skysight-inc/HackerNews huggingface dataset:
It seems like nVidia's solution is actually different than the conventional tiling of PowerVR, though they are broadly similar and as you say address the main VRAM bandwidth issue by using smaller but faster cache.

I've watched parts of that video a couple of times, but I don't fully understand it. The best I can make of it is that PowerVR tiles everything at all levels of rendering, whereas nVidia's Maxwell (and other, more modern, desktop GPUs?) tiles only up to the point of rasterization. If I understand this correctly, it means that pixel shaders on mobile operate on a limited view (their tile, plus some margin?) while pixel shaders on desktop still operate across the entire screen. I don't know if this matters that much in practice, and the distinction seems to be motivated by patents (which may have expired by now?) rather than technical necessity or benefits.

Either way, given the massive importance of cache locality, what I originally said about tiled rendering offering no benefit at 1080p is indeed wrong. I think my understanding of GPUs is more than a decade out of date at this point. These problems used to be solved with more power and wider memory buses. That seems to have stopped scaling well over 10 years ago.
Gosh, that's wonderful, but like I wrote, specific articles are hard to pick out of all the chaff ejected around ivermectin.
> A mixture of greed from the drug manufacturer and wishful thinking from the afflicted.

Neither of those entities have the power to approve a drug.
We sometimes have posts here from patients who are desperate. And everyone dumps on the FDA in those threads.

This is the flip side of that.

This was patients lobbying Congress to skip safeguards. The FDA did not want to do this. https://apnews.com/article/science-business-health-lobbying-...

Now it's just getting worse and worse. ALS patient communities used the questionable approval of Aduhelm by desperate Alzheimer’s patients to strongarm the FDA into approving this. Every junk pharma product is now going to come with an advocacy group that says "let's just try it and see".

Grifter pharma corporations will of course take advantage of this. They'll mobilize patient communities to keep skipping the science. And the result will be more wasted lives and more misallocated resources. Instead of working toward drugs that help people, we'll be working toward drugs that sound good to patient communities and Congress. This is a disaster.

The FDA might be slow. But it's slow and deliberate for a reason.
So umm... I'm glad that peer review determined this room temperature superconductor paper was excellently researched. Also, it was a complete lie.
I wonder if there’s room for a section on Arxiv that is exclusively for papers that are on a peer-review track.

Or maybe “peer or open review,” or something like that.
> The code will be packaged up and sold by unscrupulous people who will not contribute back

Choose a good license then
Because either the disk is down for everyone on that machine or for no one. That it is only down for my program is theoretically possible (e.g. a bug in the OS or driver) but it's so unlikely that it's usually moved into the "cosmic rays" category.

This is not true for networks (the internet).
Extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence (and validation!)
I mean, unless you're one of the 75 million people who died in the massacres, the concentration camps, the firebombing, the disease, the starvation. Maybe we could find a way to have a great era without that, they might suggest.
Isn't one supposed to loose weight when they don't eat enough calories to cover the work they do? I don't.
I think that's at least partially a view that's obvious because we now consider the heart the "center" of the body. The lungs are obviously expanding as you breath, your stomach obviously digests your food into what becomes you, blows to the head cause mental issues so it's obvious that the brain is used to think.

Meanwhile there's this huge organ in your chest with a non-obvious purpose, I don't think it's that unreasonable for someone to claim it holds your soul or something.
> Per the release, the act “would create a new streaming royalty, with the aim to compensate artists and musicians more fairly at a penny per stream when their music plays on streaming services.”

> The report goes on to say that streaming has grown to represent 84 percent of recorded music industry revenue, but that Spotify, the leading music streaming platform, only pays an average per-stream royalty of $0.003, meaning an artist must reach 800,000 monthly streams to equal a full-time $15/hour job.

> The proposed new royalty would be paid in addition to existing royalties, ensuring that artists receive at least one cent per stream with an eventual cap on the amount of possible profit per month. The additional payments would be funded via a tax on the streaming platforms’ non-subscription revenue and a small increase to the cost of music streaming subscriptions.
Bezos has a particularly enormous one
https://www.boatinternational.com/yachts/news/damen-75m-supp...
Algorithmic Complexities in Backpropagation and Tropical Neural Networks
The drug didn't hurt patients, did it?

This kind of failure seems relatively benign.
Regulators are political amalgamations; as we've seen recently with Alzheimers and this drug, those entities can be quite powerful.
I am not sure whether I understood it at all but it seems that zsh has a quirk. Interactive shells become the process group leader because they need to manage signals. If you hit Ctrl-C then as a process group leader the signal is forwarded to child processes. And zsh has the quirk that if the last command is not a built-in, zsh calls execve such that zsh becomes the last command. But then the last command is the process group leader and when it exits, no process is the process group leader anymore and Ctrl-C gets lost. Weird.

