756 karma · joined April 13, 2022
If the obscure book/text is permanently lost forever under your stringent advice of "no stealing under any circumstances", would the "stealing" have saved it? If so, is it ethical to prevent others from accessing the book/text, under your guise of "preventing stealing"?
> This support will be dedicated towards Blender core development, to maintain and continuously improve foundational features like the Blender Python API, which enables developers and artists alike to extend and improve the software for custom workflows.
- 1 week to prototype: The tool + its accompanying JS sandbox + System prompt updates + context injection
- 11 months of public testing to go through i18n + a11y edge cases & fix them
Professional bodies = gatekeeping. The existence of the body means that the thing its surrounding will be barred from others to enter.
It means financial barriers & "X years of experience required" that actual programmers rightfully decry.
Caveat: When it comes to anything that will affect physical reality, & therefore the physical safety of others, the standards & accreditations then become necessary.
NOTE ON CAVEAT: Whilst *most* software will fall under this caveat, NOT ALL WILL. (See single-player offline video games)
To create a blanket judgement for this domain is to invite the death of the hobbyist. And you, EdNutting, may get your wish, since Google's locking down Android sideloading because they're using your desires for such safety as a scapegoat for further control.
> We DO NOT have this in software engineering.
THIS IS A GOOD THING. FULLSTOP.
The ability to build your own tools & apps is one of the rightfully-lauded reasons why people should be able to learn about building software, WITHOUT being mandated to go to a physical building to learn.
To wall off the ability for people to learn how computers work is a major part of modern computer illiteracy that people cry & complain about, yet seem to love doing the exact actions that lead to the death of computer competency.
...Honestly, Nasdaq's to blame for bending the knee in this case. If they choose to chase that pie, then they alone should be the ones to bear the burden, including any/all reactions from passive investors.
Passive investors should (ideally) switch to another index if they wish to not be involved in this IPO. The decision of how they should invest is theirs, and if they're not happy with this index, they should move to another index: Their money talks louder than any posturing that could ever be put out.
In terms of public sentiment, for the conviction to have happened, it has to happen to the Big Banks, and not anyone else. If it didn't happen to the Big Banks, then narrative-wise it didn't happen at all.
> > Literally dozens of CEOs went to jail, which is again why I think this may be the biggest ball-drop of the media this century
The GP's remark is centered around the *sentiment* that none of the C-suite / execs in the Big Banks (Merrill, Goldman, BoA, Citi) were jailed for their involvement / excessive speculation in the 2008 crisis.
The keywords there being "Big Banks": If it's a national household name, OR if their positions are coveted by finance employees, it's a Big Bank. Otherwise, it's not a Big Bank.
> > > Your Google skills may need some work because this is the first result for "bank CEO jailed by TARP":
1) This is a goalpost shift from "bank CEOs jailed for causing / excessively speculating up to the 2008 crisis".
2) TARP was established as a result of the crisis (i.e. AFTER it happened), and therefore cannot be used to mark execs that were jailed for their involvement / excessive speculation in the 2008 crisis.
3) "TARP defraudment" is a different matter, and not "Causing the 2008 crisis" or "excessive speculation"
> > > https://archives.fbi.gov/archives/atlanta/press-releases/201...
The case cited only tangentially involves TARP, when the bulk of the case was about the President of FirstCity Bank & his associates defrauding the bank with loans that *they themselves had involvement in*.
...no?
Just one Google search for "latex editor" showed more than 2 in the first page.
It's not that different from using a markdown editor.
None of that requires a strong currency, only a strong industry.
That's what the CCP has done with their own currency, by deliberately weakening it & funneling the strength into drowning the global market with their industry's products. A strong currency runs counter to that by making their products more expensive as a result.
Had the RMB continued its original trajectory (2003-2015), it would've wound up at approximately 1EUR ~= 5RMB. Instead, the CCP made the decision to weaken the RMB to maintain industrial capability, and further expand into technological ventures without abandoning the other industries they've captured before.
> That some in the US want to go down the value chain and take China's manufacturing spot just as China zooms ahead of the US, is, well... It would be comical if it weren't so sad.
1) China is able to "zoom ahead" because they have a strong industry within their own borders, buffered from the political decisions of other countries.
2) The value of the lower parts of the chain is not obligated to be lower than the upper parts of the chain.
https://www.kenan-flagler.unc.edu/news/its-okay-to-move-down...
1) A consumer economy is not required to extract wealth from other countries.
