8,187 karma · joined November 29, 2019
Culturally (though I have no data point but my own) my friends and family tend to be very comfortable with discussing death and assisted-dying. It's just not really taboo.
I don't think it makes much sense here because the gap is not that large. The B580 consumes more power (let's say about 50W though it seems to be a smaller delta in a lot of cases) than a RTX 4060 but it's also faster and 50$ cheaper.
Even at a fairly high electricity rate of $0.32/kWh, you are looking at 20 hours of play to get 1kWh consumed. That means you need to game a whopping 3125 hours to get to breakeven.
It was meant more as a reflection on how, due to how fast threat models evolve, even the seemingly innocuous act of recording 2 sentences on a random website can now be used to break into my bank account.
If they recorded any of that they likely have enough to clone my voice somewhat faithfully.
Congratulations on labelling my French Canadian accent as French though, I'll have to work on my pronounciation more to fool the AI.
I am left-handed and my handwriting is terrible, but my partner is also left-handed and her handwriting is very nice but she position her hands as described above to "pull", so clearly it can be done if you apply yourself.
She also hand writes a lot more while I am almost exclusively typing these days so practice definitely helps.
During the year with the most event (2022), 5 events occured for over 13 000 patients that chose assisted dying. That's 1 for every 2600 person and these events are basically just people suggesting MAiD improperly.
Same goes for phone bills which are going down across Canada. We are still paying too much but it's much better than ~4-5 years ago by a big margin.
And for anyone who wants to looks at the fundamentals, all large telecom companies (Bell, Telus, Rogers) in Canada have lost >20% of their valuation over the last 2 years. Pretty sure that if they "owned" the government they would have found a way to buoy themselves.
Additionally, the issue is that as a consumer, it's not easy to differentiate between quality markup and greedy markup. I don't see the cap manufacturer on the box so the 25$ light bulb might last 10 years or it might last 6 months just like the 3$ one. At least with the 3$ one I can come back and buy another...
To me that's a bit of a weird statement, PyPI is part of the Python foundation, making sure that the project remains true to its open-source nature is reasonable?
My concern is that these type of things ultimately play out as "we are doing the right thing to limit supply chain attacks" which is good an defendable, but in ~5 years PyPI will have an announcement that they are sunsetting PyPI package upload in favor of the trusted provider system. pip (or other tooling) will add warnings whenever I install a package that is not "trusted". Maybe I am simply pessimistic.
That being said we can agree to disagree, I am not part of the PSF and I did preface my first comment with "I guess I am an idealist".
> Support for automatic attestation generation and publication from other Trusted Publisher environments is planned. While not recommended, maintainers can also manually generate and publish attestations.
> STOP! You probably don't need this section;
In https://docs.pypi.org/attestations/producing-attestations/#t...
Perhaps also add a few of the providers you listed as well?
> The only reason it emphasizes GitHub Actions is because that's where the overwhelming majority of automatic publishing traffic comes from
GitHub being popular is a self-reinforcing process, if GitHub is your first class citizen for something as crucial as trusted publishing then projects on GitHub will see a higher adoption and become the de-facto "secure choice".
> The generation and publication of attestations happens by default, and no changes are necessary for projects that meet all of these conditions: publish from GitHub Actions; via Trusted Publishing; and use the pypa/gh-action-pypi-publish action to publish.
If you then click on "The manual way" it adds a big disclaimer:
> STOP! You probably don't need this section; it exists only to provide some internal details about how attestation generation and uploading work. If you're an ordinary user, it is strongly recommended that you use one of the official workflows described above.
Where the only official workflow is "Use GitHub Actions".
I guess I am an idealist but as a maintainer this falls short of my expectations for the openness of Python and PyPI.
> If you can’t explain why those people were thin & healthy, there’s a hole in your theory.
Because they don't eat a lot? Sure a croissant is just butter and white flour, but if you eat only one with a bit more butter and a black coffee that's like 250 calories for breakfast.
Despite the (frankly approximative) "excess" section, in my opinion that's truly the crux of the issue. If you eat smaller portions you get fewer calories. I never tried it but I would bet that you can eat fries every day as long as it's in the McDonald "small" format.
In a big company getting PR/Marketing to write an announcement can be a tall order, especially for a discontinued product that did not do very well and is mostly unknown.
> The pipeline didn’t record many metrics. The ones it did have made it look like things had gotten worse. My bug discoveries caused the overall bug count to increase. The pipeline’s failures increased because I made it fail fast on anomalies instead of silently passing along bad data.
I understand why the author might think this is better, but all software have bugs and a lot of data is tainted by those bugs. Was fixing the pipeline an actual priority? Was it critical? If so, how were the downstream internal customers dealing with the new exceptions? Why were they not raising a ruckus about it? Why was the author allowed to move on to a different project if there were so many bugs in that pipeline deserving of a promotion?
I have met more people in life that made a big deal out of ultimately unimportant details than the opposite. Internal pipelines usually have a lower bar and the downstream consumer may not even care about 75% of features that are just there and unused. Being a senior engineering is also knowing when to leave good enough alone.