I am not sure whether this quirk is specific to zsh, but the article mentions zsh, so your mileage might vary.
The fundamental problem is there is no such thing as "human values". Lots of people think that their morals and philosophies are "universal", but they nearly never are. Just look at the impossible bind social media companies are in (clarification: I'm in no way excusing the abuses of social media companies, but even that thought means I think my definition of "abuses" is the right one) - one tribe thinks hate speech and misinformation is the cardinal sin, while the other thinks censorship and bias are the primary problems - there is simply no way to appease both sides for any particular piece of controversial content.

Take something more relevant to the dangers of AI. It could be an entirely rational belief that the vast majority of human procreation results in human suffering and despair (not to mention an order of magnitude greater suffering and despair for other organisms on Earth), so the only compassionate thing to do is to end that suffering - by euthanizing every human on Earth.

At least personally, that seems like a bad outcome to me. But I just make that point to show that our "human values" are not internally consistent. It's easy to read the writings of Aristotle (often considered one of humanity's greatest philosophers) and hear him argue that slavery is an absolutely just and rational outcome of war. "Human values" are all just a bunch of gray areas and judgment calls over which there is no consensus.
And human generated data may not ?
Keep a brag list of the wins you achieved, thank me later
Transcription error, it should have been all ewe need.
> There's an exception to this rule if the underlying network does not go wrong.

Fair enough. Maybe we shouldn't call it remote procedure calls then, because it's not remote anymore. The word remote exists to make the distinction compared to local. If there is no distinction in a given context, there is no need to use that word from the beginning.
I had a coworker with CF that started this treatment. Over the course of their first year of treatment, as it became plain to them just how effective it was and what the implications for their long-term survival might be, their behavior changed drastically. Within 18 months of starting treatment they were showing worrying indications of both budding mental health issues and heavy substance abuse. Their marriage, which had been stable for years, was in shambles as well. I can only speculate that their exuberance at being given a stay of execution lead them to "oversteer" into some questionable lifestyle choices.
One of the authors here.

Ok, this blew up, and I appreciate the engagement. We will attempt to get to all the questions.

We are still polishing the initial offering, so if the documentation seems lacking, it's because it very much is so. Honestly, we did not anticipate having this many eyes on the project this early.
A very nice Just So Story.

https://en.m.wiktionary.org/wiki/liver#:~:text=the%2520human...).
Love this too -- I use this to document source code, being able to visualize a buffer or structure layout in the code is so nice!
It’s not as bad, true. But you have to consider the amount of money wasted in the phase 3 trial, resources which could’ve been put to better uses.
I don't disagree with that, but does that matter for your program?

Your code still has to handle the same failure modes regardless.

I've had many situations where e.g. reading locally cached files on a smartphone eMMC had worse latency and throughput than doing the same read over the network on the server. The cache actually made performance worse in every way.
These devices must now all be treated as if they’re rooted. That’s a gigantic security problem. Casual analysis here says “well it would be hard to install a new OS, so it’s not a big deal.” That is a terrible security assumption. We don’t know what other changes could be done to a rooted device, but anybody with a sensible security mindset would assume something undesirable is possible.

So, the outcome might be harsh, but it is NOT overreacting to promptly deal with secure devices becoming easily rooted.
It’s reasonable to act to prevent one’s neighbour from being conquered, without having an obligation to be world police.

Europe has a strong memory of what happens when you don’t act to protect your neighbours from aggressors: those aggressors soon come for you too.
But what's the harm here? The drug is safe. The only burden patients had was financial. Now what if the drug was effective? The harm it would incur to patients by delaying it would be much more extreme.
I don't know what to add to it.
I am ready to sell this SaaS too, for anyone who wants to own it for good SEO.
it doesn't, but it's a deterrent. the very fact that this app had limited commercial success is reason to believe there likely won't be "many clones", especially if they're forced to go against the license
What is interesting is that the liver is one of the few human organs which are really able to regrow after an injury.

Therefore even if this may be just a coincidence that the legend of Prometheus includes the periodic regrowth of his liver after being wounded, there is also the possibility that some ancient people were aware of some cases of liver regeneration, though it is not clear how they could have discovered that.
All data is serialisable. I'd say that's axiomatic. Data is information with a concrete representation.

