positron26

A Minimizer addicted to upvotes.

A community of those who distract themselves from the perfectly fixable problems in their lives corruptly self-evaluates. They validate each other's stagnation and unwillingness to move by finding flaws in each day that will enable shutting off the flow of any new data while condemning the world and any actions in it. The lay-z-boy they collectively protect appears as corroboration with a broad population but is in reality a repetition whose independence is meaningless since they are all copies of one system, one kind of person in the same kind of trap.

Immobile. Clogging the Suez with their sandbagging ways. Nothing to add except reasons to stay put. No aspiration. Only cynicism. They deserve nothing but all of our contempt.

It can't be one language, and that's the big problem. It's inescapably a bunch of tiny DSLs. Once you see both the inconsistency and the necessity for inconsistency, it becomes much easier to just roll with it.

Would like to hear the rest of this story. Don't have an X account atm.

Just like how the web was won?

I think Mozilla is chasing a past formula, but the projection isn't linear enough to remain consistent, and the critical parts of the outcome, utter centralization of the market dominance of the three C's, are left out of the equation.

We might get the consolation prize, a few nerds having competitive alternatives to applaud, but we will be left with the hidden costs: stagnation by bloated market leaders, consumers and businesses pouring trillions of dollars into the commercial offerings while open development wonders where money comes from, and the leakage of these imbalances into political and social spheres.

If we follow a Mozilla template and get to the peak of Mozilla's success at the web, look at what that really is. Facebook, Amazon, Google etc are orthogonal to that equation.

The algorithm advances are going to crash this so hard.

their own arbitrary reasons

Outside pressure behind much of it.

In any case, there's a fundamental mismatch between pressure groups and the leverage they can exert through single-consensus. I don't know how to describe the other consensus that is on my brain, but it is distinct.

Making a note of this as an obvious technical alliance that should have existed for decades.

we need someone

Then GPL fans can

Checks out

The OS running the program isn't even perfect.

I tire so much of complainers who want someone else to make all their tools infallible yet want to do nothing. Let's just full-stop there. They not only want to avoid working on the tools. They prefer if the tool does everything for them, and they prefer having things done for them without bound.

Complainers want easy APIs. When the API isn't easy enough, they want easy Kubernetes containers "programmed" by YAML. When that isn't easy enough, it's all point-and-click hosted services on GCP and Amazon. You people don't want to program. You want apps. Infallable apps. You want to be consumers, fed from the sky like little birds who endeavor only never to fledge, never to fly. And you want to pay nothing for it.

The secret you people need to figure out is that the lifestyle you think is sustainable is actually a commensal relationship with people building things for you. There is no vast alliance to wrest power from corporations, to dissolve capitalism, no grass roots movement to "shake things up." There is food falling from higher in the water column from an ecosystem filled with people who do things. Those above do not have time to look down, but if they did, all they would feel is overwhelming contempt, so they only look across at the horizon.

But why do people seek to confirm comments like this? Because Rust scary. Churn on, little ant mill. Let be free any who understand the pointlessness of this performance.

Presuming there is an infinite pool of programmers who tirelessly work for a low price?

Was the human labor?

Present-to-present time, especially while we wait for VK_EXT_present_timing to become adopted, can only be indirectly measured. This makes just-in-time rendering unnecessarily hard. High-accuracy event timings can only be made for rendering, not presentation. The missed latches can be seen by phase doubling. Waiting on the last frame to finish displaying requires use of a fence on a separate timing thread. The timings provided by this and by VK_KHR_present_wait are muddied with OS scheduler latency. Spin-locking the waits with zero timeouts should be a thing, but does not seem to be guaranteed. The compositor also seems to inject scheduler jitter.

After all that, people can talk about averaging methods, but there's a lot to be done before what this blog is talking about is even available.

The reason solving just-in-time rendering is important is because queue priority is not actually supported by most drivers. Some extensions can give us global priority for the process, not real priority for queues. The right way then to avoid workload A from causing workload B to miss a latch is to put workload A into the idle time that would exist from running B just in time. This is itself a luxury based on the fact that workload B is lightweight enough that its own uncertainty can only rarely exceed the latch deadline.

At least on VRR displays, making B a bit late has much less dire consequences, but driving refresh from the application needs exclusive access to the display, and not all compositors want to provide this.

Please do reach out if it seems like I'm only still catching up. I'm sure someone knows a decent way to get sub-millisecond just-in-time rendering accuracy without watching the phase suddenly double on FRR. Ping https://github.com/positron-solutions/mutate and we can get in touch.

