The Unanswered Question by Leonard Bernstein (very famous conductor) was super fun in my opinion.
https://m.youtube.com/playlist?list=PLKiz0UZowP2V0mwtNv1lc1_...
1,219 karma · joined June 9, 2020
https://m.youtube.com/playlist?list=PLKiz0UZowP2V0mwtNv1lc1_...
But that long pause is still way shorter than the pauses at actual periods! Look at the waveform[0]: the ovals are the periods, the rectangle is the pause between "places" and "wild". I guess due to the length of the pauses at the actual periods, my brain automatically discards the possibility of "all places. Wild!" and then the best interpretation clearly is "all places wild" for me.
But hey, the fact that at least two people interpreted it differently says something. Maybe this was more of a faceplant than I initially realized.
I disagree for 2 reasons:
1. There's a perfectly fine reason to put a pause between "places" and "wild": to put emphasis on "wild". Bill doesn't see beauty in all places, but specifically in all wild places.
2. Interpreting the narration as "[...] all places. Wild!" is farfetched because the narrator pronounces "wild" very calmly and softly.
I agree the pause is a bit too long, but I was expecting way worse when I read your comment about how "the AI completely faceplants".
Not really first one reached, but first one where fingerprints were documented or an asylum claim was filed. This is why in the case of Syria for example, relatively many Syrian refugees are the responsibility of northern European countries like Sweden, Germany and the Netherlands.
Even Apple AirTags (nRF52832 to be precise).
https://www.ifixit.com/News/50145/airtag-teardown-part-one-y...
I enjoy reading the news and then discussing it with friends that are also news readers. That's the hobby aspect for me (and aforementioned friends). Together we try to predict what will happen in the world (wars, inflation, energy transition, stock market, ...) and quite often at least one of us is completely right or spectacularly wrong, which makes it fun for us.
I know it's not very useful but I enjoy it and it doesn't make me depressed or angry. Just let me have my fun.
I only noticed the translucent "source" buttons after reading for 10 minutes or so. Maybe you missed them as well? Haven't looked at any of the sources myself though.
Example: https://imgur.com/a/nAkDvg2
By the way, the test really isn't all that interesting IMO. The results were extremely predictable, in my case at least.
From Meta's Q3 earnings release[0]:
> Facebook daily active users [...] were 1.98 billion on average for September 2022, an increase of 3% year-over-year.
This was a British study
> and found that cars tend to be more dangerous with cyclists if the cyclists are wearing a helmet
Re-analysis showed that there actually was no significant effect. Source: https://swov.nl/en/fact-sheet/bicycle-helmets (under: "Do bicycle helmets also have adverse effects?")
> which is why there are no mandatory bicycle helmet laws in the Netherlands
We (the Netherlands) don't have helmet laws because we hate helmets, not because we did research and concluded they'd have significant adverse effects.
> The effect of (mandatory) bicycle helmets on bicycle use is not clear. Several international studies show that bicycle use decreases after the introduction of helmet laws, even though most studies do not find such an effect or only find a temporary effect [9] [42] [49]. [...]
> There are two international review studies of the effect of mandatory helmet use on the use of bicycles, both dating from 2018 [9] [42]. The first study [42] shows that the available research results are not unequivocal. It states that mandatory helmet use could indeed result in a decrease of the number of cyclists, but that this need not always be the case and that, if the number of cyclists initially decreases, that need not be of long duration. The second study is a mostly qualitative analysis of the available literature [9]. Based on their findings, the researchers conclude that there is little to no evidence of a substantial decrease of bicycle use due to the introduction of mandatory helmets. They have examined 23 studies/data sets and conclude that 2 of these studies support the hypothesis that mandatory helmets lead to a decrease of cycling, whereas 13 studies do not, and 8 studies show mixed results.
> The abovementioned review studies only concern research done abroad, in particular in Australia and North America.
https://swov.nl/en/fact-sheet/bicycle-helmets (Under "What is the effect of helmet use on the popularity of cycling?")
But oh well, the author works at Red Hat so I'm sure they have their reasons :p
Agreed
> US local supply will never be enough.
But you won't just have US supply. You'll have US and Taiwanese supply, and I don't believe that Taiwan will happily let TSMC (the only cutting edge foundry left in the world, when you take Samsungs abysmal yields into account) build foundry redundancy in the western world.
But we'll see, you could definitely end up being right. I just hope we'll invest at least an equal amount of money into chip design.
Or do we seriously expect that US companies will generate significant demand even though TSMC and Samsung are already building heavily subsidized fabs in the US?
Not worthy of the front page I think.
Freedom House researches this exact topic and they're funded by the US Government. Their current chair is a republican but they're non-partisan.
Looking at their most recent data[0], we can see the US scored 14/16 in 2022 on "Freedom of Expression and Belief", meaning that 53 countries were better by scoring 15/16 or 16/16. Of the 27 countries that scored 16/16, 11 were European. Qatar scored 6/16 by the way.