2) A consumer economy is metastable by design:
(2a) It inherently requires the buy-in of other nations to want to export to you in the first place, which is not guaranteed.
(2b) The wealth of the consumer economy is primarily derived from salesmanship and not the product itself, which is also metastable.
3) Knowledge work is not barred to an export economy, and can similarly be performed there without having to become a consumer economy.
> Why grind away relentlessly in industries with tiny profit margins, when there are high-margin innovation-driven industries that your economy can advance to?
(Previous point (3) similarly applies here)
> Why stick with producing clothing, when you can move on to cars? Why stick with cars, when you can move on to chips? Why stay with chips, when you can move on to the next new technology that the entire world wants, but which only your economy can produce because it grew the industry from scratch and everybody is playing catch up?
1) None of these decisions are mutually exclusive. Why throw away the $10 you picked up just because you saw $100?
2) Establishment of a new industry is not assured. Failure can still occur, even when billions are thrown. (see Abu Dhabi & GlobalFoundries semiconductor fab venture)
2b) Not very new industrial move needs to be made. Tech leapfrogging can occur at a later date.
3) The demand for those """lower end""" products do not evaporate. Unless a sensible smartphone-like revolution comes for clothing / cars (i.e. The unification of multiple former products under a new product), the industry's products & demand will rarely change. The tastes will shift, but the fundamentals of the product & the industry will remain.
4-IMPORTANT) Margins are not obligated to trend towards zero, and can in fact increase as more people make the same mental conclusions as described and abandon their own industries, eventually leading to an oligopoly / monopoly scenario that is harder to retake back.
> Dictators love autarky because it gives them complete control of the population. Populations should not love autarky, because it makes them poor and robs them of wealth and opportunity.
Wealth does not inherently manifest from (the ether / nothing), and neither does opportunity. Even in the EU, wealth is derived from the decisions of the State to create / retain wealth.
There's an implication here that the country *wants* to become a consumer economy, and not remain an export economy.
Furthermore, it relies on the leadership wanting to wind down that production, and not use that subsidy to further bolster their industrial capacity & crush global prices, in an attempt to wash out the others & only have their country be the sole remaining place capable of meeting demand at that subsidized point.
This is a fantasy that the CCP leadership will not entertain, because it would mean losing their control as the (export/industrial) king. Their national security descends from having that crown firmly in their hands & making everyone else reliant on their industries, and will do as much as they can to make sure it stays that way.
A strong currency runs counter to what the CCP leadership wants, having seen how it has hollowed out the US' industrial capacity (as a result of strong currency demand leading to comparatively higher labor costs).
That in itself is a goalpost shift from
> > We will run out of additional material to train on
Where it is implied "additional material" === "all data, human + synthetic"
------
There's still some headroom left in the synthetic data playground, as cited in the paper linked:
https://proceedings.mlr.press/v235/villalobos24a.html ( https://openreview.net/pdf?id=ViZcgDQjyG )
"On the other hand, training on synthetic data has shown much promise in domains where model outputs are relatively easy to verify, such as mathematics, programming, and games (Yang et al., 2023; Liu et al., 2023; Haluptzok et al., 2023)."
With the caveat that translating this success outside of these domains is hit-or-miss:
"What is less clear is whether the usefulness of synthetic data will generalize to domains where output verification is more challenging, such as natural language."
The main bottleneck for this area of the woods will be (X := how many additional domains can be made easily verifiable). So long as (the rate of X) >> (training absorption rate), the road can be extended for a while longer.
That can be circumnavigated by bundling the conversations into one POST to an API endpoint, along with a few hundred calls to several dummy endpoints to muddy the waters. Bonus points if you can make it look like an normal-passing update script.
It'll still show up in the end, but at this point your main goal is to delay the discovery as much as you can.
> The transformation of humans to spherical shape is gluttony not evolution. They should be forced to ride a bike until their silhouette returns to that of a human.
...GP's comment is a play on the "spherical cow" physics joke, and how models *will* have some unrealistic assumptions baked in, just so that the maths is easier to crunch through.
Strictly speaking, an external market being brought into existing ticketing systems would be net-neutral, since the following pros & cons should balance each other out:
(additional visibility into ticket prices & demand (+)) + (increased assurance of "this is the one place to get a ticket" (+))
==
-( (increased competition for a ticket (-)) + (perverse incentives of platform to increase ticket prices (-)) )
But because of their reputation, the negatives are weighed more than the positives due to their existing track record.
