People don't want to live in industrial areas, or fully commercial areas either.
That's what "zoning" is for.
Maybe the city should just designate a zone / neighborhood for short term rentals and call it a day.
2,917 karma · joined April 21, 2019
That's what "zoning" is for.
Maybe the city should just designate a zone / neighborhood for short term rentals and call it a day.
Thanks for making my point: this API provides _a_ binary relation is IMO useless. There are millions of binary relations that one could implement for a type, and often many that make sense implementing for a particular type, and that this API doesn't support (e.g. there are both strict partial order and total orders for float in the IEEE standard; this API however implements none).
For this to be useful, the docs would at least need to say what can one assume about the partial order implemented by PartialOrd (is it strict? is it non-strict? something else?), and ideally have a solid ordering hierarchy so that APIs and algorithms can pick what makes sense to them, instead of having to assume the lowest-possible denominator imaginable, which results in, e.g., it not making sense to implement ordering for floats in the standard library, even though to be IEEE compliant it would actually need to do that.
On MacOS to get accents you just "hold <vowel>, and press <number in pop up for the accent you want>".
For ü, "hold u, press 2".
You don't need to use "Option" for anything.
On MacOSX, I just hold u, and a menu appears, that allows me to select ü by just pressing 2. So I end up just doing u+2. With the huge advantage that I don't have to remember the combinations.
Similar for emojis and pretty much anything else you'd like to type as others have mentioned.
So the only question i have is: why? Really. Why would anyone go through the trouble of porting compose keys to macosx, when macosx native solution is so much better?
Time would be better spent on porting MacosX solution to Linux, Windows, et. al.
The docs about these feel written by someone who knew that "some API like this" would be a good idea, but that somehow never managed to flesh out what these traits should semantically imply.
Which is kind of dumb, given that there was _excellent_ prior art about this when Rust was created (Elements of Programming, From mathematics to generic programming, the C++ standard library and the dozen papers about operator<=>, ...).
And that's one of the things I dislike more about rust. The way to overload operators, like +, or <, uses trait names, like Add or PartialOrd, which suggest that these operators have certain semantics (particularly when using Add in where clauses), but in practice they lack any semantic meaning and are just syntactic things.
Which is why, e.g., the standard library implements "Add" for strings. That doesn't mean that it implements "Addition" for strings, but rather that it overloads the Plus operator. And in the String case it does so to implement "Concatenation".
Which is IMO super dumb, because they could have just fixed this by naming the `Add` trait `Plus` instead, which is what languages that do the same thing, like C++, already do (`std::plus`, `operator+`, ....).
You could argue that using `+` to implement concatenation is "bad", but it is way less worse than using "Addition" to implement concatenation, which is what Rust ends up requiring everybody to do because that's just how you overload the `+` operation.
Can you point us to where this antipathy was displayed?
Ada is certified by ISO for being used in automotive control systems. Rust isn't.
So I'm not sure how Rust could have even been an option. AFAIK, the options are Ada, MISRA C, and certain Forth flavors. That's it. I'd take Ada over these alternatives every day.
I could quote the whole post, but to satisfy UK regulators, NVIDIA committed to:
> NVIDIA will expand Arm’s R&D presence in Cambridge, UK, by establishing a world-class AI research and education center, and building an Arm/NVIDIA-powered AI supercomputer for groundbreaking research
which is much more than Softbank ever did. And the list of things they commited to goes on, and probably will continue to increase as the US and China get their says on this.
Hasn't Nvidia has actually increased those guarantees with everything they have agreed on for buying ARM?
Just buy it from Softbank at over 40bn$.
"It's as simple as that".
What the choosing beggars want, however, is getting ARM back from Softbank for free. After Softbank paid 32bn$ for it. And there you are right, ain't gonna happen.
AFAICT the two main alternatives are a Windows Laptop and a Linux Laptop. Each of them with their own _ton_ of problems.
There is a big difference between having interest in a market, and being able to compete in it. There are also many trade-offs.
Nobody has designed yet a GPU architecture that works at all from 500W HPC clusters to sub 1W embedded/IoT systems, much less that works well to be a market leader in all segments. So AFAICT whether this is even possible is an open research problem. If this were possible, there would already be nvidia GPUs at least in some smartphones and IoT devices.
Replacing these with what? What nvidia gpus can operate at that power envelope ?
ARM doesn't have good server CPU IP. Graviton, A64FX, etc. belong to other companies.
NVIDIA already has an CPU architect team building their own ARM CPUs with an unlimited ARM license.
ARM doesn't give NVIDIA a world-class CPU team like apple's, amazon's or fujitsu. ARM own cores are "meh" at best. Buying such a team, would also have been much cheaper than 40b$.
Mobile ARM chips are meh, but nvidia doesn't have GPUs for that segment, and their current architectures probably don't work well there. The only ARM chips that are ok-ish are embedded/IoT at < 1W power envelope. It would probably take nvidia 10 years to develop GPUs for that segment, the margins on that segment are razor thin (0.10$ is the cost of a full SoC on that segment), and it is unclear whether applications on that segment need GPUs (your toaster certainly does not).
The UK appears to require huge R&D investments in ARM to allow the sale. And ARMs bottom line is 300million $/year in revenue, which is peanuts for nvidia.
So if anything, ARM has a lot to win here with nvidia pumping in money like crazy to try to improve ARM's CPU offering. Yet this all seem super-risky because at the segments ARM is competing at, RISC-V competes as well, and without royalties. It is hard to compete against something that's free, even if it is slightly less good. And chances are that over the next 10 years RISC-V will have much better cores (NVIDIA themselves started replacing ARM cores with RISC-V cores in their GPUs years ago already...).
