kolbe

I suppose Rule of Force is still a rule, so you aren't wrong per se

> LLVM and Linux get more cash than they can spend. GNU stuff is comparatively impoverished because everyone assumes they'd do it for free anyway. Stuff that ships on a Canonical desktop or RHEL default install gets lots of cash but community favorites like KDE need to make their own way, etc... Also just to be clear: node is filled with povertyware and you should be extremely careful what you grab from npm.

This is often the problem with charity in general. It's hard to find good organizations that actually need your money. Great ones self-sustain on their own revenue. Good ones are saturated with donations from their own users. There's just a small sliver of projects that are awesome, and could productively use financial support. From personal experience, identifying these is often far more costly than the act of writing a check.

Alphabet is the most profitable company in the world. For all the criticisms you can throw at Google, lacking a pile of money isn't one of them.

> more experience with niche hardware than literally anyone is a stretch.

This is why I said "almost anyone." If I changed your words, I could disagree with you as well.

I don't necessarily disagree with your logic, but that's not what the legal term is referring to. Too many people on HN think law is what they want it to be--not what it is. That term is generally reserved for things that are totally irreparable. Nothing you mentioned can't be made up for later.

It is 100% clear that, yes, there is harm being done. It's not at all clear that the harm is irreparable. They usually apply the term to things that are actually irreparable like the death penalty (can't resuscitate the dead person).

The author, Jeff Geerling, is a very intelligent person. He has more experience with using niche hardware than almost anyone on earth. If he does something, there's usually a good a priori rationale for it.

Nearly all people value good articulation over intelligence. This is why people who interview well get jobs over people who do good work. It's why Steve Jobs makes billions while Woz doesn't. And why Trevor Milton can bilk investors of claims about HTML5 supercomputers while nerds get brushed off talking about tensor-chip accelerated attention models.

The truly great founders, CEOs, and investors of our generation have generally been people who could see the difference between articulate and intelligent, and valued intelligence as the driving characteristic of people who built their products.

Generally, no, because jobs can be reinstated and money recompensated. Irreparable harm is harm that is... well... not reparable.

Do you have any reason to believe you have a good algorithm to predict who these privileged few will be? Anecdotally, I've seen little evidence that being a good student at age X is reason to invest more heavily in that person going forward.

Re: reliable energy. Even in low earth orbit, isn't sunlight plentiful? My layman's guess says it's in direct sun 80-95% of the time, with deterministic shade.

Cool. We care. Keep talking.

Maybe a phonetic similarity with "pretentious" as well

We might have different definitions of "HFT"

It depends on what you're doing. If your system is a linear regression on 30 features, you should probably use floating point. My recollection is fixed is prohibitively slower and with far less FOSS support.

I've used Auroa Units to do this. You can define the dollars dimension, and then all the nano-micro-whatever scale comes with.

All your price field messages are sent to the exchange and back via fixed point, so you are using fixed point for at least some of the process (unless you're targeting those few crypto exchanges that use fp prices).

If you need to be extremely fast (like fpga fast), you don't waste compute transforming their fixed point representation into floating.

Nice try, Sam

Using your constitutionally granted executive powers is pretty standard.

Did that sound clever in your head? Again, the head of the executive branch can quash any charge he wants. You're the one contending that a person doing X is evidence that they support not-X.

We can quibble about the definition of "the administration", but the head of it a man who can pardon whomever he pleases for any federal crime he pleases. The very fact that any of these historical charges weren't instantaneously mooted with a pardon is self-evidence to me that all of these prosecutions were of former members of the administration who had fallen out if favor of the actual administration.

Do you know what "de facto" means? I didn't say "de jure," and you're asking for de jure evidence.

DAs of all kinds have enormous discretion. A significant part of our legal system is entrusted to them to act honorably, regardless of what judges and legislators say. DAs can't force outcomes that judges say are incorrect, but DAs can and do choose not to prosecute obvious crimes, and there are not great checks against that power beyond replacing them with the political process.

And even when cases are brought, the DoJ needs to defend them. See a number of cases that were very far along in the court system that the Biden administration was pursuing, that the Trump DoJ just quit defending. They simply no longer have a lawyer, and functionally cannot proceed.

You need to read what I wrote more carefully. The entire point is that whoever is in power decides which law actually gets applied and to whom. Do you think for some reason that the Trump administration risks being prosecuted by the Trump administration?

While you are completely right about the impossible/conflicting legal standards here, this is not an unusual state of things. For example: it has been illegal to discriminate for a very long time, but it has also been de facto illegal to have demographic compositions substantially different from the general population. So, they've always been faced with the problem of needing to either discriminate to get the numbers to match, or not discriminating and risking the numbers falling out of line. The real law has always been, and always will be, prosecutorial discretion. Whatever party is in control will choose whether they go after you or not, and they can because you're always violating one side of something.

Auditors don't get access to whatever the modern equivalent of this is: https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Castle_Bank_%26_Trust_(Baham...

I can think of plausible[1] motives for the NIH and Novo Nordisk that would make it a conflict.

[1] emphasis on "plausible," as opposed to confirmed

I am willing to say I am a good prompt engineer, and "AI takes the wheel" is only ever my experience when my task is a very easy one. AI is fantastic for a few elements of the coding process--building unit tests, error checking, deciphering compile errors, and autocompleting trivially repetitive sections. But I have not been able to get it "take the wheel"

"It can break people" can be said about all sorts of common things in society.

What would you suggest to solve the problem solitary is aiming to solve? Chesterton's Fence was built for a reason. Solitary isn't torturous in the traditional sense of the word. It is consistent with the idea of prison--it's just a worse version of prison. It acts to disincentivize rule breaking within the system. What other ways can we attack this problem with high enough confidence that removing the proverbial "fence" will not result in a total disaster.

Relative to deepseek's latest, yeah