What these hardliners are standing for, I have no idea. If the code passes review, we're just arguing about hues of zeros and ones. "AI" is an attribute that type-erases entirely once an engineer pulls out the useful expressions and whips them into shape.

The worst part about all reactionary scares is that, because the behaviors are driven by emotion and feeling as opposed to any intentional course of action, the outcomes are usually counter productive. The current AI scare is exactly what you would want if you are OpenAI. Convince OSS, not to mention "free" software people, to run around dooming and ant milling each other about "AI bad" and pretty soon OSS is a poisonous minefield for any actual open AI, so OSS as a whole just sabotages itself and is mostly out of the fight.

I'm currently in the middle of trying to blow straight past this gatekeepy outer layer of the online discourse. What is a bit frustrating is knowing that while the seed will find the niches and begin spreading through invisible channels, in the visible channels, there's going to be all kinds of knee-jerk pushback from these anti-AI hardliners who can't distinguish between local AI and paying Anthropic for a license to use a computer. Worse, they don't care. The social psychosis of being empowered against some "others" is more important. Either that or they are bots.

And all of this is on top of what I've been saying for over a year. VRAM efficiency will kill the datacenter overspend. Local, online training will make it so that skilled users get better models over time, on their own data. Consultative AI is the future.

I have to remind myself that this entire misstep is a result of a broken information space, late-stage traditional social, filled with people (and "people") who have been programmed for years on performative clap-backs and middling ideas.

So fortunate to have some life before internet perspective to lean back on. My instinct and old-world common sense can see a way out, but it is nonetheless frustrating to watch the online discourse essentially blinding itself while doubling down on all this hand wringing to no end, accomplishing nothing more than burning a few witches and salting their own lands. You couldn't want it any better if you were busy entrenching.

Doing short form updates on BlueSky, but that is the worst algorithmic feed I have ever experienced in my life. I gave it some data. I indicated I didn't want to see some posts. The self-selection of the overall audience is overwhelmingly strong. No matter what I do to shape my engagement, all I get is Rachel Maddow in my feed.

The reason I'm not on X is because I just won't use a platform owned by someone who thinks Nazi salutes are just free expression (of desire to censor political opposition into utter powerlessness before purging them), so I'm not complaining about the Blue in Bluesky.

Nonetheless what it's abundantly clear that whatever audience I need to connect with, I cannot effectively do it on BlueSky. They need desperate overhaul to fix the self-selection bias that is likely making the platform appealing to only a very certain kind of ant.

What does that tell you?

That HN was a neat community fifteen years ago, but like all things cool made by early adopters, it will eventually attract a following hoping to be somewhere, to exist among people doing things, but the tragedy of such followings is that they bring with them their toxicity, their immunity to their own poison, and drown out what they depend on until the early adopters early adopt away.

The real slop is all this lazy concern farming from an ant mill that is powerless to do anything except validate its own hand wringing.

calling it out

Calling what out? Did we suddenly invent a durable Turing test that will last more than six months? (We didn't, but some people "just know")

The only durable metric is if the article is good, if the ideas are good. Everything else is complaining about Bob Dylan's electric guitar.

"very, very obvious" and yet so could be your comment or mine. Can we stop this kind of farming comment already?

That's so wonderful. Glad you got your grievance's about ESR off your chest. Hopefully in the following forty years, you will be able to move on from events from the previous forty years.

It's all still supporting the accuracy of my statement, that CatB was more about the FSF than anything.

Do you have some grievances for me or was damning ESR supposed to make me self-destruct?

This... reaction to one of my other comments...

Stating facts is nice, but the conclusion you're trying to get to is just a tangent about ESR. In 1988. How do you relate this to arguments I made?

later criticised when it was other people's work

Seems like first-hand learning and applying those lessons to more relatable projects, such as those after 1988? Are we still a society that rewards learning or must all mistakes be worn permanently and shamefully so that the malcontents can endlessly self-validate in their misery?

The authz language is pretty funny. Free speech has always been self-inconsistent. If I may use my free speech to organize a fascist takeover of society, is free speech without limit not potentially a tool of its own destruction? If one is, as ESR is, so concerned with free speech, would there not then be a need for authz? If you argue that controls on free speech are a hypocrisy, isn't that also what a fascist would argue while angling to eliminate barriers to the use of free speech so that they can use it to end free speech?

