Beyond a certain amount, the actual number becomes meaningless especially for people who already have dynastic wealth not even counting this. It's just what they happened to negotiate.
It's quite a retirement package.
10,383 karma · joined January 18, 2016
It's quite a retirement package.
In the same way that it's possible to have an xml/json/yaml/toml config that creates despair in those who have to maintain it, a python or bash script can grow into a monster in the basement.
Or, it could be a cogent script that makes its intent and operation obvious. I prefer that when possible.
Right on.
It's amazing to me that we've spent decades with programming languages and environments which can accurately guess what you're about to type next, which have enormous expressiveness while maintaining cogency, which are intuitive and well understood by humans, which have endless libraries and an infinity of ways of connecting with the world.
And what do we use to configure the most sophisticated infrastructure to run such code? Yet another mark-up language!
"Weird" is the wrong word for Allbirds. "Fraud" is far more fitting. They obviously have no intention running an AI-datacenter business and are doing it for the stock-price rush. A small number of people will be laughing all the way to the bank, and everyone will forget Allbirds in short order.
Ebay has a history of being legit, though they have had a long list of uncanny acquisitions themselves (including Skype, which they later sold for a stiff loss). It's a pity they couldn't just execute on their core business and are now being acquired themselves by an entity using sketchy financial shenanigans.
Who's going to stop a few rich people with a pile of money and a stated intent of doing something they have no intention of doing? No one, I guess. I mean, there's plenty of examples. Supermicro is still listed on NASDAQ even though one of their founders was caught smuggling export-controlled GPU's in Supermicro servers to the tune of 2.5 billion dollars a couple months ago.
The remaining problem is the lack of CLEAR, easy to understand markings on the cable that indicate whether it’s intended as power delivery cable or as a 10Gbps data cable or as a thunderbolt-capable cable or any of many combinations in between those. This should not be limited to physical markings on the cable itself but also in the form of electronic self-identification so that you could plug in a cable and have the OS tell you exactly what cable you plugged in. Why not? We have power-delivery protocols, adding cable self-id would be a trivial addition.
I suspect the vendors of these, and perhaps the designers of the spec too, have deliberately made this confusion an integral part of the standard. It creates churn and consumers buying more cables than they need.
It's kind of pointless to fret about whether it's "the most complex" like there's an objective 1-dimensional ranking that even has utility.
What they usually mean is PCR with chemistry that selectively amplifies some specific sequence of DNA. This chemistry has dyes in it which fluoresce when illuminated at some specific wavelength. The point of all this is to answer a "yes/no" question for the presence of some DNA sequence in the sample. This is done at scale with multiple chemistries looking for different DNA sequences. This is also known as "real-time PCR".
It's sort of like the biological-assay version of the kid's game "20-questions". If you do it right, it's an enormously powerful detection technique for medical purposes. It gives you your "answer" in a reasonable amount of time on your desk while you wait.
That said, there are biological assays that don't need the thermo cycling anymore. These newer assays use more sophisticated chemistry that amplifies at a constant heating temperature. In the simplest terms, they're just heaters combined with a fluorometer. It's potentially MUCH faster than realtime-PCR.
In any case, the only real serious money-making business for these instruments is in-vitro diagnostics. That requires FDA approval, and that means a ~10K minimum for the instrument and tens of dollars for the consumables containing the assays, and definitely a pricey service agreement for the instrument (eg Bio-Rad instruments).
A distant second money-making business would be research-use-only instruments, but these are not going to be inexpensive little devices.
I simply am skeptical of their smug take on it.
If the document really was so clear and error-free, then why would the boss try to "fix it"?
You're right to elevate accuracy to a high level of importance, but that is NOT ENOUGH if the thing is has poor readability. The audience has to be able to understand the document if the document is to be useable.
There's only a certain amount of effort anyone can deliver in producing a document. But if the author can't deliver readability, they need to follow up the document with a lot of support and/or get some help to make it useable.
> The documentation was complete, correct, and relatively terse. Less than a page.
There are many reasons why others might not find what you wrote sufficient to understand it. You boss ran it through AI for a reason and that reason was most likely because it the document was not understandable or perhaps confusing.
Did the document have usage examples? Did it explain context and background? Did it use "precise" jargon that not everyone knows? Did you follow up the documentation writing with a meeting with stakeholders/users to see if they had questions?
It sounds like you just "threw it over the wall" like you were done with it and left your boss to figure out how to get others to use it. If you find that you have "near constant" struggle to communicate, there is a strong possibility that the problem is yours and not everyone else.
In other words you can express any reasonable function on the unit sphere as a series of spherical harmonic terms. That makes them ideal for working with differential equations (eg schrodinger's equation for the hydrogen atom, or, emission from an arbitrary light source).
Git is NOT that.
Git is something you use to get stuff done, until it becomes an irritating obstacle course of incidental complexity.
At this point perhaps a million person-years have been sacrificed to the semantically incoherent shit UX of git. I have loathed git from the beginning but there's effectively no other choice.