At present the docs say it can serialise things that it can serialise with a couple of examples on each side.

My best guess is there's some limitations caused by the stack under your implementation that you haven't worked around, but I don't know what those limitations are or which ones you plan to resolve.

In addition to what can be sent there's a load of design choices about what is sent.

Is aliasing within the original preserved?

Is potential aliasing introduced?

Is it compressed in transit?

Is it delta encoded with respect to information that was sent previously?

Is there some initial blob of information every instance starts up with that messages are deduplicated against?

And that's before the behaviour on mutation - when one machine changes the data, how and when is that change reflected on other machines?
Rising interest rates also make other large infrastructure projects dead on arrival. Large onshore windfarms are probably ok (although a few of those probably got killed as well), but offshore is a bigger risk so I am not surprised.

It's a bit strange to rally against cherry-picking and then referring to projects outside of relevant jurisdictions. For some reason we cannot replicate their results, we can have it as a goal perhaps but as a basis for a cost calculation I would opt for jurisdictions that are home or close to home (in a cultural sense).

> Also, this assumes dollar cost is the only relevant factor which is deeply unserious considering that we're dealing with a global long-term issue.

For investors it is the only relevant factor, which is what you initially replied to.
it's somehitng interesting I will have a closer look thanks
You don't have to worry about that, because companies are the ones financing it and if they don't believe the drug have a good chance of working they won't fund it.
Close. Think of it like trpc / rspc with a service mesh that orchestrates calls between services.

It _does_ put an extra hop in your network calls, but it allows some the benefits of orchestration.

Here's an opinionated take: https://docs.differential.dev/getting-started/thinking/
>especially not for what might turn out to be the most impactful labor-saving technology

Not as much "labor-saving" as bureucracy expanding by automating "bullshit jobs" jobs that shouldn't exist in the first place.
STM32 is a very strong brand in the MCU space...
I love the web version has a feature to link back to any given paragraph. I hadn't noticed this in any other site and found it delightful.
When I was in high school, we read the Canterbury Tales. In "The Wife of Bath's Tale," a knight violates a young woman. He is described as having a "lusty liver."
But France is on the "continent" so has to manage transcontinental traffic, especially freight trains - which are very long, very heavy and very slow.

But no, it's so easy for you to just shout "it doesn't make any sense" without first wondering if you had the complete picture. The French are incompetent and wasteful, that's obvious isn't it?
Science is where you measure, analyze, and develop theories. Computer science in particular is about the design of algorithms and systems for their implementation, such as compilers and interpreters.

Programming is a means of operating computer systems. Sometimes you have to operate computers to do computer science, but not always (for example algorithm design is very mathematical.)

there is meaningful overlap, certainly

and also, not all programming is science, certainly
If you still think that kind of false hope doesn't hurt then I sincerely wish you never have to find out otherwise.
Doesn't seem more convoluted than any other drawing tool to me. The UI of Monodraw appears to be pretty similar to "regular" drawing software.
1. You can just “Save as” to PNG, it takes no time or effort.

2. I use to use Monodraw exclusively for making diagrams in source code, but over time I’ve become so comfortable with the tool, keyboard shortcuts, etc. that now I just use it for all diagrams. It’s a very nice tool.
>It should be noted that no ethically-trained software engineer would ever consent to write a DestroyBaghdad procedure. Basic professional ethics would instead require him to write a DestroyCity procedure, to which Baghdad could be given as a parameter.

And this is a quote that ever technologist should also know. Anyway Israel is hardly engaged with a genocide currently, and even if it was there is absolutely no evidence that google cloud is having any kind of participation in it.

So once again - just political grandstanding like the dimwits that throw soup at the mona lisa and glue themselves to the asphalt that think that this performative crap is cost free. Thankfully this time it was not cost free.
It would be a lot easier to agree with you if Apple didn't go out of their way in software, hardware and firmware to block third-parties from getting a fair shake. This is the company that stops you from repairing your own device using software that you cannot control - it's not a lack of organizational and coordination prowess that makes these things happen. Nobody cakewalks their way into manufacturing things on the Chinese mainland.

Similarly, some intern at Apple did not authorize this change, write the patch, and then defend the decision when upstream questioned them about it. That requires coordination, which is frankly why this whole brouhaha is offensive. Apple could be working with upstream to close a critical vulnerability, but instead they're defending the merits of a faulty and dangerous fork. That is brazen and irresponsible behavior that requires just as much effort as working together with the community to solve the issue. Even companies a tenth Apple's size can get this right.
> > At no point did I claim that there is any reason to believe that human intelligence is a stochastic parrot.