> My other work didn’t look so good on paper either. On several occasions, I put my projects on hold for weeks or even months at a time to help a teammate whose launch was at risk. It was the right decision for the team, but it looked unimpressive in a promo packet. To the promotion committee, my teammate’s project was the big, important work that demanded coordination from multiple developers. If they hornswoggled me into helping them, it’s evidence of their strong leadership qualities. I was just the mindless peon whose work was so irrelevant that it could be pre-empted at a moment’s notice.
Is that conclusion really wrong? It's a bit uncharitable for sure but that is indeed what happened not just how it appeared to have happened. If your project was such a low priority that dropping it for several months does not flash a red light in someone's dashboard, then I am sorry but that does not seem promotion worthy.
The little comic also has good examples that things that imo are not "senior" work. Writing E2E tests for a product that is already shipped is worthwhile, but unless it's something very special it's not complex enough, does not require enough design to be considered "senior work".
Again I don't know the guy, maybe he did get an unfair read on his body of work, but reading the entire blog I mostly get the vibes of "I worked 2 years at Google and then wanted to be a senior so I rushed my promo packet without a cornerstone project" and the committee refusing that is just the system working as intended.
GA means Generally Available. To GA something is a shorthand for "to make X generally available".
Being fabless does have an impact because it caps AMD's margins and makes x86 their only moat. They can only extract value if they remain competitive on price. Sure that does not impact Nvidia, but they get to have fat margins because they have virtually no competition.
> The market is completely irrational on AMD. Their 52-week high is ~225$ and 52-week low is ~90$.
That's volatility not irrationality. As I wrote AMD's valuation is built on the basis that they will keep executing in the DC space, Intel will keep shitting the bed and their MI series will eventually be competitive with Nvidia. These facts make investor skittish and any news about AMD causes the stock to move.
> the market thinks AMD needs to compete with GB200 while they're actually competing with H200 this quarter. And for whatever reason the market thinks that AMD will get zero AI growth next year?
The only hyperscaler that picked up MI300X is Azure and they GA'ed it 2 weeks ago, both GCP and Azure are holding off. The uncertainty on when (if) it will catch on is a factor but the growing competition from those same hyperscaler building their own chip means that the opportunity window could be closing.
It's ok to be bullish on AMD the same way that I am bearish on it, but I would maintain that the swings have nothing to do with irrationality.
They are seriously hurting Intel in the datacenter space, but Intel is not dead yet and their accelerator have so far seen very small adoption. They are fabless meaning that their margins are capped, x86 mobile CPUs are under attack from ARM and all hyperscalers are working on their own accelerator with some degree of success. They won't move to AMD GPUs.
They are a good company putting out great hardware, but at the current price I just don't get it.
Perhaps I am an asshole, but seems like they sold their domain for $31, you bought it for $31 and that's that. Good on you to offer $3900 but for $8000 I would pay some lawyer to put them on notice.
I don't really believe that what I am asking for is hard, yet I still can't buy it as far as I know.
> actual investigation workflows are the hard part and still very manual & human operated.
Sure but it would allow your QA worker to have pre-tested usecase-based path with some flag on whether or not they may be problematic with a screen-recording and some timestamp of where it went wrong.
These will always need human-in-the-loop to vet the findings before cutting a ticket to development team.
Ideally it would be given a persona and a list of use cases, try to accomplish each task and save the state where you/it failed.
Something like a Chrome lighthouse but for usability. Bonus point if it can highlight what part of my documentation is using mismatched terminology making it difficult for newcomers to understand what button I am referring to.
Considering most of the things raised against him in the 21st century were not really frowned up in the 15-16th, I don't think this is a major issue. Additionally, the version I read was https://www.amazon.com/Four-Voyages-Dispatches-Connecting-Na... which has some contextualization by the editor.
> whose torture and other cruelty and abuses as a colonial administrator were so severe and notorious that he got thrown in chains, dragged back to Spain
I did not say he was an inspiring role model and that was abuse directed towards Spanish settlers which is definitely not what people refer to when they call Colombus a monster...
At least in the Kantian sense, the guy was not really bad in that he didn't really intend to do much harm. His writing is very tied to bringing Christianity to Caribbean tribes, some of which were still actively practising cannibalism. He "scammed" them by trading glass beads for gold, but that still feels somewhat minor. I wonder if people don't sometime confuse him with Cortés (who was a true piece of work) and the later stage of Spanish colonisation which all happens several years after the death of Columbus.
Perhaps this is editorial so I want to avoid making too strong a statement here, but openly saying "we are denying a permit/witholding authorization to launch, to a company because its owner is aligned with a political party we don't like" is really, really weird to me.
I am not in the US, but is this even legal? Seems like something that should not be part of the evaluation at all.
I get the point that the author is trying to make, but frankly since LLMs are expert are producing output that looks right, I would be feeling uncomfortable giving feedback that was partially written by ChatGPT. Even if as the author you feel like it conveys what you meant, you are still introducing new words around your feedback that are not your own and that will likely lead you towards impersonal somewhat generic feedback.
Not saying that's what would necessarily happen, but I'd rather get 4 real lines from my manager than a half-page worth that was seeded from those same 4 lines.