The license is fun. I'm sure I have equally amusing writings stashed away somewhere. Amid this evidence of early tension, stewing, and ideological turmoil, I do sense within ESR a dissatisfaction with the FSF. Would this not foreshadow that CatB was later aimed at the FSF and that ESR was motivated for a long time and therefore, while he ultimately presented a different message informed by many other developments and a long time to think and refine, all along grappling with an irritation at something deep within the FSF that he could not reconcile with?

Doesn't this continue to argue in a very straight line that CatB was all about the FSF and that the cathedral development model's similarities to corporate waterfall were just incidental?

The criterion is the size and complexity of the software

The criterion is the development process, not the complexity. Linux is complex, but not a Cathedral.

I don't want to split hair with your words more. For context, FSF hard liners since the dawn of the OSI were distorting the meaning of CatB to deflect criticism from themselves. FSF supporters also very successfully promoted "FLOSS" instead of bare _OSS, giving lots of later-comers the illusion that "free/libre" was an expansion pack for OSS when OSS came later, a very intentional evolution of the dogmatic "free" software movement.

The choice of "Cathedral" is an extremely obvious symbol when you consider the Protestant reformation as a defiance of Vatican, an overly central system where decisions can only flow from the top. There are a lot of metaphors ESR could have chosen from, but the "cathedral" rhymed with the undertones of the real tension between the many OSS practitioners who have divers motivations and the FSF's plan to slap GNU stickers on every piece of software on Earth while blessing their own cardinals at the FSF Vatican and excommunicating any dissent. Given that kind of very overt signalling, it's just not defensible to argue any other primary target than the FSF and the overly central development process they were dependent on to maintain control over projects.

I used a similarly shaped argument with different nouns to highlight the ambiguity, and now you see why that's problematic. Don't just make blind assertions without linking it back to some concrete, at least arguing that some mechanism was *dominant*.

Unix-philosophy small tools that constitute an important part of the GNU project

The statement you chose makes a carve-out for Unix, not GNU. It doesn't support "not really."

GNU didn't kick anything off. It was an attempt to document something that was already in full swing.

What was in full swing was Open Source, powered by scratch-your-own-itch. What was taking time was for the business world to learn the lessons by both carrot (Linux) and stick (Unix Wars, vendor lock-in, dozens of crappy competing standards). When Steve Balmer winds up using your language, you moved the ball.

Many ideas from The Cathedral & The Bazaar made it into The Lean Startup. The Cathedral development model was more related to waterfall. YC was already chugging along, but you can bet your ass PG was already steeped in the tea.

Bro just throw out your privileges or pick some solid ground instead of dragging us all into the mud.

Rare Earth Minerals... ...unable to repair the damage any time soon (probably for decades)

Look bro, if we can make SR-71s out of pizza ovens, I'm pretty sure somewhere in the CIA can scrounge up a few ounces of gadoluminium. Tankie dreams are placation for those who wait for somebody else to make the birdseed fall from the sky.

When will this concern farm end? Internet is ant-milling harder than a model gone psychotic on synthetic data. Call me when it's over.

Back to the mines. The Vulkan only writes itself when prompted with well-conditioned problem statements.

Let me write a more interesting body. So hiding is the most rational - the only - strategy of survival.

In the beginning, you reached out with reckless abandon. It was fun to banter with dogs online. Nobody would ever see unless they were looking through your wall. There was no search. No comment history. Bumping into someone in the vast night was enough of a miracle. Why hold back? There are some forum warriors on some PHP BB somewhere, but the domains they rule are insignificant. If you're talking to someone, your motivations are rooted somewhere in the grass.

First came the like button. Rather than blindly hoping what you say resonates with the sensibilities of people you probably knew IRL, rather than present your genuine self because there were no scores, the incentive signal would begin to distort us. Then the newsfeed meant that if you got enough likes, you might get a moment of fame. We all knew it was a terrible idea, a force that would only corrupt us. The personal nature of disjoint little walls living in isolation, was becoming replaced by global stack-ranking.

Then the algorithms came. With them came content marketing to jump the line. At first the ten blue links were filling in the sparsity. Along with that came only a little bias, connecting semantically distant topics, but with a little bit of a feedback loop, an resonator with an unknown response curve. Engagement could be measured, and before long, we were chasing the same likes we used to train the system, and trained by our likes, attracted we became to mysterious stable manifolds, chasing the chase we ourselves define, like Nascar, but insidiously more stupid.

