compiler-guy

The entire point of the article is that his original understanding of the “thing” was a misunderstanding, with a heavy emphasis on how his teachers led him to that misunderstanding.

Author used a rhetorical device that you seem to have missed.

Both of those were a vendor X electing to stop updating framework A in favor of framework B. That’s a high cost for vendor X’s users, but if their business depends on vendor X, they have no choice. Maybe they can switch to vendor Y at that point, but now you are switching both vendors and frameworks.

Replacing CUDA with another framework has much lower motivation. That advantages of the new framework must cover the switching costs and the risk of such a switch. All while CUDA continues to evolve and allow access to additional features.

Apple and Microsoft had something of a captive userbase. New vendor on the block trying to replace CUDA does not.

To paraphrase the apocryphal Winston Churchill quote about democracy:

“CUDA is the worst development ecosystem in existence. Except for all the others.”

People look for different things for "beauty" in men and women.

Taller people--an area where men have a very distinct advantage--make more money and have an easier go of things.

https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S1570677X2...

"Based on the meta-analysis, we found evidence that the height premium varied by context: the height premium was smaller in the U.S. and Australia, and larger in Latin America and Asia. Within geographies, there appeared to be a larger height premium for men than for women."

The tradeoff here is a classic false-positive vs false-negative issue. If the cost of the bad-bot false positive (which blocks your bot out) is lower than the cost of the bad-bot false negatives (which allow bad bots in), then it is still a good tradeoff, if a suboptimal situation.

All the time. The billboards are very often about fertilizer, tractors, and shipping.

And if that is the argument, there are plenty of local business billboards in the Bay Area as well.

If you drive through Las Vegas, all the billboards are about casinos. If you drive through farm country, all the billboards are about the local cash crop.

Advertisers target the people likely to see the ad and spend money on the topic. Billboards are extremely geographically restricted, so local interest dominates. This isn't really news.

And yes, they are annoying.

True, but for whom?

The cure here isn't perfect, but much better than the disease of paying hundreds of dollars a month for scrapers which will never be beneficial.

Worse for the scrapers really isn't anyone's problem but the scrapers'.

Except no one was singing "How do you solve a problem like Jeff and Sanjay?" prior to this.

The company is developing an application, or a class of applications. Not a new model.

I have no doubt that internal Google friction is one of the reasons they are moving. But the Gebru incident was almost seven years ago now. It is very unlikely to be a proximate cause.

I doubt numbering vs names on TPU releases even crosses Jeff's radar. It's not the kind of thing he cares about.

They are leaving Google, but Google is an investor in the new company. So a split, but not exactly a divorce. Or something.

Kermit had licensing issues in those days. And many bbs were focused on one specific system so many of the auto translate and nice compatibility features of Kermit weren’t that important.

And finally Kermit didn’t have great defaults especially compared to ymodem and zmodem. So getting good performance out of Kermit was much harder than the others.

All of that added up to much lower adoption outside of the mainframe world.

Bill Catchings (the undergrad who helped Frank da Cruz with the original spec and coding) still blogs. It has been a while since he spoke specifically about kermit, but he has one or two interesting posts about the 40th anniversary of Kermit.

https://www.billcatchings.com/2012/04/frog-from-my-past.html https://www.billcatchings.com/2013/11/kermit-oral-history-pa...

and here is a link to the oral history he discusses:

https://www.computerhistory.org/collections/catalog/10274641...

I have yet to see anyone at all claim that bad code didn't exist before AI. In fact, the famously viral "WTFs per minute" comic demonstrates that such an insightful joke resonates deeply with coders and code reviewers.

https://muhammad-rahmatullah.medium.com/wtf-per-minute-an-ac...

Maybe. The courts haven't exactly ruled yet. And it is the risk here that the GNU project wants to avoid.

Will things probably be OK? Sure. Probably. But GNU is particularly risk averse when it comes to licensing.

Full text is linked below, but it is getting revised pretty regularly.

tl;dr: Requirement is that a human must be in the loop; the contributor must have reviewed the change by hand already; and is always accountable; the human must be able to answer questions about the change, such as strategy chosen, corner cases, etc. etc.

Even with this very permissive and well considered policy, they get a lot of slop submissions. Huge amounts of pure trash. And the debate continues about what to do about it.

Some are in favor of forbidding it simply because it would reduce the amount of slop they have to wade through, and the 10% good prs done with AI don't outweigh the 90% pure junk prs. Reviewer time is way too scarce.

But it is just as controversial there as it is over on lwn.

https://llvm.org/docs/AIToolPolicy.html

All of that is true, but has nothing to do with the new payment plan apple just released.

"We might, maybe, have some article go viral some day. With unknown revenue implications." is a weak argument for trying to figure out and maintain GDPR compliance, which costs real money right now, today. And you have to be sure to maintain that compliance as the web site evolves.

It's such a low-probability event that I don't blame them for just saying, "Nah. Not gonna hassle with that."

The recognition argument is also quite weak--it's not like recognition pays the bills.

And I gave a reason why that isn't true. There are many, many others.

But we aren’t talking probability. Your claim was that deeper pockets means you are more sophisticated. That simply isn’t true. The inheritance argument is just one example to show why it isn’t. People make large amounts of money all the time in one field or another, but that doesn’t make them sophisticated investors.

Indeed. But that doesn't invalidate the point that deeper-pockets is not equivalent to a more sophisticated or better investor.

If I inherit a billion dollars tomorrow, I will have zero additional information and be no more sophisticated than I am today. But I will have deeper pockets than any retail investor and will be able to withstand market irrationality longer than them.

It's often prohibited by contract, not just law, so what the administration thinks is only part of the story.

Most company's stock would fall pretty hard if all the holders decided to sell at the same time.

So although Google, say, technically has a huge float on a percentage basis, because none of the big three holders (Eric Schmidt, Larry Page, and Sergey Brin) are selling any significant amount of their shares, the practical float is much lower.

They borrowed the shares and held those borrowed shares briefly, and sold them. So they don't hold them any longer, but they do have a contract where they are required to buy them later.

The original owner doesn't hold the shares either, but they do have a contract for them to be returned.

As a practical matter, this effectively creates shares, just like a bank loaning money creates money.

Bold of you to assume that the feedback one gets from random internet commenters helps sharpen one's tools.

One is far more likely to get useful criticism from a mentor or teacher than random internet folks. No upload required.

And there are a million ways to thicken one's skin without putting one's art on the internet for jerks to shoot at.

They will just settle if a settlement gets them what they want for less than fighting this to legal completion would cost them (on a risk-adjusted basis).

These letters are simple "If you have evidence related to this lawsuit, you must preserve it" letters. And entirely routine in this kind of action. There are more of them than in most cases, because this is such a big case. But the gist is entirely routine.

Definitely not randomly chosen--Apple would have chosen people it believes may have evidence that relates to the case. It's a legal request to preserve that data.

But it doesn't follow at all that Apple is threatening to sue them. A long time ago, in an unrelated case, I got a letter like this because I was in the room when a certain decision was made and happened to have some notes about that meeting. But there was no chance I would be sued. I wasn't the decider, and was basically a third-party involved.