a government to renounce people's citizenship for broad, vague reasons is a very, very bad law. Regardless of its intentions, it will be used as a tool to subvert the rights of citizens even outside the target group.
The problem with this is that once enough people are paying for an ad-free subscription, services reintroduce ads to the paid subscription, sometimes alongside the introduction of a new more expensive ad-free subscriotion.
If it's blocked by default and you need to interact to opt in, isn't the default "block on every visit"? The only reason it's an option now is to avoid the modal popping on every visit, which isn't a concern for this proposal.
Edit: Not sure why I'm being voted down? Can someone who disagrees with my statement explain why you'd click a button with the goal of opening a modal to deny a permission when the permission is already blocked?
It depends on how styleable the <permission> element ends up. I don't imagine any website will use it if it's limited to being an ugly default button with non-configurable text. But if the button is configurable enough, there's nothing to stop websites from abusing it for permission spam, just like the current model is.
Basically, I expect users wil stil need a way to defend against permission spam.
This proposal doesn't (nor can it possibly) fix the issue of the site putting a full-viewport UI up that forces you to trigger a permission modal. That's an issue today, and it doesn't even have anything to do with permissions. See: cookie popups, newsletter popups, disable your ad blocker popups. It's impossible to avoid that problem, because the nag screen is the content of the page. Even if you block permission requests with today's options, the site can still do this to annoy you into changing your mind.
If you're on a site that follows your cursor around with this button forcing you to click on it, the SITE is spam, not the permission request.
That's the point: the site never asks for permission with this proposal. You can't opt out of asking because the UI for the proposal is explicitly opt in. What would you want such an option to do in the context of this proposal?
I think it's probably just really hard to diagnose uncommon diseases in people (although endometriosis in particular may be fairly common). I have trouble diagnosing some bugs in software at my job; I imagine it's much harder to diagnose issues in a human body.
Claude Plays Pokemon is kind of an interesting case study for this. This sort of knowledgebase is implemented, but even state of the art models struggle to use it effectively. They seem to fixate on small snippets from the knowledge base without any ability to consider greater context.
I think Starfield gets a lot more flak than it deserves. Yeah, compared to Fallout 4, where there's something hand placed to observe or interact with seemingly every 100 ft in any direction, the world feels barren. But I think the departure is intentional; Starfield felt much more like a spiritual successor to Daggerfall than to anything since Morrowind. Overall, I spent less time in Starfield than in older Bethesda titles, but I liked what was there, despite it being less dense, and I spent more time than I have in many other games.
Why should Bethesda have to refine the same exact formula over and over? That would just turn into what Ubisoft does with Assassins Creed, pumping out soulless entry after entry into the franchise. In other words, Starfield was Bethesda taking a risk and trying to introduce unique features rather than releasing yet another another predictable "Bethesda RPG".
> Why should Bethesda have to refine the same exact formula over and over?
Because they are the only ones who can pull off that formula, and when they stray from it, they end up as just one mediocre title in a sea of similar mediocrity.
Perhaps Starfield was the most important Bethesda release. The animus toward Starfield will serve as an enormous signal/reminder to course correct away from this "unique feature." One can hope.
I find Plasma much more pleasant to use than Windows' shell. There's no specific big feature that makes it stand out, but it works just a little more smoothly in almost everything it does.
Maybe it's a case of [1], but I think Plasma is ready for the average desktop user. The other parts of the system may have some ways to go.
