Hacker Newsnew | past | comments | ask | show | jobs | submit | extesy's commentslogin

> and even managed to play music with two channels and percussion (Robin of the Wood IIRC)

You think two channels is the limit? Have you heard title music from Chronos? Full multi-channel polyphony, without relying on sound co-processor. I'm not sure where to find the game itself these days, but I found the music itself here [0] on position 31.

[0] https://zxart.ee/music/top


> I'm not sure where to find the game itself these days

Here you go:

https://torinak.com/qaop/play/chronos


What does it mean then for ProPhoto RGB triangle to be outside of the horseshoe on that diagram?


If you lay a yardstick from fully desaturated white to maximum perceivable green, you’re effectively seeing #119911 even if you’re looking at a green quantum dot #00ff00 LED, because the color green can also be seen by your eye’s non-green receptors a little bit too.

The green in ProPhoto RGB is shown at a ‘distance’ from the other colors that’s impossible for human photoreceptors to perceive (let’s say it’s #00bb00), because there’s no way to trigger our green receptors at such a severe distance from white — they can’t differentiate greens beyond #009900 — without our perception also mixing in some of the other colors (result: #119911) due to those receptors being analog-curve-blended rather than sharp single-frequency cutouts like quantum dot, sodium lights, or laser emission spectra. So no matter how strong a green you emit in reality, it can never reach when perceived the depth of green that ProPhoto RGB represents, because the eye can’t perceive #00bb00 green as being different from #009900 green, and it can’t perceive any intensity of green as #00gg00 rather than #11gg11 without optical illusions or other fun tricks like shooting your green ‘M’ receptors with pinpoint laser beams: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=43741013

So, the upside of having three overlapping curves is that we can distinguish different shades of similar colors with much higher accuracy, but the downside is that we cannot see undiluted green or blue. Human tetrachromats, theorized to have a fourth receptor at +/-yellow, would in theory be able to differentiate colors even more strongly, peaking at that +/-yellow versus red/green; but, perhaps, they might(?) lose a bit of the ‘imaginary’ three neon CMY colors that we synthesize from that overlap (for example #ffff00), in exchange for gaining six? new ones (#00ff00ff?). I need to consider 4-D rhodopsin interactions for longer than this comment’s edit window to be more certain of that implication :)

DxO created a wide color space a while back that they fit better to human receptor sensitivity than ProPhoto, and while I’m not qualified to judge whether it’s Better or Worse, their explanation of how they constructed it around Pointer’s Gamut — someone sampled actual real world objects to see what the strongest colors we can see in earthly reality are! — provides some very precise images showing ‘the strongest color distances we can find from white on real life objects’ versus ‘the strongest color distances from white that sRGB and ProPhoto RGB can represent’:

https://www.dxo.com/en/news/white-paper-wide-gamut/ (heading “How we designed”)

This post also does help explain in depth why having ‘impossible’ color spaces is helpful for digital processing: It lets you manipulate photos without color truncation (do your intermediate math in double-float), and then when you’re ready to ‘land’ the photo back into reality — either on sRGB, or Dosplay P3, or HDR10, or Kodak film negatives — you can control how that inevitable rounding-off of the impossible colors occurs (store the final result in half-float). Do you want to prioritize eye-searing color or preserve the fine gradients of hue, in your photo of a flower petal? There is no single correct answer, but if you do your work in ProPhoto, you’ll have the option to preserve those gradients (or to convert them to luminosity gradients!) that you would lose if you’d done your work in a more limited colorspace.

Hex code nitpicks: Colorspace pros, I acknowledge that RGB hex codes are wildly incorrect to use here, not the least of which because they encode luminosity and hue when I’m just using them as hue above, but also because they’re wildly incorrect to mix with modern color spaces. This is done solely for analogy purposes and supports the curiosity basis of colorspaces 101; those who wish to learn more are welcome to — and join us in being grumpy about web hex codes and colorspaces :D


It uses nonphysical "imaginary" primaries that have meaning within the coordinate system but not within the human perceptual system.


Depends on the personal situation. An extension with 2 million users can generate a very meaningful revenue. My extension has only 300k users, but offers that I received over years [0] would have been significant in some lower-income country.

[0] https://github.com/extesy/hoverzoom/discussions/670


Extracts from two different offers:

  For example, your income for the 10k users will be ~ $ 1000 per month, users 20k ~ $ 2000 per month… 100к users ~10 000 $, and so on.