As such, the following constructed scenario should be considered: If it was a fully automated platform external to any party that handled such ticketing systems, would such a severely negative view still hold?
https://cpufun.substack.com/i/32474663/notable-differences
As noted by the other comments, Apple's M-series chips seem to use a 128-byte cache line. ARM doesn't mandate that their licensees must use a pre-specified cache line size: 64 bytes just happens to be the consensus-arrived standard.
Only when it comes to their TPUs, and sometimes that one thing may just be the difference to push them over the hump.
Per-token cost-wise, TPUs (& specialized processors in general) will beat GPUs every time. The efficiency difference between the 2 types is never to be ignored, & is likely why they can shotgun it everywhere.
> And Google is an advertising company. Mostly in search, and increasingly dependent on YouTube. Everything else is a net money loser, including Waymo, Gemini etc.
1) Each venture should be treated as a (relatively) isolated vertical slice
2) 9 out of 10 times, a venture just doesn't break even. That's just the nature of the business.
Related performance-oriented discussion: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=40296932
Lisp will always be the 'what if' watering hole in the compsci space.
Under such an excuse, any type of extreme measure is similarly allowed.
In fact, why not go full Suicide Squad and strap bomb/shock collars to every person on Earth?
Each reel being a minute long would equal to 6 hours & 24 minutes of scrolling a day.
It would be close to the most depressing world record to ever exist.
Reductively, yes.
IMO, the ARC tests & the visual pattern IQ tests (e.g. Raven's) have little difference, especially if the Raven tests require the taker to draw out the answer.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Raven%27s_Progressive_Matrices
> ...with a majority of users under the age of 13? I'm sure that WILL make a lot of money. > ... will find this comparison impossibly stupid.
I'm ignoring the insinuations here for obvious reasons.
1. Roblox is the newest (note: not necessarily the best) iteration of the genre that Secondlife & (to a limited extent) modded Minecraft servers occupy: An interactive 3D platform that permits user-generated content.
2. Generative models just accelerate their development up to the brick wall of complexity much faster.
> Some what related: im still amazed that no one has made a Roblox competitor
This comment is just the HN Dropbox phenomenon, *again*, only this time from the angle that thinks it's easy to build a "pseudo game-engine" from scratch.
https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=8863
Few competitors exist because of the moat they have built in making their platform easy to develop on, so much so that kids can use them with little issue.
> , as in, a vague social building game that tricks children into wasting money on ridiculous MTXs.
This part is entirely separate from the technical aspects of the platform. Roblox is a feces-covered silver bar, but the silver bar (their game platform) still exists.
> Maybe you are right, but I think that taking an already sorry state of affairs, and then removing the only imagination or STEM skills required by giving children access to GenAI.... is a really depressing thought.
This is a hyper-nihilistic opinion on children laid bare.
To think that the children (*with the dedication to make a game in the first place*) wouldn't try to learn about debugging the code that the models are spitting out, or that 100% of them would just stop writing their own code entirely, is a cynical viewpoint not worth any attention.
Easy: The largest ship in the world by area. (Goal - either 500m x 500m, or at least 0.25km^2 with the breadth >= 300m)
The current status quo for bulk carriers are the Valemax ships (360m x 65m), with each one costing around $100 million. (actual figure wildly varies, but sticks around that number)
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Valemax#Sale_of_ships
https://www.tradewindsnews.com/containerships/evergreen-adds...
(500 * 500) / (360 * 65) = 10.683760683760683
10.68 * $100 million = $1.068 billion
Even just going with 5 Valemax ships side-by-side (360m x 325m) costs half a billion.
> (c) Civil penalty.—Any payment card network that violates subsection (b) shall be assessed a civil penalty by the Comptroller of the Currency of not more than 10 percent of the value of the services or products described in that subsection, not to exceed $10,000 per violation.
I see 2 problems as it is currently written: (1) The penalty's too low, & (2) restricting dispense of the law to only the Comptroller renders it ineffective.
(1) is easily solvable with regards to editing the text alone: raise the limit to 50% & $100k respectively.
(2) is also solvable, by striking out "by the Comptroller of the Currency", or adding in ", or by a federal court, whichever penalty is higher, " at the end of that part.
Visually showing alternatives to the impulse buyer adds friction between the user & the purchase, and when compared to the original seamless shopping experience, that's enough to slow down impulse purchases.