random3

Fair point, but I can’t stop wondering whether the crux of the issue wasn’t the OS and the decisions that go back to iPhone or iPod. I can’t recall the details, but they tried to get MacOS to work and then decided to go with the alternative. I can only speculate on both that MacOS must have had a mobile story/dream since Newton and more so after nexstep.

So I wonder if what the article is pointing at wasn’t actually the inability of merging iOS and MacOS fully more than anything.

It’s unfortunately the case in 21st century in unexpected places with systemic issues and it can get worse — e.g. repeated surgeries under influence, etc.

That is the article. There’s no article, just a rehash of the coastline paradox. All while missing most interesting parts. The Wikipedia article is a much better exposition https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Coastline_paradox).

First, it can’t have an exact length because it’s not a static thing, but a process. Second, as opposed to fractals that can be zoomed in forever, our measurements seem to hit some limits, so the reality is not quite like fractals in this sense.

Of course, it all makes sense if you think about it. What’s perhaps more interesting is we can’t “really measure” anything absolutely and the whole idea of absolute measures becomes rather tricky once you get to physics. In fact it gets philosophical and disputed and you realize that nothing is quite certain, nor quite agreed upon.

I think Quanta Magazine does a good job making justice to these things though.

how does Hermes compare to SOTA?

how can you tell the difference between anything and anything?

It's the conclusion of the top-rated comment— 50 points, 2nd has 14 and the 3rd has 6 points out of 18 comments. What exactly is dingenius about it?

Thanks! This summarizes it

> Overall, the work lacks a self-consistent and transparent accounting of resources, making its central claims difficult to substantiate and leaving a strong sense of sensationalism and hype, rather than honest scientific exposition.

"Clowns to the Left of Me, Jokers to the Right"

Yes, cancer, bateries and computing has seen impressive progress.

Yet, in general the correlation between results "on paper" and results in practice is over a long period of time, if any.

It doesn't mean that new results aren't good, just that they may not translate into something practical very soon.

These papers are as relevant to engineering/product stage as every other "new battery" or "new cancer" treatment are at the moment.

E.g.

4 days ago (same paper) https://www.reddit.com/r/science/comments/1s2bjqp/a_new_hafn...

3 years ago https://www.reddit.com/r/singularity/comments/14d1dt5/why_ar...

5 years ago https://www.quora.com/Would-it-be-worthy-to-use-memristors-t...

Making money is what companies are for. The rest are non-profits.

The “do it first, apologize later” will be the general principle with anything. It’s going to be hard and futile to prove even if they don’t do it through ToS first. Amazon has one of the largest corporate training sets out there:)

x86 going away wouldn't be surprising. Ignoring David Patterson was a mistake to begin with.

lol - the long tail of international standard dissent in US

Ring buffers never get old. Here’s a useful mention of some of the most extensive technical work by LMAX team over 15 years ago https://martinfowler.com/articles/lmax.html

Apple just launched a $600 amazing laptop and the top models have massive performance. What are we talking about here?

So AI won't surpass humans, because Chris Lattner can do better than a model than didn't exist two years ago?

Can you elaborate?

Check out Urs Schreiber if you want to get over it

I understand your position and I think it's the norm. Yet I find it difficult to comprehend how it's not self-evidently absurd.

Do you feel like software transcends pyhsics, mathematics and logics? Because that's what the statement translates to.

The only reason it's impossible, is because nobody tries, because trying to do so would interfer with the deliverables of next sprint. The software industry has painted itself into a corner.

as programmers we like to use all this jargon like "leaky abstraction", but never bothered to understsand it beyond the PL paradigms we use. There's no formal definition and simply makes them good terms to abuse, and throw in conversations to make our points.

Why are the abstractions leaky? Are all abstractions leaky? Why - we simply accept the situation without spending any real effort.

"There's no free lunch" - this is representative of the level of argument in software circles entirely. But WTF does that mean? If the lunch is not free, how cheap or expensive can it get and why?

This is why, as engineers, we tend to brush off the Dijkstras as arrogant, while at the same time ignoring both our arrogance and ignorance.

IDK what Dijkstra believed in terms of how programmers should have looked like, bu the did seem to have a sense (and taste) of a direction of programming that was lost within practicing software engineering and their prefered PLs.

My own incomplete opionion is that the net effect is that we ended up writing orderd of magnitude more code than necessary to solve the problems at hand. It's the equivalent of doing the computations manually instead of using a calculator. This has led to an industry that has served us well, but strictly speaking it was never necessary and much more could have been achieved with a fraction of the resources.

I think the "and" is for "stopped (both) A and B"

I knew there must be some good news today

They do have nice pictures

I call these "romantic definitions" or "gesticulations". For private use (personal or even internal to teams) they can be great placeholders, assuming the goal is to refine vocabulary.

These charters are as useful as new year resolutions.

Hahaha! True. I was pointing out the beginnings of modern GPUs and NVidia, but yes heard the cassette screeching before the modem screeching indeed.

Fun times. Coolers, paste, fans, supply watts, dip switches and jumpers. Quake, Voodoo 3dfx vs NVidia GForce. This is where it all started, kids.

I was in high school and was running a "computer games club" (~ Internet cafe for games and kids) since 1998 when we got a place, renovated it ourselves, got custom built furniture (cheap narrow desks) and initially 6 computers - AMDs at 300Mhz. By 2000 we broke a wall in the adjacent space and had ~15, cable + satellite internet for downloads and whatever video cards we could buy or scrap. It was wild.

Consumers are usually a whole different beast. Everything is different with consumers from sales and marketing to regulation, particularly in the financial sector. I don't see how it could be a natural move, especially not with a treasury product.

There are exceptions, though, like Mercury, which expanded to consumers after having success with their business banking product.

I think it depends what you're building. I find it fun, once in a while, an engineer to "not go shoeless" and get some of things I need done.