HN user
Well that is better than what I gleened.
I thought I'd read that the GPU needed extra kernel patches to properly work. If it's just the Ethernet driver that seems a lot more appealing.
I thought it was device tree as well, so great that it's actual ACPI.
I strongly considered it, but the one thing that scares me away from wanting to do the spark is you basically have to use nvidia's linux (from what I've read) and it doesn't appear the nvidia is interested in upstreaming their kernel changes.
I'm avoiding where possible buying electronics where support is controlled by the manufacturer and not me.
My non-serious assumption is that they prioritized the classic writings of 1800s authors like Johann David Wyss in their training. These authors were paid by the word, which resulted in long pointless chapters in their books just to milk money out of the printers.
Yeah, Hollywood went nuts for DRM under the assumption that just giving people the files would result in mass piracy.
Piracy will always happen. DRM doesn't stop anything. Media is meant to be watched and heard which means no matter what gets cooked up, it can be defeated with a camcorder and a microphone.
About the only other reason for DRM is that hollywood wanted to make it so someone couldn't buy their movies for cheaper by shopping in different regions.
There really is basically no reason in the modern era why we shouldn't be able to buy DRM free media. Even for a premium.
you won't reference a function or feature that doesn't and has never existed.
That does sometimes exist in human docs. I've stumbled on "aspirational" features in docs that never really existed but were more just intended to exist.
To me the mistakes are bad, but it's also that the docs tend to be pretty low quality IMO. LLMs tend to like to write novels where a sentence would have been better.
Yeah, IDK what to tell you then. Sometimes docs just go unread. There's a reason why "RTFM" is a meme.
It might be that they are wordy. It might be that your readers are lazy. It also might just be they don't realize the effort has been put in to make sure the docs are of high quality.
He and I can bang out tons of it in minutes that would have taken months before
Here's the problem I have. No doubt an LLM made it faster to write those docs, but did you fully spot check it for accuracy?
A lot of people aren't which I think is why the average joe hates it. These docs can still have AI generated mistakes which are easily glossed over by a regular human.
Why would you expect anyone else to go to jail under those circumstances? Proving guilt beyond a reasonable doubt seems very unlikely
It's actually pretty easy to prove guilt in the US. But it becomes a lot harder the longer the distance from the crime. In particular, witnesses die or leave. Heck, investigators die or leave which makes discovery for the perpetrator even harder on the FBI.
Further, the bar for civil litigation is lower than criminal. The FBI refusing to prosecute means that victims have a very hard time pursuing civil cases even if the FBI were to lose their case. The FBI has way more evidence that a victim can have.
The most non-nefarious but still shitty reason I can think of for why the FBI hasn't gone to trial is because they know each of these cases will be long and expensive because of the perpetrators. That's caused them to collect way more evidence than they would have if this were just a normal person.
Funny how the FBI is only careful and pensive when perpetrators are rich.
you implicitly claimed that "the 95%" indeed have such gatherings.
As far as I can tell, the gatherings that they have are not of that nature.
I literally cited you an example of such a gathering. Do you refute it or just deny that it exists?
And my claim is that it's actually trivial to tell who's a true believer and who isn't, because the concept of "true believer" does not pertain to "rationality" (by construction!)
That's your mistake. The rationalists are irrational. Roko's basilisk, which I cited earlier, is an example of the sorts of ideas and beliefs they get up to which are irrational.
Your claim "This group is rational because they call themselves such" is unfounded. Trivially so. Just like the Christian Scientists aren't scientists just because it's part of their name.
For example, you won't catch Scott Alexander demanding "donate to MIRI or the basilisk might reach back in time and torture you".
I never claimed universality. In fact, in response to you I explicitly said that the beliefs are diverse. Being able to cherry pick someone that's more rational than others and a part of the group doesn't prove that there aren't very influential members of the group who are generating a lot of fringe ideas. Specifically Eliezer Yudkowsky, the founder of LessWrong which is a core part of the rationality movement.
And you have done nothing to establish this, and I believe you're incorrect.
I've established the meetups exist. I've established that a particularly nasty group came from these meetups, the Zizians. Specifically the founder got their start from the LessWrong forums and the "Center for Applied Rationality" [1] workshops (meetups).
Which claim exactly did I make which you are refuting? Please actually quote it.
I would be extremely surprised to see everyone going around "larping belief". And I don't think you can actually show such a thing occurring.
I never claimed I could or that I observed such a thing. The 95/5% didn't come from me, it came from the person I responded to.
My point was that
- It's impossible to distinguish who's a true believer and who isn't.
- That the meetups of the rationalists re-enforce beliefs, particularly in true believers. Also that these beliefs of the rationalists can be pretty whacky and based on a jenga tower of priors.
- That there isn't "nothing" a rational person could do to dissuade someone from a whacky belief.
What gatherings?
Rationalist have groups meetup and conferences. For example [1]
What beliefs?
