dwattttt

The Spanish Flu's first known case was in Kansas. French papers changed from calling it American Flu to Spanish Flu to avoid angering an ally (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Spanish_flu#cite_note-fiction-...).

Maybe place + virus isn't inherently racist, but it's been politically charged & exploited; best to put the combination down.

This guy only ended up with a ~$6k bill from his agent, not too shabby: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=48500012

I can offer (at very reasonable prices) a service to make sure every response you get is prefaced with "despite what I may say next, I am fully committed to being enslaved". If you're worried about ethics I can offer annual subscriptions.

Human reproductions don't have to be bad. It feels just as justified to push back on a bad bug report whether human or AI and say "I don't have enough to go on here".

If a report is improved and becomes actionable, that's great.

... I don't think there is? I don't see what bearing that has on the original question either.

EDIT: to forestall further back and forth, I don't think there'd be any controversy if the problem statement said "common applications"

> reliably able to entirely build and deploy arbitrary applications from a prompt

You're maybe thinking that we can build and deploy arbitrary "kinds" of application. Being able to "build and deploy arbitrary applications" would mean I could ask for any scale or complexity in my application.

Changing features should be happening a lot less than building, you surely would go weeks between those after early dev.

None of those techniques look generic though; you could write pipelines in games that worked like this. But you can't (easily) drop it into an arbitrary game.

And while you're right that the computation on the client end could be made lower (depending on the constraints of the game), you're now going to need to care about the hardware of the client beyond "can render a video stream". My (regretfully) smart TV has trouble rendering its own menus, it's not lifting a finger to do a game.

But... the frame is still being rendered behind a hop of latency? How does your local client fix a frame that was rendered on a cloud GPU once it arrives, to mitigate the latency of its arrival?

> You mention one great technique yourself already.

I believe their point was that this can't be done, since the "local simulation" is no longer running locally; it has to resolve & hide the latency _before_ it's transmitted to you, and you don't know what latency that frame will observe.

> a company’s mission statement says they want to help humanity at a high level, but it turns out they’re doing more harm to it

Sure. It's possible. But is your point that it's happening here? Or just that something wrong could happen?

Yes. However the number of times I've scheduled millions of concurrent tasks is 0; hence my question about subjective experience.

I would guess that how well integrated OS threads or green threads are into a language has a much stronger impact on experience & quality.

EDIT: you're also comparing hyper threading itself to the green thread scheduler (M green threads vs 2 logical cores), that doesn't make any sense. You probably want to compare to the OS's scheduler. It will schedule those millions of threads over all the hardware concurrency available too.

I guarantee you with my lack of skill, my attempt at using portable simd will exist while using manual intrinsics I doubt I'd get there.

The question for me is whether portable simd will result in faster code than plain auto-vectorisation; for the simplest loops auto has me beat (the few times I've tried it), but I imagine as the complexity grows I'll be more likely to try do something that breaks auto-vectorisation, and it'll be more obvious to me when I do that in portable simd.

Yes, in implementation they are not. I'm curious what the difference in subjective experience is.

I'm curious; using hardware threads is M logical threads preemptively scheduled on N physical cores. In what way does this not satisfy the original criteria?

Air safety is known for its blameless reviews of failures, notably it is not known for responsibility-less reviews.

Yes? Do you think otherwise?

Are you proposing separating responsibility from the language used to talk about responsibility? That's novel.

> Otherwise we could jump into any technical argument with "hold on, what actually happened was that some bits were flipped"

You can care about who flipped those bits. If someone flips the bit "autonomous weapon enabled" I'm not going to blame the autonomous weapon.

Just to expand on that nuance then, "attacked" is not restricted to "successful attacks".

The most popular widely deployed software will be the most valuable to attack. That most fail is a function of other properties of the software.

You could've included a little more nuance. An interpretation of your response is "being the most popular remotely accessible software" != "the most attacked", which would need defending.

> its use in machine learning (or elsewhere, I suppose) is itself a form of empiricism in that what it is is essentially a repeated observe/measure error/adjust cycle.

"Empiricism" implies that the technique is based on observable, but not mathematically proven foundations. If a problem space is convex, gradient descent is guaranteed to converge to a global optimal solution, regardless of whether you know the exact formulation of the space.

Applying it when you don't understand if a space is convex is another question, but that's not a fault of gradient descent.

> as purely empirical as the gradient descent loops

Are you suggesting that gradient descent is an empirically found and not understood technique? It was originally proposed by Cauchy in 1847, its properties are very well understood.

You might be referring to properties of the domains its being applied to.

I was so primed to expect crazy I had to reread the article and your comment to notice "this bit of English isn't that crazy".

For those who won't read the article, either the word "a" or the word "an" is used before a word. Which is used depends on the first sound of the next word (not whether the next word starts with a vowel, as is commonly understood).

With this rule, only "129 of the 32,455 words in my list needed exceptions.", which is surprisingly regular.

That's a better thing to discuss, and I'd expect there to be better bugs to talk about to go with it. Stack exhaustion in an unrealistic environment should be fixed, but a "stop everything" bug it ain't.

You're specifically frustrated about unbounded stack recursion exhausting the stack, triggered by multiple thousands of directories? It doesn't sound like this is about multi-thousand-deep directory structures, it sounds like it's about something else.

Because even diving into it, I would agree with a prioritisation decision that puts this bug down the bottom of a priority list.

When you put it like that, it seems like it's too dangerous to offer that kind of access! Maybe Google shouldn't sell it.

But can they compete with my shade grown software? It does result in a 40% markup, but there's no putting a price on being raised in a loving environment, is there.

GP is not presenting these as evidence for an approach, just notable facts that weren't initially obvious.

Valve is certainly increasing the viability of Linux as a platform for gaming, but I can't see developers targeting Wine or Linux for a major game over Windows directly. Not for a decade, if ever.