weebull

Lazy to strict is reasonably easy to do though. The problem is normally that once one bit goes strict, most other things implicitly do too.

Strict to lazy is normally a rewrite.

It should be for that price.

> > ..., should not be mandated to comply with requirements targeting the responsibilities along the AI value chain, ...

What does that mean?

The current situation is unstable and requires interventions to stop it collapsing. That doesn't then make it stable. It just prolongs the instability.

It will collapse. You only get to influence when it will collapse.

I think American capitalist doctrine shoots itself in the foot here. Shareholder return above all else means that most of that public money wouldn't be used to develop corporate infrastructure or capability. It would probably disappear into sick projects and dividends. Companies don't want to develop liabilities that they'll have to maintain after the public money dries up.

Dropping the compressed instructions is also a performance / power issue. That matters to mobile.

Paying fair market price for energy and water is only fair if you don't need extra infrastructure put in place to support you. If you're expecting the local government to build you electricity generating capacity... No. That's not right.

At best, you're forcing old generation capacity that would have been retired to stay online. At worst you're forcing the government to take loans to invest in new capacity you may not be around to pay for in a few years, leaving the public finances holding the ball.

Truly a precursor to games like pong. It's just that relays turned into transistors and so we're able to operate at speeds that made manipulation of a TV signal possible.

We have some...

https://www.nationalgrid.com/richborough-energy-park-battery...

...and others are being planned....

https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/articles/cjr4j1nrd0ro

https://www.msn.com/en-gb/money/other/200-megawatt-battery-s...

I wonder if part of the reason it's good is because it's been trained for a more specific task. I can only imagine that if your concept of a "house" includes range from a stately home to "a pineapple under the sea" you're going to end up with a very generalised concept. It's then takes specific prompting to remove the influences you're not interested in.

I suspect the same goes for art styles. There's such huge variety that really they'd be better surveys by separate models.

I suspect this was vetoed more for reasons of not wanting to handicap California in the "AI race" than anything else.

What? No mention of Count Binface's policy to bring it back?

I think one of the big takeaways from Haskell for me was that errors don't always need to be explicitly handled. Sometimes returning a safe sentinel value is enough.

For example, if the function call returns some data collection, returning an empty collection can be a safe way to allow the program to continue in the case of something unexpected. I don't need to ABORT. I can let the program unwind naturally as all the code that would work on that collection would realise there's nothing to do.

Debugging that can be a pain, but traces and logging tend to fix that.

Scala's has made some horrible language compromises in order to live on the JVM in my opinion.

...or the English word "corpse".

Careful now. You'll be saying waterfall processes are a good thing.

I know an American won't understand this, but you can choose not to pay a tip. If you've invoiced me $1 it's perfectly legal for me to pay you $1.

What kind of things do you want to script?

Personally I use macros in an editor for "text manipulation", and drop to Python/sed/awk for "text processing". I don't find I have a need for anything in-between.

I'd really like to get hold of a model for a modern CPU and properly analyse what all the performance features actually get us in terms of performance.

- Branch prediction and speculative execution - Out of order execution - Massive physical register files and register renaming - Cache predictors - and many more I'm sure.

Speculative execution is the big one for me, just because of the information leakage possible through it. It's there because you'd have to pause fetching new instructions until the result of a conditional branch is known, which has knock-on effects to instruction scheduling... But how big are these effects? Do some certain combinations of features supercharge or work against each other?

I'm sure there's people looking at such things inside Intel and AMD, but it doesn't seem like there's much out there for public consumption.

You've asked the right question, and for those that think validation is as simpLe as "run it and see if it gets the right result", good start but instruction ordering can be critical around multi thread aware data structures. Taking a fence out, or an atomic operation might give a big performance gain. Trouble is the structure may now go wrong 1% of the time.

...because people then drive onto the wrong side of the road to drive around the barriers.

Yes, some people are that dumb.

Same node. Not same architecture.

It's the width of multiplexing that has to on between having a fetch line and extracting a single instruction. As an instruction can start at many different locations, you need to be able to shift down from all those positions.

That's not too bad for the first instruction in a line but the second instruction is dependant on how the first instruction decides, and the third dependent on the second. Etc. So it's not only a big multiplexer tree, but a content dependent multiplexer tree. If you're trying to unpack multiple instructions each clock (or course you are. You've got six schedulers to feed) then that's a big pile of logic.

Even RISC-V has this problem, but there they've limited it to two sizes of instruction (2 and 4 bytes), and the size is in the first 2 bits of each instruction (so no fancy decode needed)

If you're only comparing medians, then just plot the medians. Why a box plot with the quartiles?

> If your data is simple and unimodal, use a boxplot.

How is the reader to know you've used the right plot? How are they to know that you haven't hidden a bimodel dataset behind a box plot because it makes your conclusions easier?

> If the distribution is more complicated and you need some detail, use a histogram or a ridge plot. Violin plots are never the best option; they're curvy so a little more pretty but don't do a good job of conveying information.

They are just multiple, non-overlapping histograms plotted next to each other. They allow you to compare distributions without them getting in the way of each other.

I can understand if it's the fitted PDF that you think hides the original data. That is unnecessary IMHO.

I don't really see how benign communism would be sustainable. In order for communal decision making to be practical, some form of representative hierarchy needs to form. That brings the concept of leaders and that brings concentration of power. With power comes privileges and you're then relying on none of those leaders exploiting their position for personal gain so that it doesn't devolve into a classist society of ruling classes Vs serfs.

In my eyes communism is fatally flawed.

Inequality is inherent in human society at scale. Better to accept that fact and design the society with mechanisms that try to keep it in check.

I don't understand the planning around "lifeboats" and the ISS. I thought that there was always an extra Soyuz capsule docked in case people are stranded on the ISS. Yet, it's never been used and it's never discussed as an option.

Even with Columbia and after, the discussion was always around sending a second shuttle up if the backflip inspection found a damaged heat shield. Maybe that's more understandable given the number of people involved on the Shuttle.

Still... What's the purpose of having that lifeboat there if it's never considered?

That was the M (for modulator) in 520 STFM.

The F was for floppy drive.

One thing in the STs favour was that it's core processor was clocked slightly faster. It needed to be because it didn't have the coprocessors for memory copies and sound that the Amiga had. However, if those processors weren't useful for the task, the ST would be a little quicker.

This manifested in 3D games where the processor did all the rasterisation. If the Amiga could bring it's blitter to bare, it won every time. If not, the ST would squeak it.

Those 3 68000 based machines did ok against the PC until the 486 arrived. At that point all Motorola had was the 68030, and it wasn't enough progression. If the processor line had had more legs, then maybe Commodore and Atari could've remained competitive. I think they both did 68030 based machines, but it was too small a step.

Then it became a battle of operating systems.