It's pretty diverse and not uniformly held. Some of the more strange ones that seem to have pretty wide appeal are around AI safety. For example, Roko's basilisk.
What proclamations? What evidence of insincerity?
I was responding to the comment above me that suggested that 95% don't actually hold rationalist beliefs and are instead simply having fun with it. Only a small 5% are actually sincere.
[1] https://www.reddit.com/r/slatestarcodex/comments/1car63w/les...
Fair enough. I just have a soft spot for people recognizing that they've been duped. It happened to me personally and I know it's a pretty difficult thing to go through. So I just tend to give a lot of grace even though the person might be an asshole as they deconstruct.
However there is very little that the 95 could have done to stop them.
How about the 95% stop having gatherings where they all proclaim that their beliefs are true even if they don't seriously believe them?
How is the 5% supposed to know that the 95% is actually larping belief? And how is an outsider who observes the 95% espousing their whacky beliefs supposed to know who is a member of the 95% and who is a member of the 5% (and if those percentages are accurate).
You can observe the same dynamic in any church. Everyone in the congregation will have different levels of belief, but when it comes to sharing a testimony you'll be hard pressed to distinguish between who the true believers are and who's just "faking it until you make it".
Falling for a cult is something that can happen to almost anyone. I think it's somewhat healthy for one to recognize they were in a cult and to share the experience of realizing that and getting out. It may come off as smug, but it's also a pretty vulnerable thing to do as you are admitting "I was duped".
The main smugness one can have is thinking they are immune to falling for a cult. Lot's of people do for lots of reasons. It's particularly likely when someone is in a vulnerable position in life (death, depression, major life change). Sometimes people are simply born into the cults and realize later that everything their family and community believes is a lie. Regardless, cults are pretty good at finding and "loving" people into the cult.
All this is to say that everyone should take a moment to question their core beliefs. Why do I believe this? Could I be wrong? How would I know I'm wrong? Questions I know I wish I asked and explored earlier in life. The honest answers, though, can be devastating if this part of your identity or family identity.
I think the issue with the community is they take their eccentric beliefs as being gospel truths which can lead to truly unhinged and irrational beliefs and actions (see: the Zizians).
That's what can make the rationalist movement feel more like a religious cult and less like a bunch of eccentrics. As an outsider looking in, it seems like the entire movement is filled with just accepting priors with very little evidence for why those priors should be accepted.
I'm ending here. You are too emotional and now you are accusing (I assume myself) of slander.
Grow up.
a community, and communities are supposed to have a right to self-determination.
Your comment can be boiled down to this. And yes, I completely agree with you that a site has the right to operate however it pleases.
But that does not mean a site has the right to be free from outside criticism. Exercising your self-determination in a way that is obviously noxious will get called out, which is the right of an outsider.
Your perspective, frankly, doesn't matter. It won't rehabilitate the reputation of SO. I'm sorry this hurts as you've obviously invested a lot of time there. This isn't a problem of "everyone just doesn't understand the site" or "everyone should understand me".
Sites die when the experience isn't something end users enjoy. That's what happened to SO. No amount of rule litigation and self determination changes the perspective of the users. SO was a Q&A site that bent towards shutting down the Q&A section of the site as much as possible because of "curation". No wonder most people asking and answering questions decided "You know what, what's the point?"
I don’t believe this is exactly how g1 works.
Everything you've posted is accurate but I also don't believe it contradicts what I said. I certainly simplified and I'm not suggesting G1 is a bad GC, it's one that we often use. I just think ZGC is better for the job of a game server.
G1 is an excellent GC if your application can tolerate periodic 50ms latency spikes (most applications can). My argument is that specifically for a game server, ZGC is better. That's because game servers typically have more than enough CPU horse power and added latency is detrimental to the experience. So trading off more CPU usage due to GC is a worthy tradeoff vs the added latency spikes.
It depends on the GC, with ZGC no. Particularly if you enable generational mode.
For other GCs like G1 and the parallel collector, when new gen is filled up the GC pauses the application in order to run a minor collection. For G1, major collections are ran in the background until the heap fully fills up. When that happens, the GC triggers stop the world GC.
A smaller heap size would cause those pauses to be more frequent but because the heap is smaller it means that ultimately the pauses will be limited in length.
ZGC is different. Without generational mode, ZGC is collecting the entire heap every time with it, ZGC will do the young old collections.
When a collection is triggered, ZGC flips a field to indicate a collection in progress, that flip is the only pause for the application under zgc (except the case that the heap fully fills) it typically finishes in microseconds. Once collection starts, the ZGC collector threads and the in progress application are running collections. The size of the heap really doesn't change much other than the background collection could last longer (slowing down the server, but not totally stopping it from being responsive).
The payment you make with ZGC is that you do burn more CPU cycles doing collections especially while the app is running. But for a game server, that hardly matters. What matters is that the server remains responsive in a timely fashion, which ZGC enables.
