Sorry, that's what I meant, but formulated badly... Do people really think that Tesla has a 10x future revenue upside compared to BMW.
3,578 karma · joined August 18, 2010
Edit: My formulation is confusing. I meant whether folks really think that Tesla will eventually have 10x BMW's revenue.
I agree that in modern data centers the CAP theorem is essentially irrelevant for intra-DC services, due the uptime and redundancy of networking H/W (making a partition less likely than other systemic failures).
Across DCs I'll claim it is still absolutely relevant.
And that was on top of the $24,000 bill that we had received from hospital. So $32,000 for a no-frills (from a medical viewpoint) birth and that was many years ago.
The health insurance paid 100% of both bills, so we ended up not following up.
Making money directly of an open source project is indeed difficult. But that also isn't the promise of open source. The promise is that many groups come together to work on an open source project for mutual benefit.
I had the privilege to work on several open source projects for my employer. Some of these were pretty important to what we are doing, but they were not the direct products we would sell. That worked remarkably well!
I still work on open source, for work, and some in my spare time.
I'll note that Steve Forbes supported Trump in 2016, and claimed last year that Joe Biden is "not up to the job anymore" - although this is not necessarily relevant.
We can't change how we look at inflation based on the perception we want to achieve. This is what we have measured since 1983. And what if the change the formula back? Then we have a new number. And now what?
The article claims that the previous formula correlates better with sentiment. Maybe so. Sure, ever increasing money supply might make you feel rich, when in fact you are not. Did we think we will never have to be pay the bill for over a decade of near-zero interest rates?
The current sentiment seems to be as much influenced by what people want to believe or what their peer group on social media believes.
I doubt he remembers me. In any case even back then he would say that the database should just do everything in our staff meetings.
Many of us were smirking back then each time it came up, but it looks like now, 20 years later, he is finally having a go at it!
He is one of the smartest people I have ever met - as far as I can tell :) So if there's someone who can do it, it is him and the team he assembles.
What always excited me about software was that I always had renew myself, learn a new thing, change the way I think about something, reflect on what is now possible that wasn't before, etc. I.e. it was never stagnant.
In addition I could try out everything myself, and (more of less) understand what it is doing and why. When I wanted to understand RSA, I read the paper and implemented a PoC myself, or a BTree, or an LSM tree, same for Paxos and Raft.
I worked a lot on databases and "BigData" and on the re-convergence of the two. Much of this is open source, so I could play with it, change it, etc.
In that AI is indeed different. I can install (say) Ollama on my machine and play with it, look at the source code (llama.cpp), etc. And, yet, when I get a response to a prompt, even locally on my machine, I feel blind.
And I used to work on neural networks in the late 90s, when their use was limited, so I understand what they do and how they work.
How exactly was that model trained? On what data? What did it actually learn?
(Aside: Here I am reminded of early usage of neural networks to detect enemy tanks. It worked perfectly in the lab, would correctly classify enemy vs friendly tanks, and in a field test it failed terribly - worse than random. What happened? Well it turned out that the set of photos with enemy tanks mostly showed a particular weather pattern, whereas the friendly photos predominantly showed another. So what the neural network had actually learned was to classify the weather. You might laugh about this now... But that's what I mean.)
So, yeah, I can related to OP, even though I am excited about what AI might bring.
Somehow I would have expected more from a supervisor.
Maybe she could have awaited the investigation? Does she have stats on miles driver per accident - for human drivers and autonomous vehicles? Does she have stats on how many cyclist are hit by car with human drivers? Is this an interesting intersection? ...
She probably did not ask herself any of this.
Alternatively charge 30% but be forced to allow side-installing Apps. That way developers can decide if they want the convenience and reach of the AppStore or not.
So instead of new, safe, carbon neutral nuclear power (like thorium reactors, passive cooling, etc), we're are continuing to running literal old-timer nuclear plants (Diablo Canyon was built in 1981).
Most folks would not drive a car from 80s, but somehow we're cool with running powerplants that old.
