bheadmaster

Missing 5060 Ti 16GB

Interesting. Thanks for info.

The problem is, ironically, that each DSL has its own execution platform, and is not designed for testability. Bash scripts may be hard to maintain, but at least you can write tests for them.

In Azure YAML I had an odd bug because I used succeeded() instead of not(failed()) as a condition. I had no way of testing the pipeline without executing it. And each DSL has its own special set of sharp edges.

At least Bash's common edges are well known.

> Puppet or terraform or something more declarative would have been such a better alternative

Until you need to do something that isn't covered with its DSL, and you extend it with an external command execution declaration... At which point people will just write bash scripts anyway and use your declarative language as a glorified exec.

That's not quite how I remember it.

But I can't think of a way to verify those numbers, so agree to disagree.

Same with Old School RuneScape.

Jagex thought they knew better than the players what the game should look like, and overhauled the whole game to the point it was unrecognizable. It took a massive loss of paying members to get them to finally release 2007 version of RuneScape back.

Even now, OSRS has double the amount of players that RS3 has. Lol

Finally! All the benefits of the opioids, with none of the dangers.

For clarity: I'm referring to all the previous attempts to "fix" the synthetic opioids, each of which ended up making a stronger, more dangerous opioid.

> You can think of it as returning an equivalence class if you like. Then it's single-valued.

I can, but I still have to be very mindful of how I use the "=" sign. Sometimes it's an (in)equality, sometimes it's... the equivalence class thing. The ambiguity doesn't seem very elegant.

> Also note the very cool and fun topology connection here. The keyword to search for is Riemann surface.

I'll check that out, thanks.

If that was true, knowing how elementary particles work would give us understanding of the whole universe, in which case no other science would exist. But other sciences do exist, ergo, you're wrong.

> It works in precisely the same way that you can walk from "here" to "there" by taking a step towards "there", and then repeating.

It's funny how, in order to explain one complex phenomenon, you took an even more complex phenomenon as if it somehow simplifies it.

Well, yeah, the alternative is also bad.

But couldn't we just switch the nomenclature? Instead of an oxymoronic concept of "multivalue function", we could just call it "relation of complex equivalence" or something of sorts.

> Maybe you don't.

My best friend who has literally written a doctorate on artificial intelligence doesn't. If you do, please write a paper on it, and email it to me. My friend would be thrilled to read it.

My biggest pet peeve in complex analysis is the concept of multi-value functions.

Functions are defined as relations on two sets such that each element in the first set is in relation to at most one element in the second set. And suddenly we abandon that very definitions without ever changing the notation! Complex logarithms suddenly have infinitely many values! And yet we say complex expressions are equal to something.

Madness.

> here’s how LLMs actually work

But how is that useful in any way?

For all we know, LLMs are black boxes. We really have no idea how did ability to have a conversation emerge from predicting the next token.

Try it yourself and report back the results.

If it sounds stupid but it works, it's not stupid.

Holy shit.

How realistic are they?

Agreed.

I've tried all of the models available right now, and Claude Opus is by far the most capable.

I had an assertion failure triggered in a fairly complex open-source C library I was using, and Claude Opus not only found the cause, but wrote a self-contained reproduction code I could add to a GitHub issue. And it also added tests for that issue, and fixed the underlying issue.

I am sincerely impressed by the capabilities of Claude Opus. Too bad its usage is so expensive.

Nice, thanks for sharing. I'll think about getting the same one myself.

While that sounds impressive, a $200 subscription is still not pocket change. Do you have any approximation of the amount of tokens you use on average, and how much would it cost on a per-million-of-token billing?

Well, you can lead the horse to water, but you can't make him drink.

If you assume all students are lazy assholes who want to cheat the system, then I doubt there's anything that would help them learn.

Which models do you use the most?

That's a fair point, but AI can do much more than just provide you with an answer like a calculator.

AI can explain the underlying process of manual computation and help you learn it. You can ask it questions when you're confused, and it will keep explaining no matter how off the topic you go.

We don't consider tutoring bad for learning - quite the contrary, we tutor slower students to help them catch up, and advanced students to help them fulfill their potential.

If we use AI as if it was an automated, tireless tutor, it may change learning for the better. Not like it was anywhere near great as it was.

> people use credits? I only use a monthly subscription

Those still have limits, no? Or if there's a subscription that provides limitless access, please tell me which one it is.

This is actually a great way to foster the learning spirit in the age of AI. Even if the student uses AI to arrive at an answer, they will still need to, at the very least, ask the AI to give it an explanation that will teach them how it arrived to the solution.

It's a joke language, I doubt it will cause any significant ambiguity ever.

    An understanding of READ_ONCE() and WRITE_ONCE() is important for kernel developers who will be dealing with any sort of concurrent access to data. So, naturally, they are almost entirely absent from the kernel's documentation.

Made me chuckle.

Good luck bisecting.

It's funny how easy Plan 9 would make all this. Just mount the work dir as readonly in Cowork's filesystem namespace and mount a write-only dir for output.

We can still do this via containers, though. But it does have some friction.

If you want to have a linear history on main, either always rebase your branch onto main, or merge but only accept squashed commits onto main.