It really wasn't and was always dubious.
A lot of the advice, for example, suggested using CMS. Which has been a terrible garbage collector almost since it was added to the JVM. When G1GC landed in 8, that was the correct GC to select for minecraft. Even the parallel collector would have been a better option than CMS in a lot of cases (sub 4gb heaps).
It was placebo. People wanted there to be SOMETHING that made things better so they reached for the billion different flags on the JVM (rather than fixing the underlying code). I've seen the same sort of mentality professionally and it's basically always been wrong.
My main advice, ignore all advice online about JVM tuning minecraft. It's dated and often just wrong.
The best thing you can do is run on the latest JVM, set your max memory as high as you can tolerate, and use ZGC. That's it.
The JVM tuning guides for minecraft will have you switching and toggling every JVM flag under the sun with extremely dubious "evidence" of the payout for the flags they switch. In some cases, they will set contradictory flags. For example, setting eden size and target pause time. The fine tuning flags disable the heuristic flags like target pause time.
KISS. ZGC has very low latency and the larger the heap you give it the less it'll slow things down (though, do keep it under 32gb. Object header compression works on heaps less than 32gb). And using the latest JVM reduces the memory needed and increases the performance in general of the JVM. Win-win.
Christ, this is actually the SO problem in a nutshell.
I'm not going to go dig through SO to refind the examples of improperly "closed as duplicate" questions I stumbled on years ago while looking up a problem.
It's just not that important to me for a dead site. I get it, that means "just trust me bro" is in play. Feel free to completely ignore my comment in that case. You win.
SO was filled with this sort of "technically this is a duplicate and you are just a nasty rule breaker" style comments with litigation that ultimately goes nowhere. I'm not on SO.
Others experienced and are reporting here and elsewhere experiencing the harsh moderation of SO. Trying to make that subjective feeling technically wrong does nothing to rehabilitate SO's reputation.
It's almost inspiring how far someone can get without understanding really basic stuff about how an operating system operates.
I did, and it wasn't much better on the other side.
And funnily enough, the questions that I answered that most contributed to getting me through the gauntlet years later were closed at duplicates (they weren't).
One of the more annoying things about SO was they'd pretty frequently misclassify new questions.
Sometimes a new question was in fact a duplicate and should be closed as such. But in the quest to close duplicates I pretty frequently had to argue with the reviewer that "No, this isn't a duplicate just because these two questions related to the same library".
SO practically rewarded this sort of over-policing which I think is a big part of why everyone stopped using it.
And people stopping using it meant that when a question did actually make it through the gauntlet, it was likely to go unanswered because everyone who knew anything had left the platform.
Simply yes.
It's true that in specific functions a human can do better than a compiler at optimizing for a target platform (sometimes, not always). That's a place where someone could reasonably drop down to assembly and get better performance.
But the case I'm specifically pointing out, one of inlining, is something that compilers do better than humans. This isn't "propaganda from compiler companies" (btw, not a thing. The most common and popular compilers are opensource and not owned by any single company). There are other cases like this where compilers are just more likely to get things right than humans are. They have a lot of heuristics about common assembly patterns that few humans can be expected to have memorized.
Each of the cases you pointed out are cases where the compiler does a bad job at optimizing a single function for whatever reason. They are not examples of a whole application written in assembly outperforming compiled high level languages. And each of the cases almost certainly took the human a considerable amount of time to figure out and prove their solution was better than the compilers.
What you've done is cherry pick when compilers fail and you are using that as evidence that they always fail.
Compilers sometimes fail, something I'm happy to admit. But on the whole for a whole application the compilers will get a lot more right than a human possibly could because they can output unmaintainable assembly.
It'd be hard to fully compare, but I think a truly random "creature-vehicle" along side the pelican test would catch who's gaming and who's not.
I'd also enjoy the absurdism of "Herring on a pogostick"
Universities seem like a social testing ground for the desired path problem.
Some universities get it. They'll see the paths humans make cutting through the grass and adjust their sidewalks accordingly.
Others don't and instead being a futile effort to penalize and police the grass rather than just giving into the human nature to want a straight line path.
It will make the code slower.
Writing maintainable assembly is at odds with writing fast assembly in most circumstances.
A key optimization that's hard to pull off is inlining.
An optimizing compiler can see that a method is small enough that it can be pulled into the caller, it can then further eliminate from that smaller method branches that can't be executed due to the nature of the caller (Imagine calling a function with a `bool` parameter and you send in `true` at the call site).
To make the code faster in hand written assembly, you have to do the inlining, but that makes writing more structured code a lot harder. You are duplicating logic paths in the name of performance.
Not to mention the fact that the compiler gets updated and knows about more instructions and architectures then you do or then you could have. Hard to write the FMA instruction if it didn't exist when you were writing the assembly in the first place.
I can't get to the blog for some reason. Web archive is also failing to archive it.
Anyone have a mirror?