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

From the Introduction:

Certainly, it is full of algorithms, but that's not what this book is about. This book is about possibilities. Its purpose is to present you not only with the prerequisite mandatory knowledge of the available problem-solving techniques, but more importantly to expand your ability to frame new problems and to think creatively.


What value do all the emojis provide?


I'm still wondering how people find emojis to insert into their texts. Do they scan the list of emojis to find something suitable for each place in the text? Or maybe they memorized a lot of emojis, they know they exist and it is sort of automatic: you write text and the idea pops up to insert an emoji that I discovered some time ago?

I hope that it is closer to the latter, because I'd kill myself if I was forced to look for emojis so much. From other hand to memorize dozens (hundreds?) of different emojis doesn't seem fun either.


I think you may be in the vast minority here. People born after 1990 grew up using emoji and most keyboards show your top ~25 most used emojis, floated to the top, and keyboards offer search function, this was a largely solved problem by 2014, over a decade ago.


Ah. I see. I replace the virtual keyboad on Android with something else instantly, to get rid of autocorrect and other anti-features. Probably doing that I lose my chance to appreciate the ways of people born after 1990.


Nobody is writing papers or webpages on mobile virtual keyboards (I hope).


I kind of assumed the text was created or at least edited by AI, so the emojis were added automatically.


yeah its pretty funny, i wonder if they prompted the llm to put as many emojis in as possible:

<edit> forgot hn doesnt show emojis, so ill just link to the paragraph: https://github.com/st-tech/ppf-contact-solver?tab=readme-ov-...

8 emojis in 2 sentences, lol


joy.


They made me stop reading halfway through.

It didn't help that they make meaningless claims like

> Physically Accurate: Our deformable solver is driven by the Finite Element Method.

I don't know or care if they used an LLM to write that readme, but it's hot garbage. A pity because it seems like a decent sim otherwise.


What's wrong with that statement? FEM is a good way to handle deformables, but it isn't the only way, so it a fine statement.


It's used as a claim of physical accuracy, but it's not related to that.


Sorry if I'm misunderstanding, but isn't FEM used in physics engines because it is an good approximation for the underlying physics? For example, I believe the Drake Physics engine uses FEM to model deformable materials relating to vehicle crashes at Toyota


FEM is just a numerical technique for solving some kinds of differential equations. It doesn't aitomatically make you accurate or not, just like any other stable solver.


A commenter left this on another HN post [0] and I thought it was worth its own.

[0] https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=45701400


The commenter says pre-rendered/server-side-rendered mathematics (via katex) is great - I’ve found the opposite. It’s probably great if you have an article with one or two equations. On the other hand, if you have an article which uses mathematics pervasively, like many pure mathematics articles, it quickly becomes far more space efficient to render the mathematics on the client side. You can quickly get 200kB+ pages by pre-rendering.


My experience with dynamically rendered math has been the opposite: if you have lots of equations to render, it inevitably takes some milliseconds to render, which makes the whole content move around and shake as rendering takes places.


Indeed. It was hell to navigate pages that rendered MathJax on demand. That also improved a lot though.


> it inevitably takes some milliseconds to render, which makes the whole content move around and shake as rendering takes places.

What a boldly incorrect comment! It's like you didn't even read the first point in TFA!


Did you read the article? That's what the KaTeX project specifically claims to address.


The previous comment was about using KaTeX for pre-rendered equations.


It's not too late to delete this comment.


KaTeX weighs about the same if you do care about those metrics, however.


In case anyone wants to look at actual numbers about how much KaTeX weighs for a simple mathematics page: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=44614133

Quoting the relevant part from that link:

  katex.min.css              23.6 kB
  katex.min.js              277.0 kB
  auto-render.min.js          3.7 kB
  KaTeX_Main-Regular.woff2   26.5 kB
  KaTeX_Main-Italic.woff2    16.7 kB
  ----------------------------------
  Total Additional          347.5 kB
Of course, if the page uses more symbols in various sizes, then a few more fonts files (.woff2) need to be pulled in which case the weight of KaTeX would increase a bit too. Each font file weighs between 4 kB and 28 kB.


But how is better space efficiency at this level better than worse rendering efficiency?


Could you please provide an example?


Is 200kB supposed to be a lot?


Not the same thing, but reminds me of Type III Error: providing the right answer to the wrong question.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Type_III_error


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

Search: