444 karma · joined July 22, 2016
I don't think the claims about capability are ridiculous. The idea that the general capability is proprietary and that it will be exclusive to the trusted partners of one company is ridiculous.
Nassim Taleb would argue the polar opposite of this.
I like the article. Starting to make assertions about benefits seems premature.
So now NVIDIA has a whole bunch of cloud infrastructure hosted by the usual suspects that they can use for the same type of business the usual suspects do.
well played tbh
Just feels like a lot of coping from people that don't want to let go of our concept of "intelligence superiority" or w/e you want to call it.
The end game of this will be them wild-eyed in front of a string-crossed cork board, claiming they've found the one thing human brains can do that AI can't, so it's not thinking it's just x,y,z.
"good managers are good because they're good managers"
LOL thanks. I guess all these books are pointless because you figured it out! Thank god you solved the problem!
One of the conclusions was that, essentially, the normal instinct with Performance Management to focus on improving weaknesses is wrong and leads to sub-optimal outcomes. The best managers actually doubled down on each individuals strengths, and simply accepted weaknesses as something to be smoothed out to the minimally acceptable level. (e.g. someone may not be "good with people", but they can't be openly hostile with co-workers.) Instead the manager would look for another employee which had that weakness as a strength, and manage responsibilities appropriately.
It speaks exactly to what was wrong in OP's experience.
And Platinum is like $30 a gram. There is 1/5th of a gram of Gold in a standard desktop computer and Gold is twice as expensive as Platinum.
It would likely require periodic replacement, proportional to use, of relatively expensive filter(s) - not regularly changing electrodes or invasive deep cleaning.
Wouldn't that be a significant hit to efficiency, or do the benefits simply outweigh it for a net gain?
The scrapers have become the scrapees. The horror.
It's a useful framework for thinking in various situations, but it is almost never going to reduce to an equation that can tell you some objectively correct answer or decision.
I noticed because I read what seems to be the exact article there, with the same illustrations and everything on fs a couple weeks ago. Maybe it was a link in the newsletter to this article.
Looking around there is a lot of overlap in content.
For these things you know there are systematic ways of finding them - for mine it was a C/C++ Project so:
1. Find all executables via build output, or in the running system. For now you're largely going to ignore the details of what the code is doing. You just want to know what is actually "running" at runtime :). 2. Figure out where the entry points to those executables are, like a main. These are usually easy to search for or discover by convention. 3. Find out what threads it spawns 4. Start a simple diagram with a box at the top named for the executable, and branch down to one box for each thread. Manually trace control flow for each thread, adding boxes at points you think are noteworthy logical units. E.g. often threads will have some kind of main loop they sit in, which is a key element for understanding what that thread is doing. 5. Continue for nested threads and worker (short lived but not ephemeral) threads.
Once you complete this, you should have an abstract block diagram that gives a decent map of "What code is running in the system". And just through the process of naming and looking over, maybe a rough idea of what the various pieces of software are doing and possibly how they relate.
You can then repeat this for the other basics in a similar fashion - data and communication interfaces. It's good to emphasize staying at a first-principles kind of abstract mindset. You know there are a finite number of ways a process or thread can communicate or create side-effects outside of itself. If you literally just find all of them (not the details of what is happening over those interfaces), usually it ends up being quite few, and all of a sudden the complexity becomes less intimidating. You have a little box that does some manipulation of data via logic and state, and it goes in one pipe and out the other.
I should point out how difficult all this is largely derives from those "coding practices" droned on about for benefiting maintainability, but so often get tossed. For example, say your system uses message IDs as part of an IPC mechanism. If the code followed good practice, using some kind of constant definitions shared from a single place, you can now do things like search for that message identifier and find all places it's sent/received. If some code used it's own re-definition of the same ID, or hardcoded just the raw numerical value, this becomes nearly impossible.
Also you'll need multiple diagrams. You won't be able to clearly show a complete "code execution" diagram at the same time as an interface relationship diagram or shared data sources diagram. The complexity of it will not help, it will just be more overwhelming complexity.
In the past these things have been misleading. Some impressive capability ends up being far more narrow than implied, so it's kind of like just storing information and retrieving it with extra steps.
The main benefit is Ethernet. It has already started, but in the next few model years of cars, there is a large transition happening from CAN -> Ethernet as the primary communication bus. The simplest reason for that is software + bandwidth + integration.
To implement semantics like an RPC call across two modules in car via CAN, it is kind of ugly and almost always results in awkward software interfaces and extremely inflexible implementations. Whereas with Ethernet now you can do something like use gRPC and protobufs, which is entirely flexible and results in well-defined/formed software interfaces. CAN will still be used for a while for what it is best at: low-level, reliable, low-bandwidth chatty data interfaces that make sense for electro-mechanical parts - especially those that don't have (or need) anything more than a very bare-bones microcontroller. Cost is still a huge factor in automotive design, because a $1 difference x 1 million cars blah blah it makes a difference.
Bandwidth is obvious. CAN can't do video, and in practice audio either (although theoretically possible I guess). Cars have lots of audio and video devices now, and it is unnecessarily complicated to always have command/control and media data on separate buses. Imagine if your computer used one physical network interface for HTTP requests and another interface for streaming video. Sure it'd work fine but you'd have a bunch of extra cables, ports, hardware, and software complexity to make it work.
It's exactly as obvious as you think. E.g. Supply and labor input costs go up 5%, and they raise prices 10%. Wherever convenient they will say "We're sorry to raise prices etc." and then during earnings calls the CEO will say "We're expecting upward price adjustments to increase our net margins in Q4". You know, a euphemism for "we're raising prices and that means more profit"
Corporations, especially the the huge conglomerates with adequate pricing power etc. drive inflation, not suffer from it. The elephant in the room today is that the classic economic model that suggests "oh but another company will come with lower prices and re-balance things" is simply unrealistic. Good luck elbowing in on P&G or Unilever for shelf space in supermarkets, commercial contracts, etc..
The other trick everyone is probably about to see is that when the supply chain crisis recedes and inflation comes down, that the consumer prices curiously remain high. Maybe market forces may claw them back over years, but in the meantime it will just be another incremental wealth transfer from mass-market consumers -> concentrated corporate profits.
The corporations will also kick and scream to avoid raising wages for their employees spending more on their own products, while simultaneously giving huge payouts to executives and investors through share buybacks with their newly minted profits.
It's not even interesting to theorize about anymore. It's boring and obvious. Maybe this is what dystopia is?
Seems like less an issue of Starlink in particular and more of an issue with the "end game" of micro-sats.
Given the amount of investors involved now (and since the mortgage crisis) buying up properties to rent, I could see one trigger being (some reason) that causes it to no longer be a good (or optimal) investment, and them dumping huge inventory onto the market. The government cracking down via regulation on investment ownership (or mass ownership) of single-family homes could be one route to that, although somehow that doesn't feel likely to happen.
It is not the same this time where people with a credit score of 450 were buying multiple homes. This time the people "over extending", in my experience, are on relatively solid financial ground. In my opinion almost anyone that is borrowing 500k+ (because they don't have it, not because it's financial strategy) are "over extending". They are in fact exposed to risk of default, but that doesn't at all correlate to the probability of default. The real risk, meaning probability of occurrence, is most likely pegged to the risk of them losing their source of income, which could (and seems for a while now) in reality to be quite low.
Anecdotally, many I know that are "over extending" could afford to be out of work for months and not lose their home. Either through their own savings, or safety nets in the form of their now retired baby-boomer parents sitting on substantial nest eggs. Very common since all it took for the boomers was to make some average stock investments and own a home to easily become relatively rich over the past 30 years.
I would be interested most to know the % of current homeowners that could make mortgage payments for 3-6 months if one or more jobs in the household were lost. I guess that would be a decent proxy for how likely any implosion of the housing market would be, if it would be triggered by owner-occupants defaulting.
I'm not sure what the "split" among institutional investors is, but afaik most of them want the houses to rent them and create a revenue stream, not flip them for a one-time profit. So inflation doesn't really help them either; e.g. it means they pay more taxes, and requires more upfront capital for the same revenue stream unless the rent they can charge increases in lock-step % (which maybe it does). The fact that the underlying asset appreciates in value is more than just gravy, but don't think it's the point for them. I think they are doing it because it is almost an obvious investment from a risk-return profile compared to other options.