While some of the features of LogSeq are great I find it has a major drawback.
The MarkDown files it generates aren't compatible with other similar programs (Obsidian for instance).
It adds 2 spaces which makes thins incompatible with others.
This is the major advantage of Obsidian, it is not too much opiniated about how the RAW file should look. Which makes moving form one editor to other pretty easy.
APNG is at best a mixed bag, far from being a significant improvement over GIF.
GIF can have one palette per frame, which can be exploited to improve compression and quality (see https://gif.ski). APNG has to either use a costly true-color mode, which makes it compress worse than GIF, or one palette per entire animation, which gives it worse quality than GIF.
All the GIF-killer formats miss the point. They're trying to beat GIF on being primitive and inefficient, but GIF isn't successful because it's a dumb slow video codec, it's successful because it's old enough to be universally supported.
APNG is a huge disappointment. Its compression is barely any better than GIF, less than 25% in most cases. Inline muted video on loop is easily the superior choice as file sizes are smaller and browser compatibility is better.
The one area APNG would be useful compared to MP4 is where the image itself needs to have a transparent background. MP4 cannot be transparent, it will always be in a rectangular container and a solid background.
I wonder what people, in 100 years, would say about our era.
One might research, work hard and solve a problem that might change the course of development of a major field and win a recognition by $3M while someone which fills few numbers on a lottery ticket may earn 1-2 folds more.
I wish the system would give this kind of efforts and stories a bigger exposure, recognition and compensation.
Edit: The idea was about the prize amount, not those specific people. It wasn't the best choice, but the idea was that even as a statement, prizes for scientific achievements should be higher so they will be an extreme to all people to recognize and strive for. I guess one could find a better analogy than what I had in mind.
The people who worked on AlphaFold were (and are) compensated very well. Maybe they didn't win the lottery, but they probably make between 10 and 40 times the median income. And they have received a lot of recognition and exposure, I'd say probably the right amount for the achievement. I'm sure there are issues of this type in the world, but in this case I don't really see a problem.
Your point is good but the direction of your contempt is misplaced. Lottery winners accounts for a tiny fraction of people who have unearned and undeserved wealth, and in terms of how many people they screwed over to get to riches, they are like angels in comparison to other rich people.
I agree with you. I should have made a better choice than lottery. My intention was that the needle which sets the reward for research, long life work pursuing the solution of a problem should move to the right and get those people more.
$3M isn't enough in our days to recognize remarkable work in my opinion. Yes, one of them made a lot of money, but is it true for all the past winners of this prize?
I can say something about the effect I want to achieve with the money: recognition and publicity. So the amount of money should make them on front page of many news papers and such. Now from data it might interesting to get the right amount.
I just want the people who make such achievements to be recognized by younger generation.
Not everyone wants those things though. In fact, I could see it being detrimental because then you'd attract a lot of people who only care about those things instead of science itself.
I think we should celebrate scientific achievements as a community. Because the failures are as important as the successes. We shouldn't idolize individuals imho. That is toxic.
Demis Hassabis made tens, if not hundreds of millions of dollars in the Deep Mind acquisition. I'm sure most people would consider that to be adequate compensation.
If anything, the lesson is that if you care about making lots of money from your research (not everybody does), start a company. And it's easier for academics to start companies today than in any other era.
The lottery isn't comparable, first of all it's a money raising scheme. I'm sure the alphafold team is well compensated. Almost certainly making high 6 figures. Alphafold got a massive amount of well-deserved coverage as well.
The great wall of china was partially funded by lotteries. I don't think anyone from the future is going to have anything to say about today's lotteries. Lotteries will probably still be popular in a hundred years.
He is happy now on an n=1 case. Potentiating GABA really helped with him, with other folk it may be balancing glutamate. Our medical system isn't really set up for that which is why I designed and launched CAIAC, it assumes ergodicity in the population while everyone is kinda individual, particularly for these multi-systemic conditions.
Will be aggressively investing in this area and making the output available openly next year after our education launch.
I wish for a simple option in VS Code: On close of a Jupyter Notebook clear its output. Or something that separate the display of the output from the saved file (Still `ipnyb` file). See [1].
KaTeX also supports only susbset of the features of MathJaX. Some of them are really important. While speed is great, missing basic features is the worse. I'm happy with GitHub's choice.
Another esoteric choice would be the Odin Programming Language [0].
While being very simple it is modern and effective with some real projects built using it.
Performance wise it is at the very top with other low level languages.
The problem with this is fragmentation, if I understand you correctly.
It's one of the two reasons why Linux isn't ubiquitous on the desktop. (The other being open source doesn't provide enough incentive to do the boring unsexy work)
Fragmentation kills support. Imagine non technical users searching for help on an issue. First finding articles on Windows, then version X, then getting 'only applies with piece X, Y, Z installed'. That's already a problem and the suggestion of making Windows less 'batteries included' would make it harder for the mainstream users, who are the bulk of users.
Fragmentation also kills products, it increases development costs, reduces velocity etc.
Microsoft knew/knows how to make a better product, they just don't choose to because they evaluate they can make more money by screwing consumers over.
In my opinion we need regulation regarding anti-features. It's not perfect but it's the approach that is the answer in the non-digital world.
ReFS has the stink of death all over it. It's been the "next generation" filesystem for Windows since 2012, with no signs of ever graduating to being the current filesystem -- in fact, a 2017 update to Windows 10 removed the ability for most desktop systems to create ReFS volumes.
The MarkDown files it generates aren't compatible with other similar programs (Obsidian for instance). It adds 2 spaces which makes thins incompatible with others.
This is the major advantage of Obsidian, it is not too much opiniated about how the RAW file should look. Which makes moving form one editor to other pretty easy.