That said, the OP's commands are useful, I am copying them (because obviously I won't ever memorize them).
Does 25Gbps matter? I mean, it's not like your online services are going to be "faster", right?
Is Netflix or any other web endpoint that normal people use going to be noticeably better because a household has 25Gbps rather than 1Gbps?
Doesn't this only matter for many simultaneous users of heavy web traffic?
It sort of reminds me of when palm-pilots (circa late-90's early 2000's) used short-hand gestures for stylus-writing characters. For a short while people's handwriting on white-boards looked really bizarre. Except now we're talking about using weird language to conserve AI tokens.
Maybe it's better to accept a higher token burn-rate until things get better? I'd rather not get used to AI jive-talk to get stuff done.
One of the companies around today or in the near future will be the one who makes it work at a practical scale. It will have enormous impact, but I think it will be a slow-burn kind of thing as making effective use of quantum computers will take a long time to evolve, IMHO.
Unfortunately, Google and IBM are also working on this stuff and they have deep pockets. They might do it, but even if they don't they may very well decide to acquire whoever does.
These stocks (IONQ, RGTI, QBTS, XNDU) are a sort of thinking-man's LOTTO ticket which will have its numbers called anytime within the next 5 to 20 years (probably closer to 20). I think they're worthwhile to hold in affordable quantities to see what happens. It might hit big, or it might fizzle out for a variety of reasons. There will also be some hype-driven market sugar-rushes along the way that are an opportunity to rake in a modest profit. This has happened already with IONQ, RGTI and QBTS earlier this year. It will certainly happen again when the patagonia-vest people get jazzed about something.
I mean, even Andresson-Horowitz was taking NFT's seriously as though they weren't a scam only a few years ago (https://a16z.com/the-nft-starter-pack-tools-for-anyone-to-an...).
These people are also looking (and funding) quantum computing companies as though quantum computing is right around the corner after AGI.
They need to cool their jets. AI is certainly a worthwhile and super important development, but it's still possible to go overboard with it.
It's actually very pleasing to work with. I wish there was more stuff like this. Lispy programming languages and CAD seems like a natural fit.
That said, python is preferable for most people.
We've long made fun of excel-jockeys getting carried away with VBA, but they came into being because engaging with turgid and expensive software companies to do important but small jobs was such a pain in the ass. This is the start of a new era, and while I am sure we're going to see some wild fiascos, it is a move in the right direction for people that need to solve problems with computers.
They're wise to the fact that "the Stable Genius" isn't going to try anything violent with Denmark/Greenland, but they still want to prevent him thinking about just stealing territory "peacefully."
I find the opposite is true. AI-written copy is an instant turn-off to non-tech folks but many tech-focused people tolerate it.
The contractor (who was certainly incompetent) probably looked at a bunch of nightmarishly complex identity API's and said "F** it!", combine that with being grossly underpaid and you get stuff like this.
It's a bad situation, of course, and involving threatening lawyers makes it even more ugly. But I can understand how a very small business (knowing nothing about IT other that what their incompetent contractor told them) might get really offended and scared shitless by some rando giving them a 30-day deadline, reporting them to authorities, and demanding that they contact all affected customers.
But really, are CEO's the best people to assess productivity? What do they _actually_ use to measure it? Annual reviews? GTFO. Perhaps more importantly, it's not like anything a C-level says can ever be taken at face value when it involved their own business.
I have seen absolutely meticulous lab notebooks before. Each page numbered and dated, cut-outs of graphs taped into the pages, that classy light-green grid-paper. Near flawless penmanship in black ink, with the rare correction crossed out, dated and initialed. Bibliographic references following a strict format in handwriting. Footnotes, FFS.
I've tried, in grad school, 20 years ago to get into the practice. Mine sucked. Non-stop, distracting corrections, maybe a dozen or more per page. Whole swathes of the notebook consisting of deep useless rabbit holes that started with a mis-conception or brain-fart, wasting space, making it a chore to even review what I was doing. I don't think of myself as particularly talented (maybe somewhat better than a fraud). But there are lots of folks like me and much smarter that have the same experience with paper notebooks.
I think really useful notebooks are something that is learned through practice, focus, and mentorship. But there are tools that are much easier to use these days. Notebook-based stuff like jupyter. I like quarto with ipynb myself (though it's not without occasionally infuriating problems).
> Absolutely not.
And what do YOU mean, "absolutely not"? You have no more say in what happens than anyone else unless you're high level politician, who would still be beholden to their constituents anyway.
And yet big science, like particle accelerators, STILL gets funding. There's plenty to go around. Sure, every once in a while a political imperative will "pull the plug" on something deemed wasteful or too expensive and maybe sometimes that's right. But we STILL have particle physics, we STILL send out pure science space missions, there are STILL mathematicians and theorists who are paid for their whole careers to study subject matter that has no remotely practical applications.
Not everything must have a straight-line monetary ROI.