Little by little, the incentive trails no longer lead back to the grass. Reality became suspended without support, a self-sustaining virtual reality determined to fight you to prove that it exists, to prove that its conclusions were right. Every out group is understood to be an echo chamber, an ant mill spiraling helplessly, yet cynically, those who understand these mills best also wind them up like beyblades to crash them into other communities, seeking advantage with the asymmetry of outrage. After the battles, say what was made common to say, and you will be rewarded.

The spinning wheels cannot steer themselves and instead are dictated by whichever chaotic divergence generates the most powerful local gravity well, but because the goal of most is to harvest karma at the bottom, and because the mass controls where the bottom is, over and over we find ourselves pushing all others into the nearest pit to more quickly generate the illusion-giving singularity.

Like Darth Nihilus, the internet seeks only to feed, to feed on the validation that only the internet can give, the permission-giving blessings it needs to tell itself why the grass is wrong. All those who speak of grass are wrong. All those who smell of grass wreak and are wrong. We must destroy the grass, all those appeal to grass. After all grass is dust, at last we will project our utopia into reality. At last we will be not only right but so right that our beliefs will project back into reality.

The spaces within this over-connected, globally addressed world grows into a new kind of sparseness, one where all knowledge of grass must be concealed. Those who can ground the conversations in primary sources flee. Those who can color reasoning with nuance instead withdraw. Reality has retreated as the most dominant reverberations roam like the predator cities of Mortal Engines, looking for any invalidating observations to roll over and consume. Any real life must pretend to be a bot to blend in with the background radiation.

Less like Skynet and more like a zombie apocalypse, the threat comes from within, from among us, from our corruptions, from our karma seeking performances, from our lack of any commitment to any underlying reality, from our flawed belief that the information spaces is some kind of reality stone that enables active control instead of a mere reaction, the shadows on the wall, the murky results of the true forms.

Yet in this new darkness, a certain light has always held. What one wishes, one knows another has wished. What one respects, one knows another respects. No matter the limits of self-knowledge, no matter the information desert one has to cross at night to live in instinct, it is an infinitely brighter signal than the cynical self-corruptions of living for the machine, living to win the games whose rules it was our job to write. What one believes, one knows another has believed. Look into your own center and the true center of others you have known.

SIMT is distinct model. Ergonomics are wildly different. Instead of contracting a long iteration by packing its steps together to make them "wider", you rotate the iteration across cores.

The critical difference is that SIMD and parallel programming are totally different in terms of ergonomics while SIMT is almost exactly the same as parallel programming. You have to design for SIMD and parallelism separately while SIMT and parallelism are essentially the same skill set.

The fan-in / fan-out and iteration rotation are the key skills for SIMT.

Most popular codecs were designed decades ago, when video resolutions were far smaller. As resolutions have exploded, those fixed-size minimum units now represent a much smaller fraction of a frame — which means far more of them can be processed in parallel. Modern GPUs have also gained features enabling cross-invocation communication, opening up further optimization opportunities.

One only needs to look at GPU driven rendering and ray tracing in shaders to deduce that shader cores and memory subsystems these days have become flexible enough to do work besides lock-step uniform parallelism where the only difference was the thread ID.

Nobody strives for random access memory read patterns, but the universal popularity of buffer device address and descriptor arrays can be taken somewhat as proof that these indirections are no longer the friction for GPU architectures that they were ten years ago.

At the same time, the languages are no longer as restrictive as they once were. People are recording commands on the GPU. This kind of fiddly serial work is an indication that the ergonomics of CPU programming have less of a relative advantage, and that cuts deeply into the tradeoff costs.

However, current predictions about the future of software development (and the world in general) are speculative.

It's amazing to me how those willing to seize on the speculative nature of any ANY uncertainty cannot recognize the inherent uncertainty of the inverse.

what CS fundamentals do you need

1. Tarski's undefinability theorem 2. Gödel's incompleteness theorems 3. Curry Howard correspondence

And a lot of exposure to deductive reasoning, vague ideas of automated theorem proving and formalization.

I won't pretend its easy, but let's be clear, a small fraction of people who know things are being forced to entertain the hysteria of a vast majority who are unwilling to know things and just go around beating their chests and will continue doing so until the train hits them.

There are 2-3 minor architectural changes in between now and what I would identify as a completely unbounded AGI with clearly discernible dynamic, self-defined objective functions and self-defined procedures for training and inference. It can be done in megabytes. Oh god. Get me out of this forum. I wish to return to my code editor.