Spiwux

> how many partitions do I need? Unclear, but better get it right because you can never change it!

That is.. simply wrong. You can change the number of partitions.

Plus I really don't get the "you need an entire team of engineers to operate Kafka" claim you keep repeating. That is simply not true, speaking from experience. It is certainly expensive to run, but doesn't require a lot of engineering hours in our team.

People have been running large language models locally for a while now. For now the general consensus is that llama is not fundamentally better than local models with similar resource requirements, and in all the comparisons it falls short of an instruction-tuned model like Chat GPT

I really do not understand why this is a discussion, why a video had to be made about it and why we now need an interview about this.

Clean code / readable code / whatever you want to call it is often at odds with performance. This has been a known fact for decades. Everybody is aware of this. And for most enterprise projects it just doesn't matter. The performance analysis discovered nothing new and added nothing of value

If it helps anything, I'm 30 which is supposed to be peak cognitive ability. During some days / weeks I have that exact feeling. I think it's a mixture of cognitive bias (you probably don't remember all the "easy" things you struggled with 10 years ago) and that it's completely natural to have periodic ups and downs in your cognitive abilities. On some weeks I'm just not feeling it.

I couldn't disagree with this any harder. I'm a Java BE Engineer who joined a Go shop, so I have a direct comparison. Both are microservice environments for products of similar complexity. It is insane to me how much less productive Go is for your average microservice enterprise environment. I'm sure it's great for systems programming or tool development. I like the simplicity. But the ecosystem is borderline useless for larger scale enterprise-y service landscapes. GRPC and Protobuf are overengineered and underdocumented, a lot of things are seemingly optimized for Google's specific needs.

We are more people, we are more experienced and have a decent engineering culture. Yet we're definitely less productive than the last average, traditional Java Spring Enterprise team I've been in. "Circumventing" a framework restriction (which rarely happens if you stick to good practices) is MUCH less effort than building things yourself from scratch.

This reads like an incredibly poorly researched article. As in, it sounds like it was written after an hour of googleing and skimming a few of these guides.

It might be interesting to get the opinion of somebody who tried this, mostly out of curiosity.

1. One of the core guidelines is "Don't question it. If you think you may have heard a voice, it was your tulpa." - This becomes important later on

2. True 'sentience', in the meaning that there's a different entity that thinks in parallel to you, is something that seems impossible to achieve. There are a few people who claim that they can do that, but nobody seems to be able to replicate that and at this point I believe that some of the people who think they have a very well manifested tulpa actually suffer from real mental issues that get misinterpreted as tulpa.

After some (a lot) of time spent on creating the Tulpa, I did actually hear a voice that at first surprised me. It genuinely felt like I might be talking to a different person. A huge success, surely, how is it possible that nobody talks about this. However instead of not questioning it, my inquisitive and critical side took over to figure out how it works. These are my personal findings:

The process of "forcing" a tulpa, not dissimilar to meditation, conditions yourself to:

a) Build a well thought out alternate personality

b) Disassociate certain thoughts from yourself and attribute them to the tulpa

c) Rapidly context switch between two personalities while maintaining the illusion that you are not in fact talking to yourself

In summary, you're training yourself to context-switch and impersonate an alter ego, while also crafting a strong conditioning to ignore that process and instead attribute it to a sentient thought-form

Not only that, Merkel's party is a significant driver in laws and regulations that reduce user internet anonymity.

Considering that multiple politicians voiced this opinion at surprisingly similar time this seems like some coordinated PR thing. They probably just realised that the same could happen to them and that they might have their communication channels cut off when they inevitably try to break up the big US tech giants

I think a private business should be able to chose their customers and decline business for any reason

A much bigger issue is the fact that public opinion and discourse happens exclusively on private platforms who each have their own interests