When you look at the total Freedom Index, the US scores 83/100 which is good for place 62 and lower than most of Europe. Qatar scored 25/100. Here is a world map[1].
[0] https://freedomhouse.org/sites/default/files/2022-02/Aggrega...
[1] https://freedomhouse.org/explore-the-map?type=fiw&year=2022
That was when I learned that for some people, a monad really just is a monoid in the category of endofunctors.
I asked for this book for my birthday and read it. However, I couldn't help but notice that when the author wrote about my field (computers, broadly speaking) the research was often... lacking?
She wrote a solid 3-4 pages on large phones and it was just surreal to read. Paraphrased:
> Phones are very large. This is bad for women; they have smaller hands. Nobody knows why tech companies make large phones. It is very silly, because women actually use their phones more than men. I asked multiple tech journalists for an explanation, they had no idea either. Here I present some theories that can tie this issue to sexism: companies simply design phones with men in mind, companies expect women to carry a handbag all the time so a large phone is no bother, and so on. And sure, women could buy an iPhone SE but that model hasn't been updated in two years.
Nothing about better battery life, nothing about better media consumption. It was so confusing, as every tech journalist, literally every tech journalist, knows that bigger phones have better battery life.
Sadly it made it a bit difficult for me to fully trust the rest of the book.
Some concepts aren't for beginners. This includes most things that have to do with more advanced type theory or for example category theory.
ELI5 GATs? ELI5 Monads? If we could we would.
1. Use DevCleaner[0] to remove old/unnecessary device support files.
2. Remove platforms you don't develop for, e.g.
- rm -rf /Applications/Xcode.app/Contents/Developer/Platforms/Watch*
- rm -rf /Applications/Xcode.app/Contents/Developer/Platforms/AppleTV*
DevCleaner freed up 10G+ for me the first time, the two rm commands above free up ~3G each.
> I claim the following simple experiment supports this depressing claim. Run your favorite set of benchmarks with your favorite state-of-the-art optimizing compiler. Run the benchmarks both with and without optimizations enabled. The ratio of of those numbers represents the entirety of the contribution of compiler optimizations to speeding up those benchmarks. Let's assume that this ratio is about 4X for typical real-world applications, and let's further assume that compiler optimization work has been going on for about 36 years. These assumptions lead to the conclusion that compiler optimization advances double computing power every 18 years. QED.
> This means that while hardware computing horsepower increases at roughly 60%/year, compiler optimizations contribute only 4%. Basically, compiler optimization work makes only marginal contributions.
> Perhaps this means Programming Language Research should be concentrating on something other than optimizations. Perhaps programmer productivity is a more fruitful arena.
This makes no sense?
M1 / M1 Pro / M1 Max / M1 Ultra were all manufactured on TSMC N5, even though volume production for N5P (improved N5) was already available by the time M1 Pro / Max were released. In fact, A15 (N5P) was released in September '21 whereas M1 Pro / Max (N5) were released in October '21 and Ultra was released in March '22.
M2 is manufactured on N5P, so it makes total sense that M2 Pro / Max / Ultra will also be manufactured on N5P. They're part of the same generation, so it makes sense to produce them on the same node.
This is also most logical from a financial standpoint: the base model M chips and the A chips are the smallest and therefore least expensive to produce on a new node with relatively poor yields and high prices. Once the node has matured a bit more (higher yields / lower prices), you manufacture the bigger chips (Pro / Max), and even later you print the big bois (Ultra)
M2 Pro / Max / Utra were never going to be N3.
Also, the second picture is a bit misleading because it compares the SE to a container that itself is larger than the mini (as you can see in the third picture).
[0] Numbers from Mactracker. SE is 4.87" x 2.31" = 11.2497"^2. Mini is 5.18" x 2.53" = 13.1054"^2. That's a 16.5% increase in surface area
> Since it looks to follow whichever pattern already exists, and de bruijn sequences minimize existing patterns, it always beats the game.
I'm pretty sure this isn't true though. A de bruin sequence doesn't guarantee that the order of the n-patterns is random, only that the number of unique n-length patterns is maximized.
Indeed, the algorithm you mention puts n-subsequences with many 0's in the front, and subsequences with many 1's in the back. Sure, every n-length subsequence appears only once, but because the order of the subsequences does follow a predictable pattern, your total sequence is still pretty predictable.
This disparity isn't noticeable when n is small (you chose n=6), so you can comfortably beat the game. But pick a large n and your sequence becomes rather predictable.
Try n=20. In that case, the generated sequence S has length |S|=32,768=2^15. In the first half, there are 9098 0's and 7286 1's. In the second half these numbers are exactly the opposite. Throw this sequence into the game, and you end up with a prediction accuracy of 50%. Not worse than random, but you didn't beat the game either.