IMHO The best for our carbon footprint with safety would be new nuclear plants.
struct ZeroCopyBuf : public std::streambuf
{
ZeroCopyBuf(const std::string &s) : ZeroCopyBuf(s.c_str(), s.length()) {}
ZeroCopyBuf(const char *c, std::size_t l) : ZeroCopyBuf(const_cast<char*>(c), l) {}
ZeroCopyBuf(char *c, std::size_t l) { setg(c, c, c + l); }
};
...
std::string s ...;
ZeroCopyBuf buf(s);
std::istream is(&buf);
It continues to boggle my mind how Chrome - partly closed source, questionable goals related to advertising - has almost 50% market share; while Firefox is declining.
What I found so far is this:
- Waymo and Cruise have driven about 8 million miles driverless (mostly in San Francisco) and reported about 100 crashes (mostly minor like scraping shopping cart, etc) and many that were fault of another car. (as of September 2023)
- Apparently a human drives am average 100 million miles between fatal accidents. In that case we do not have enough data, yet.
I'm not sure what to think. Is the rate of accidents a cause of concern? Or is this blown out of proportion and driverless cars are actually safer? Or (most likely) we simply do not know, yet?
Maybe I'm just an open source purist. However, I will say that in almost all tests with websites I am actually using Firefox is faster.
(Maybe not that much of a purist: I do use Chrome at work as we're using various Google products... docs, meet, etc, and those work better on Chrome. Go figure.)
And come on please, not slowing everybody does not mean that the teacher moves "as fast as the best student".
What you call morally reprehensible is rooted in your own black and white thinking in this matter.
We are not, should not, and cannot all be the same.
I am bad at languages. Should I now demand that everybody please slow down so that I do not have to feel bad about myself? ... Nope.
To do that they need to be commercially successful.
Now, you can argue whether the recent moves are helpful to their bottomline or not (I think this is short-sighted and in the end will hurt them), but we need to acknowledge they are not charity, and also that we all are already benefiting from their money and their work.
Seriously though, my spam to legitimate phone call ratio is about 10 to 1 (10 calls spam/telemarketing for each call I actually want).
My phone does a good job identifying scam, and if not I simply ignore any call from a number I do not know. If it is important they'll leave a number!
The part that I do not understand is how it is possible to call 1000's of numbers for free. Just do not allow any flat plans with free calls anywhere; charge a few cents per call and lower the flat fee. Normal folks will save money, and scammer will need to pay.
Edit: Spelling
In the end this spurring Intel to innovate, but will it be enough?
I realize there are some Linux' running on Apple H/W, but due to do the closed nature (H/W specs anyone?) it will already be inferior to MacOS.
I have a MacBook from work, and strongly dislike (hate?) MacOS.
To this day I have yet to see to a useful software patent.
I doubt this will lead to reliable numbers then. Heavier folks will be more likely to feel ashamed (which is unfortunate, but probably true).
For most people that ego goes unnoticed, until they look or listen for it. Upon reflection the ego (and the self) is quite obviously an illusion, yet, this constant chatter, the constant fear, anxiety, anger, remorse, from living in the past or future is source of so much violence among human beings.
Maybe this is off-topic but I feel that the "take what I want" attitude has is source in the unnoticed ego illusion.
Richard Feynman had the uncanny ability to explain something at a level where it makes sense, and then back it all up for math.
I worked at DEC back then and did not have Internet at home, so I would schedule jobs at night to download the 1.3" floppy images and then copy them to actual floppies to bring home.
Can't believe that is 30 years ago now.
Many European countries have state-funded but independent media. Switzerland, Germany, Great Britain, France, et al, all have state-funded and independent media.
The idea is that state-funding makes them less dependent since they do not have to only report what people want to read for ad-revenue but can focus on honest reporting (including reporting critical of the government).
Whether you buy that argument or not is a different discussion. The point is that "state funded" has nothing to do with "state controlled" or even "state affiliated"; just another dumb move by Elon Musk.
I quit Twitter a long time ago. Good riddance, I have not missed anything!