This is my experience and it really sucks that Jetbrains has devolved into such a poorly run company. It's clear a lot of their real talent who cared about the programming side and refactoring left years ago. Now it seems like all their product decisions are from bog standard non-technical business people who chase buzzwords.
This is a major problem for them because they fragmented their IDE codebase so much properly maintaining it requires resources and people they don't have and would have to invest years of effort to replace. But that doesn't maximize quarterly profit, so it's left to decay and we get hourly LLM plugin updates.
To simulate a proton you need to solve a strongly coupled highly relativistic SU(3) gauge theory (naturally non-abelian i.e. the force carrier field itself carries charge and is self-interacting at tree order) problem with constituents that have masses orders of magnitude below the relevant energy scales (i.e. you have many matter AND force particles that can pop in and out of existence and they all strongly interact with one another).
To simulate a water molecule you do so with a weakly coupled SU(1) gauge theory (light does not interact with itself at tree order) problem where the masses of all constituents are orders of magnitude above the relevant energy scales (you can think of it as the electrons and nuclei and particles coming in and out of existence are contained in a renormalization scheme).
We have "good simulation models" of both, but the former is extraordinarily complicated compared to the latter for the reasons stated above.
Not in the sense that the electrons would be orbiting "outside" the star. Neutron stars are already a conglomeration of particles, including a sizeable fraction electrons that are effectively "squeezed out" of neutrons to have equivalent fermi energies. Any additional charge you add would immediately grab an "orbiting electron" into the existing system.
Can we stop the "drop how at the start of a title" auto editing? I suspect this was to fix some flood of problems long ago, but every time I encounter it it modifies the title away from true intent of the author.
> The engineer knows the tech but doesn’t really understand what it takes to keep the business afloat.
This is assuming there IS a way to keep the business afloat. It's this framing of thinking that has caused more suffering, frustration, and bad will in all the places I've worked at which are just reskins of this article.
A business is entitled to it's model but it is not entitled to success. This story which is more than just a strawman or anecdote gets it right: The engineers are doing their job the best they can with unreasonable expectations set by people who do not feel they need to be constrained by reality and just have dollar signs in their eyes. The engineers do not share the same type of blame as everyone else at the company. Their failure was enabling nonsense and greed.
Because as designed they have to live under whatever google puts into Android because they have inordinate control over the whole ecosystem? I'm not sure why or how you would possibly describe that as "childish".
Banking has slowly been transitioning in this direction as they close brick and mortar places. I'd have to drive 20 minutes to cash a check (which is still sadly common in the US in certain industries).
Weird that AI is supposed to be able to enable all this and yet all we get is news about how it's really just burning out projects that have limited resources making them more expensive and companies having to hire back devs they laid off.
If changing definitions and adding dimensions are fair game, try it for a damped oscillator and tell me where whatever dimension sphere is in there.
If you understood what you were trying to push now you'd recognize that adding in your time dimension to force an argument involving a circle is just a matter of the sign in the 2nd order differential equation. This also falls apart if that sign changes and you get hyperbolic solutions. and I'm sure you'll just say that's just another kind of sphere with negative curvature
It's also telling with all the comments of "just wait a few months the models are getting so much better" which has been said for years and will continue to be said for years. It's the same with any other scam with tenuous value (see cryptocurrency).
> Please don't use HN primarily for promotion. It's ok to post your own stuff part of the time, but the primary use of the site should be for curiosity.
> Don't solicit upvotes, comments, or submissions. Users should vote and comment when they run across something they personally find interesting—not for promotion.
If I follow you, that's not strange. That's exactly how Lagrangian mechanics are formulated (minimizing the action which has exactly the kinetic energy as a term to be minimized against a potential energy term) which rests on well-founded symmetry principles.