> Here's what you said:

> > 1. Current gen AI may only seem like a stochastic parrot, but there's no reason to believe that human intelligence isn't just a really fancy stochastic parrot.

Exactly. I did not say there is reason to believe human intelligence is advanced parroting. I did say there is no reason to believe that it isn't.

Those are two totally different things. Perhaps a simpler example would help:

"I have no reason to believe that you aren't Australian."

"I have reason to believe you are Australian."

See?
>I don't get why this would be someone's position. If it "barely works" it would not sustain mass usage across many product lines.

"Hype" is all it takes for that to be the case. Then every product had to "add AI" features to keep ahead of competitor's marketing.
It's somewhat language-specific, I think. With languages like Python or Lisp or Haskell or indeed Javascript, it's an interesting question what "using a debugger" means. They do have debuggers, but In a safe language with a REPL the need for a debugger significantly decreases. The only times I've painfully, desperately wanted a debugger has been when dealing with unsafe languages where stack frames can get overwritten, buffers can overflow, and I have no idea where the instruction pointer has wandered off to -- you know, when I can't even get printf() to work. One of the main things I would use gdb for when working with C is just to inspect values inside variables etc. and get the sort of insight into the program that comes free at the Javascript console.
Therefore the function has its own failure modes and also a set of extra ones from the execution framework, folded into an exception hierarchy?
I don't think there were many better hopes out there for ALS. That's why they approved the drug despite weak data supporting it. This outcome is devastating for people with ALS and their families.
There are also memory alloys which can remember two states.

A similar concept is supertwisted nylon fishing line "muscles" which contract upon heating.

I think starfish muscles are contracted in the default/energy-off mode, so maybe we could make smart fibers which are actively elastic/"plastic".
I question whether it'll matter. There is so much language data already, unlocking a little more isn't going to be the difference maker for AGI.
I think there are two ways to look at it, both of which are true: 1) scientific literature is being polluted with non-peer-reviewed PRs which makes it harder to figure out what is actually well validated, and 2) press releases are being nudged into being a hell of a lot more technically substantive and rich in relevant citations. The first one isn’t great, but as consolation prizes go, (2) isn’t bad.
> It's an opt-in feature, and it's not default-on.

The documentation sounds like it's a global switch though? This is really a per-function property…

> But I think it's a bounded enough problem for a language processor (ala LLM) that can yield good enough results for vast majority of the use cases.

If as a developer I want this feature I'm not sure why I wouldn't just stick a "retry" annotation somewhere in the function declaration (schema file, export, whatever.) I can see the utility of having the RPC layer handle this for me, particularly for pure compute functions. That's "good enough" error handling: the developer correctly identifying which functions are retryable, erring on the side of caution, and getting automatic retries for those (and just those.) Other RPC errors bubble up.

What benefit AI gives here — especially in this form, hidden in the RPC layer — I don't see at all. If I want AI to help me identify which functions are retryable, I'd rather have it do that in my editor by visibly sticking the "retry" attribute on the function. That way I can fix it if it mis-guesses.

Also: what do you do if with your RPC implementation the guess is wrong and a function is retried when it really shouldn't be? What's the fix?
> I don't think a human mind would be improving if they're in a echo-chamber with no new information

If this were true of humans, we would have never made it this far

Humans are very capable of looking around themselves and thinking "I can do better than this", and then trying to come up with ways how

LLMs are not
It is at the function called level, which is all this is really trying to solve.

You can use normal code on top of this to solve the bigger problems.
Which idea? You seem to have heavily edited your post after I replied; I remember it as being much shorter. I specifically meant

> I know that's the model, but what if it's inaccurate/only a part of the picture? What if the information is elsewhere and we don't know how to measure it?

"What if the information is elsewhere"... well, there's a lot of possible elsewheres. Without some kind of specifics, that's "not even wrong", not because I'm so much smarter than you or so much more of an expert, but because there's nothing there to let anyone be able to determine whether it's right or wrong.

By "elsewhere", I mean the word that you used. What did you mean by that word? Without a specific, you've got something that sounds like stoner physics: "Dude, what if, like, the information is, like, still there, man? What if it just, like, went elsewhere, man?" That's not something that we intelligently interact with. You introduced the word; what did you mean?

But... What if dark matter is the "elsewhere"? (No, I don't have any idea how that would work. Nor do I necessarily think that this is a sane idea. But it's a candidate for "elsewhere" that kind of seems to fit with the course of the discussion.)
This seems so obvious that it’s baffling to me that the article doesn’t discuss this issue.