Either way, the claim that it is obvious to everybody what the 3D-chess being played here is false. To me this looks like a bad buy for nvidia. They could have paid 1 billion for a world class CPU team and just continue to license ARM and/or switch to RISC-V chips. Instead they are spending 40 billion in a company that makes 300 million a year, makes meh-cpus, is heavily regulated in the UK and the world, has problems with China due to being in the West, have to invest in the UK which is leaving the EU in a couple of weeks, etc.
That's like throwing pennies onto a pile of gold. NVIDIA makes billions of yearly revenue. ARM makes ~300 million. NVIDIA revenue is 60% of a GPU price. ARM margins in IoT/embedded/phone chips are thin-to-non-existent. If anything, NVIDIA will need to cut GPU spending to push ARM to the moon. And the announcement already suggest that this will happen.
There are more ARM chips sold each year than those of all its competitors together. Yet ARM's revenue is 300 million $.
Why? Because ARM lives from the ISA royalties, and their revenue on the cores they license is actually small.
With RISC-V on the rise, and west sanctions against china, RISC-V competition against ARM will only increase, and it is very hard to compete against something that's good / better and has lower costs (RISC-V royalties are "free").
I really have no idea why NVIDIA would adquire ARM. If they want a world-class CPU team for the data-center, ARM isn't that (Graviton, Apple Silicon, Fujitsu, etc. are built and designed by better teams). ARM cores are used by Qualcom and Samsung, but these aren't world-class and get beaten every gen by Apple Silicon. If they want ARM royalties, that's high risk business, and very low reward (there is little money to make there).
The only ok-ish cores ARM makes are embedded low-power cores (not mobile, but truly IoT < 1W embedded). Hard to imagine that an architecture like Volta or Ampere that perform well at 200-400W would perform well at the <1W envelope. No mobile phone in the world uses nvidia accelerators, and mobile phones are "supercomputers" when compared with the kind of devices ARM is "ok-ish" at.
So none of this makes sense to me, except if NVIDIA would want to "license" GPUs with ARM cores to IoT and low power devices like ARM does, but that sounds extremely far-fetched, because nvidia is super-far away from a product there, and also because the margins for those products are very very thin, and nvidia tends to like 40-60% margins. You just can have those when buying IoT chips for 0.12$. Its also hard to sell a GPU to these use cases because they often don't need it.
What the Linux kernel is discussing is how to integrate these kernel modules and drivers into the Linux tree. They are not discussing whether this is worth doing, but how to do it. Linux is quite stable if you stick to the right APIs, and maintaining these out-of-tree is not too bad, but the current situation is not sustainable in general.
For us it doesn't matter, because our code is not open source. But it matters to quite a bit of people.
Is there a way to help Thierry financially?
It requires using return/tab to complete things, which is precisely what helm does not do.
A couple of weekends ago I was playing with seL4 on RISC-V and Rust under qemu, and it felt much better balanced overall than my recollections of LK.
You missed Amazon, Google, the Linux kernel, Microsoft, Apple, ... which big company isn't using Rust at this point in production?
The main difference between Rust as Haskell is that, while I really like doing competitive programming with Haskell, what I really like doing with Rust is shipping products to customers.
In my free time, I don't use Rust, right now I mostly use Idris2. But the main reason I can do that is that since we moved from C++ to Rust, nobody really call us on the weekend anymore to fix something that can't wait till monday.
That's a fact: check HPL, MLPerf, Spec, etc. results. MLPerf is the perfect example, were your results are only accepted if they can be verified by others. Where is AMD in there? (nowhere, their products suck for compute).
> AMD GCN was more compute oriented than Nvidia for years
No, the only thing AMD GCN was good for is as a very expensive stove.
AMD GCN had a lot of compute, on paper, and higher numbers than nvidia GPUs of the time. Unfortunately, AMD GCN's memory subsystem sucked, and it was impossible to deliver data fast enough to actually be able to use the compute.
So nvidia's hardware essentially destroyed GCN for any useful practical application.
IIRC, the only application for which GCN's got some use was bitcoin mining, which avoided hitting GCN's issues because it just requires doing a ton of useless work on a tiny amount of memory. Perfect for GCN right? Nope, nvidia's hardware was still better, but sold out, and GCN wasn't horrible at this, so it got some use.
AMD actually fired the architect of GCN over this. Yet this still perfectly summarizes AMD's GPGPU strategy of the last 15 years: higher numbers on paper, that cannot be achieved in practice, and lower that the numbers that nvidia's hardware achieves in practice.
Mostly yes. We obviously have sales, marketing, etc. as well.
> - How much time do you spend on a week on maintaining your servers?
I don't do devops. There is a team of people that works full-time on IT infrastructure. No idea how time they spend. Gitlab and Zulip servers are updated every couple of weeks. No idea how much time these cost.
> - How do you make sure that your servers are secure? Maybe you are being hacked every night, does your company have the means to check if there has been a security breach?
There is a team of people that work on cybersecurity monitoring. No idea what they do. Normal IT people just make sure that everyone's computer is encrypted, setting up people's credentials, etc.
> Do you follow/apply the security patches for the OS you are using on the server and all the software you are using on the server?
I don't do anything, somebody does this for me.
> Do you have regular offline backups? What would happen if there is a fire in your offices?
We have multiple locations and the backups are replicated across our own locations.