  ARPDAU (Average Revenue Per Daily Active User) basis - In average we have $0.007-0.011/user, US is $0.018.


Surely it's reasonable to assume that a company doing some dubious 'marketing intelligence' scraping of people's data from a Chrome plugin is going to both inflate the numbers they put in offers and try to scam their way out of paying if you actually accept. I wouldn't consider them real offers. They're marketing. The real world payments, if you get them, would be lower.


Google Translate uses Gemini now. You can switch between advanced (AI) and classic modes.


I've checked now, I don't see any selector anywhere in the app or settings. It all looks the usual way and the quality of translation hasn't changed.


Perhaps you are not in the country where this has been rolled out? https://blog.google/products-and-platforms/products/search/g...


Seems so, it's only in U.S., Mexico, and India for now.


For over 10 years that I maintain a reasonably popular cross-browser extension, I've been collecting various monetization offers. They simply don't stop coming: https://github.com/extesy/hoverzoom/discussions/670


It's worth reminding people that Firefox extensions that are part of Mozilla's "recommended extensions" program have been manually vetted.

> Firefox is committed to helping protect you against third-party software that may inadvertently compromise your data – or worse – breach your privacy with malicious intent. Before an extension receives Recommended status, it undergoes rigorous technical review by staff security experts.

https://support.mozilla.org/en-US/kb/recommended-extensions-...

Updates must also be vetted before being made available.



Synthetic data. Like AlphaZero playing randomized games against itself, a future coding LLM would come up with new projects, or feature requests for existing projects, or common maintenance tasks for itself to execute. Its value function might include ease of maintainability, and it could run e2e project simulations to make sure it actually works.


AlphaZero playing games against itself was useful because there's an objective measure of success in a game of Go: at the end of the game, did I have more points than my opponent? So you can "reward" the moves that do well, and "punish" the moves that do poorly. And that objective measure of success can be programmed into the self-training algorithm, so that it doesn't need human input in order to tell (correctly!) whether its model is improving or getting worse. Which means you can let it run in a self-feedback loop for long enough and it will get very good at winning.

What's the objective measure of success that can be programmed into the LLM to self-train without human input? (Narrowing our focus to only code for this question). Is it code that runs? Code that runs without bugs? Code without security holes? And most importantly, how can you write an automated system to verify that? I don't buy that E2E project simulations would work: it can simulate the results, but what results is it looking for? How will it decide? It's the evaluation, not the simulation, that's the inescapably hard part.

Because there's no good, objective way for the LLM to evaluate the results of its training in the case of code, self-training would not work nearly as well as it did for AlphaZero, which could objectively measure its own success.


You dont need synthetic data, people are posting vibe coded projects on the github every day and they are being added to next model's training set. I expect in like 4-5 years, humans would just not be able to do things that are not in the training set. Anything novel or fun will be locked down to creative agencies and few holdouts who managed to survive.


Or it'll create an alternative reality where that AI iterates itself into delusion.


That depends on what you mean by "operating". This very website, Hacker News, is not blocked in Russia - does that mean Y Combinator is "operating" there?


Fun fact, Hacker News is blocked in China


I’m curious how you know this? Did you try to get to this site from mainland and it was blocked?

Seems to work fine from a Chinese VPN IP


I am in China and it does not load. What vpn are you using? Its prolly hosted in HK or TW.


If they get money from users in that particular country then yes.


Not necessarily. Roblox does not directly receive money from users - nobody sends them a paper check or bank wire from Russia. Technically they get money from payment providers, who are supposedly compliant with all sanctions. I'm pretty sure that any provider that can support Roblox scale is big enough to worry about risks of being non-compliant.


Not all sanctions only require you to validate that the bank isn’t from that country. Usually disbursing money (which Roblox does as a two-sided marketplace) requires actual KYC.


> They've been doing the exact right thing for the shareholders

Inflation-adjusted INTC [1] is the same as it was in 1997, including dividends! Shareholders have no real return from INTC for almost 3 decades.

[1] https://totalrealreturns.com/s/INTC


Staff is also wrong: https://www.thiings.co/things/staff - shows a group of people but describes a stick.


And some of those people have mouths and noses, some don't. Creepy image.


Guidelines | FAQ | Lists | API | Security | Legal | Apply to YC | Contact

Search: