Oh, I see the problem. You clicked the "View e-book version" link. That goes to the publisher's store. As far as I know they never had a PDF, just a special web version.
Click the book's title in the paragraph above that, where it says this:
> Agarwal, Anant, and Jeffrey H. Lang. Foundations of Analog and Digital Electronic Circuits. San Mateo, CA: Morgan Kaufmann Publishers, Elsevier, July 2005. ISBN: 9781558607354.
That takes you to a PDF.
Sorry for not being more specific. I didn't even notice the "View e-book version" as I only went to the site to remind myself of the name of the book, saw the title was a link, and clicked it. Then I thought "Why is MIT linking to a pirate copy of a book from one of their own professors?", and did a little Googling to get some backstory.
The Bambu Labs mobile app doesn't work with LAN mode. I found this app for Android, "LanBu" which does a decent enough job. It's still in beta and wants to display ads. So far my PiHole has blocked all its ads so it's tolerable. I wouldn't mind paying for it, if it's a one-time free and it allowed access from outside my LAN.
If you can run a server at least for the duration of the print there is a home assistant plugin and a tool called bambuddy to monitor (but not slice and sent print job afaik)
This is a bad take. When the stste is either unable or unwilling to offer security, what is the alternative? The 'vigilantes' are doing the honorable thing, protecting their communities from criminals and oppressors. I wish them all good luck as it seem like they need it.
The danger always is that these militias can themselves become corrupt and oppress their own people.
Have LLMs produced something novel like Cantor's diagonalization procedure once was? Come up with new concepts like set theory once was and axiomatized it? Is there any indication or evidence LLMs can do this? If not, I would wager mathematicians are still going to be a profession in the future. Maybe not as theorem provers in a particular axiomatized system where LLMs can be effective tools but the wider project of synthesis and unification, and the discovery of new modes of mathematical thought will still require mathematicians.
>Have LLMs produced something novel like Cantor's diagonalization procedure once was?
A year ago, the goal post was that LLMs wouldn't prove anything of worth. The year before that, it was that LLMs wouldn't be able to do math as well as a undergraduate student. Year before that, it was that LLMs wouldn't be able to do math at all. The growth of LLMs has been insane, and it doesn't look like it's going to plateau any time soon.
I agree. As someone involved in (non-mathematical) research I think the author is grossly overreacting. Nothing that comes out of an LLM means anything until it's assigned a meaning by a human being, just like anything else in the world. All this millenarial panic just plays into the hands of the psychopaths running the AI companies
Poeple once thought that it was ridiculous that a computer could beat a 1600 player in chess. Then they put it at master. Then international master. They still thought it was ludicrous that a computer would beat a grandmaster or the world champion.
I read through most of the article but didn't see motion sensors mentioned. A lot of suburban streetlights are lighting up empty streets at night. With a combination of motion sensing and LEDs, lighting could follow pedestrians. Cars really don't need street lights in most cases but even then, in higher risk areas, motion sensors could turn on streetlights just as long as needed.
A motion sensor activated light unpredictably turning off and on on my street would be worse than the steady street lamps we have now. It would be even more distracting and annoying.
35 years ago I had to program a Z80 by "assembling" programs by hand and punching hexcodes into a board. This was made easier by writing an assembler for it. This was my way into tools which took me eventually to working on a major C++ compiler.
During the eighties, there were a lot of people, including myself, who could read directly the hex codes of the Z80 instructions as easily as its symbolic assembly language.
That was very handy for reverse engineering programs like the Microsoft CP/M BASIC interpreter or FORTRAN compiler.
Yeah but that would have been the late 70's... oh my gosh that was 1991!
It was cool to do that kind of stuff, you knew exactly what your program was doing (if all went right) at all times, but it sure was a slog to get anything complex moving.
My pet peeve about UI menus is how in Windows it has to start with "File".
Want to exit? File -> Exit. Oh, logical.
Why can't they be sane and called it "Program"? Want to change preferences? Program -> Preferences instead of going "if you want to change the preferences, you will be wanting to 'edit the preferences', so it's under Edit. Where Cut, Copy, Paste belong. Logical, no?"
Want to exit? Program -> Exit instead of File -> Exit.
Both of these oddities were addressed over 25 years ago when Mac OS X 10.0.0 "Cheetah" was released.
Many of the innovations of Mac OS X have been lost in later macOS, but this one stuck. Instead of saying literally "Program" it is the bolded name of the application. This serves the dual purpose of also identifying which program's window is active. Inside the application menu, you'll find both Preferences (now Settings) and Quit.
I'm trying to figure out if you are a Mac user taking a swipe at Windows or if you are genuinely unaware that more or less exactly what you describe has been implemented in a shipping product for over 25 years.
For my own programs I also do it this way exactly, because I find that pretty dumb. Preference also gets put under Edit or Options or Somewhere else, which is really annoying. And then you get different settings, that are called differently and are in different places, great.
reply