127 karma · joined March 16, 2014
Yeah, it's not perfect, but it's really good and extrapolating this rate of improvement for 6 months is rather terrifying (from a SWE perspective, at least).
I think compilers though are a rare case where large scale automated verification is possible. My guess is that starting from gcc, and all existing documentation on compilers, etc. and putting ridiculous amounts of compute into this problem will yield a compiler that significantly improves benchmarks.
As someone who leans pro in this debate, I don't think I would make that statement. I would say the results are exactly as we expect.
Also, a highly verifiable task like this is well suited to LLMs, and I expect within the next ~2 years AI tools will produce a better compiler than gcc.
"Commerce Secretary Howard Lutnick told reporters on a call Friday evening that the administration came to the fee of $100,000 per year, plus vetting costs, after talking with companies.
He noted that the payment structure is still under discussion with the Department of Homeland Security, in terms of “whether we’re going to charge the $300,000 up front or $100,000 a year for the three years.”
Many, or most, users for a BI tool will be operations, product managers, and business management who simply will not find the interface to be intuitive, responsive, or well designed. At least that's my experience.
Personally, I don't agree, to me it's just not as sad or shocking. People don't live forever and Wirth's life was as successful and complete as possible. It's not a "black day" where society truly lost someone before they fulfilled their potential.
For instance, maybe verifying a new number over SMS should cost $0.10 if that's going to make up 14% of the operating costs.
Begging for donations to subsidize excessive use by other users just doesn't seem sustainable.
Later in this interview they get into public schools, and the implications of the lottery system. While this is well-intentioned this is really a terrible policy, I personally moved out of SF largely because of this issue (I have 3 kiddos so private school is not an option).
The example he gives is that despite living a stone's throw away from a high school his child was allocated to a school 1 hour bus ride away. This is really how it works for anyone living near one of the better schools. In addition to it effectively destroying the community aspect of schools where your kids go to school with the neighbors which facilitates neighboring families meeting each other and becoming friends, walking to school together, and so on.
The policy is well intentioned, but ultimately does more harm than good and everyone who is closely involved and knowledgable about the system is completely powerless. The voters just don't care what any experts or those affected say, they just vote on ideology. Quite frankly it feels a lot like the way in which Texas voters could not, evidently, care less about the plight of women with complications in pregnancy.
In any event, I feel that metric used by UCSF is really not a good one to the point where it's almost dishonest. It's not hard to come up with questions that do a better job at trying to answer whether CA is burdened by individuals moving from out-of-state to make use of more generous social programs and/or lax drug policy.
I imagine for most people their children will reach an age where they are more autonomous and require a phone for safety well before the kiddos are writing iOS applications.
When you take a hard look at exactly how to get the costs down to the point where that price is profitable, that must be a monumental challenge. The cars must cost maybe $100-150k more? Maintenance on the sensitive custom-fit equipment, software and operations costs, yikes.
These organic posts/shares likely have significantly better CTR better than a similarly formatted ad, as they would have a "Sally likes this..." header.