It depends on what you mean by "more likely to announce things with no industrial relevance". If we are including humanities, then yes. If we exclude humanities, then no. Nearly all current STEM advancements can be traced back to early university work because industries normally do not pay for R&D because of its high risk, low reward effort. Not to mention, it's a money sink.
Even current AI models come straight from university work, intermixed with private industry who often apply these concepts and scale them, but aren't the idea originators.
Companies lie and exaggerate all the time. It's called PR. It makes no difference whether it comes from a company or university, but companies have much more incentive to lie than universities, especially in technical fields, because they don't have to subject their claims to peer review unlike universities.
Doesn't surprise me in the least. McDonald's is such a bad company on many levels, even from its founding roots.
They make fast food (an industry notorious for craping all over their employees) and it was usurped by a greedy business man (Ray Kroc) from its original founders.
Their food is okay, but I would never, ever do work for them.
It would be anti-trust if they were deliberately shrinking supply to hike up prices on their cards.
For example, I know I have the best card in the industry, so I'm going to force the supply low so I can charge effectively whatever I want.
It wasn't in the 2000's back when ATI and NVIDIA cards had comparable prices. Sometimes ATI cost a little more because they were better, but they were never crazy different from NVIDIA.
And there were never supply problems.
Yeah, it's a shame, I often have to do this type of crap in my off time. However, having a well architected app significantly reduces these types of massive undertakings. Doing it right the first time has its advantages. Then again, weighing it against delivering early and other important aspects has its merit too.
It's just a double edged sword unfortunately that you often have to walk in this industry.
Output has been scarce for NVIDIA gpu's for quite some time. Often not even being able to support the demand for their cards. NVIDIA is a trillion dollar company right now. There should be no reason why they are restricting access to their reference cards and not able to support demand.
You are also not counting handheld use such as the Steamdeck. There is a reason Steamdeck doesn't use NVIDIA graphics.
When AMD can run 95% of games as good as any NVIDIA card and you factor in that most games have virtually no ray tracing support or any other fancy feature that NVIDIA offers, coupled with the known low performance/cost gains in their own graphics family, and their lack of ability to support demand despite being a trillion dollar company, I'd say that there isn't much of a leg to stand on.
I understand antitrust law enough to know that "mad I can't game on Linux" is an anti-competitive measure.
As far as what I read about the driver stack, they only recently (within a year) release source for kernel modules. They did not open source the whole stack. And these are only new modules in an alpha state.
Its basically the bare minimum.
Most people aren't running ML on their workstations and these mostly use entirely different types of cards.
This is one successful landing. I think its robustness needs a lot more successful landings than this. Plus, its not even landing like it was originally designed to land, its just landing in the ocean like any other rocket expect with thrust vector control rather than parachutes.
I'm not sure what world you live in, but Nvidia sells their cards at 1.5 - 2 times the price than AMD's on average and AMD has had strong Linux support for years.
I agree with this. In a large organization, if you have risen to a level where you are being relied upon at a regular intervals, it is imperative that you have a well architected solution that you can readily change and this is where you separate your program from spaghetti code to something useful. Sure, its nice to write unmaintainable junk when toying around, but I to have seen too many codebases where people were just throwing features in without thought and it causes the program to become way too constrained to only a specific problem domain and it becomes inflexible for solving new problems (to the point you have to re-write nearly everything from scratch).
There is succeeding, then there is your company being overvalued to insane levels because of some hype boom. It also doesn't mean that just because you outcompete, then you can artificially reduce supply and only support a select few OS's (ie. windows) while producing modest performance gains in your GPU's.
It's a modern day Tesla in waiting more than likely.
Consumer harm = selling their graphics cards at outrageous prices by keeping supply low and reducing the OS support for them by making Linux drivers crap.
Then again, it never "required" consumer harm as far as I've read.
I agree with your sentiments, but she was not fired. She resigned. There is a big difference. Of course, I wasn't there so I don't know if it was a forced resignation (ie. firing) or not, but everything I look up says she resigned.
DEI has always been in companies before the term even arose to the larger public discourse. I have to go through such trainings every year at every company I've been at.
There has never been true "diversity of thought" at most institutions and I doubt you would really want it, especially if you were on the receiving end of it every day and it was just blatant bigotry towards you.
As far as achievements, I can't recall a single instance of someone being brought down because of a participation award. Unless you think being 1st, 2nd, or third gets robbed of all meaning because everyone got an award.
I think Claudine Gay is a bad example. First of all, she wasn't fired, she resigned. If you look at her credentials, she is more than qualified for the position. Many people attacked her primarily for the faux claims of antisemitism and her logical response to an inflammatory question from a Congressional hearing. Such a notion of antisemitism has been largely not backed up by much of anything other than spurious claims and deliberate misinterpretations (from the river to the sea, etc.) because people are obsessed with Israel which has been condemned for their actions against the Palestinians.
As far as her plagiarism allegations, they have much more merit. However, so many academics have deliberately faked data and plagiarized that a few examples of miss-citations and misquotes (that were largely discovered due to the fact that people wanted her fired anyways, nobody cared before) is very weak in my opinion, especially if it wasn't deliberate. Not to excuse it, but its not out of the realm of possibility for it to be a mistake and it certainly isn't because of DEI that she somehow plagiarizes worse (all races and genders do it). She also requested to make corrections to some of these accusations showing an attempt to fix it. DEI is an attempt to level the playing field for people who have far worse upbringings by nearly every statistical measure. It's what affirmative action attempted to alleviate. These poor upbringings largely affect minorities and this is a statistical fact.
Yes, lets just perpetuate mistakes in perpetuity. And I highly doubt everyone would end up with the same misconceptions. However, the fact that Khan Academy is a) not rigorous, b) has no type of human interface with the teacher, c) has no type of input from professors and lead academic institutions, d) is purported as an educational savior by influential people when there is no such thing, e) uses outdated and confusing teaching techniques, f) has yet to put problems over exercises, and g) has no type of human interface between students it has a long LONG way to go.
I don't know if we are talking about the same article, I'm talking about this one "How well does Khan Academy teach?" by the Michigan University math prof who outlines, in detail, basic concepts like adding decimals and multiplication that are taught at Khan Academy in a way that goes against research.
There is no religious bias, its a difference between a ineffective and wrong way vs. an effective right way. The professor performed no smear against Khan Academy, but the fact he only saw two videos that cause confusion in basic math concepts, it should make one skeptical, especially when someone like you justifies it on the basis of popularity, pragmatism and "minutia".
It seems like you read one article from the Washington Post that wasn't written very well and from that one article, deduce that WP is on some smear campaign. Absurdity of the highest order.
Considering the fact that if you apply for scholarships, get good grades is high school and good ACT/SAT scores, and you can get funding from the government, college can be relatively inexpensive. I went to a private school with comparable tuition to MIT and I walked out with only around 50k in debt. If I went to a public university, it would have been much less. So, I have about as much debt as this company took to train a bunch of high schoolers.
Although I agree that college costs are high, they aren't insurmountable if you apply for scholarships, government funding (FASA), and you do well in school or sports.
This pretty much sums my life up in a nutshell. I feel this a lot because I tend not to be satisfied with a lot of my work. I always critique and find ways I can do it better. That's probably why I don't have a whole lot to my name.
Try asking a book a question. Even so, text books cost a butt load. Might as well be a part of a college when you can ask profs even after walking out the door.
There is a difference between being interested and doing something. All I can say is, trusting a site run by a former middle school teacher/math coach as the "savior of education" is completely stupid.
Yet we have all these influential people saying such things. You would think Khan Academy would be more vocal about being a supplement and not a substitute.