morepedantic

>My personal pet peeve

Just be glad you have only one.

>pedantry

I wasted 2 minutes of my life looking for the exponential reduction. So did many others.

Now I'm wasting more of my life shit posting about it, but at least that's a conscious choice.

The man, or llm, used the mathematically imprecise definition of exponential in a sentence with a big-O notation. I don't think he's going to be writing entire arguments formally.

I understood every word, phrase, and sentence you wrote. But I did not understand your point. Still, I got the meaning of your words, so presumably you're satisfied.

Algorithmic? Big-O? Polynomially? Linear improvement? O(n^2) to O(n)? Or if you want to be less mathematically precise: enormous improvement?

Using exponential in this way in any context is a faux pas, because it's highly ambiguous, and requires context for clarification. But in this situation the context clearly resolved to the mathematically accurate definition, except it was used in the other way.

>pedantic

Who the fuck do you think is the intended audience for an article about an algorithm in `git bundle create`? I spent approximately two minutes of my life trying to figure out where the O(n^2) algorithm was being invoked in such a way that it influenced an exponential.

Exponential was bolded in the same sentence as a big-O. 50/50 troll/author oversight.

Especially when the colloquial meaning derives from the mathematical meaning.

>Ultimately, we traced the issue to a 15-year-old Git function with O(N²) complexity and fixed it with an algorithmic change, reducing backup times exponentially.

No, not in the exact same sentence as a big-O. That's either author error, or an intentional troll. Either way it's egg on their faces.

I was also looking for the exponential algorithm.

The core models have plateaued. MoE and CoT are use of LLMs. Agents are applications of LLMs. It's hard to say how far novel uses and applications will take us, but the fiery explosion at the core has turned into a smolder.

We'll continue to see incremental improvements as training sets, weights, size, and compute improve. But they're incremental.

ffmpeg is high performance code dealing with esoteric codecs and binary formats in C, so don't sweat it.

The LLMs have reached a plateau. Successive generations will be marginally better.

We're watching innovation move into the use and application of LLMs.

Python: dynamically typed, structurally typed, garbage collected, exceptions C++: statically typed, nominally typed, manual memory management, exceptions

It's a big jump from C++ to Python. If you want a midway, use Go.

Because you haven't extrapolated from Python's niche. Those domains are derived from Python's accessibility. Python might be the most accessible big boy language.

>It’s not exactly a rational feeling

It only looks irrational if you don't understand what people and feelings are.

Edgy! No one has ever considered the mortality of their children ever, or contemplated the difference between death before and after the realization of potential. Wow!

I wonder which non-profit will be looted next.

You want a gas tax, and then you want to refund the tax to the poor. That's a no-op with extra steps.

No, I [correctly] extrapolated with high confidence.

>But a system that makes it so you must drive an ICE vehicle to participate in the economy

You're literally subsidizing this system by preventing use taxes on gasoline.

>provides tax breaks to the rich

42% of people pay no income tax, and 80% pay net zero or less. Poor people care how benefits are apportioned amongst the poor, not how taxes are apportioned amongst the rich.

>You don’t know anything about my moral system.

I know enough: you hate use taxes, because they are regressive (when the metric is % of income, not when it is magnitude).

But use taxes, like any price, provide critical feedback to the consumer to avoid failure modes like the tragedy of the commons.

In this particular case that feedback acts as a restoring force against the literal destruction of the planet's habitability. My moral system doesn't preclude use taxes on general principle, but your moral system does. Ergo, I'm offering a moral system that will save the planet, innumerable ecosystems, and possibly the human species, but you're offering a moral system that lets us feel warm and fuzzy, emphasis on warm.

>I know that you declared all regressive use taxes in all cases as morally right.

What an odd interpretation. I was clearly referring specifically to the regressive aspect of use taxes, not declaring the holiness of every particular use tax conceivable, historical, and existing.

A: "Breathing is 100% moral, fine, upstanding, and ethical." B: "So you want everyone to smoke crack!"

A: "Income taxes are 100% moral, fine, upstanding, and ethical." B: "So we should tax 120% of income!"

Of all the ways you could have interpreted my statement you chose the most absurd.

It is the role of a central planner to pick a particular outcome, and it's also the worst strategy of the modern era.

Everything which is not forbidden is allowed. Your belief that you should make the positive choice on behalf of others is the most dangerous philosophy of the 20th century.

Life-style should never be subsidized. God forbid that someone feels the repercussions of their life-style, which is the only feedback mechanism that will ever cause change.

My moral system will stop global warming and save the planet. Your moral system will destroy the planet and kill billions. Everyone needs to be responsible, including the poor. Tough.

So you agree: skill issue.

Because you're only considering first-order effects. Behaviors, markets, and systems will evolve around the new rules. Public transit could improve. People could trade in SUVs for hybrid sedans. People could carpool. People could bike. People could walk. Corner stores could re-open. People could demand zoning changes, instead of fighting every nearby development.

>No, it makes it so that the outcome is more equally felt across all income levels.

Because you want to... hard stop behavior. Parking violations cause harm, so the fine should be a function of damage to society, not some weird fetish to make people feel pain.

If behavior is so unacceptable that you want to prevent it altogether, criminalize it.

Are you agreeing with me, or did you drop a negative twice?

>Lack of a mobile app.

FFS, do you want your dishwasher tethered to the cloud too?

Skill issue. 100k miles on bench seats in full size sedans to full size pickups, including mountain roads, and nary a problem.

How long have you been holding that one?

>money is fungible

And then you contradicted yourself 2 phrases over.