pso

If GOTW, actually means GWOT and Global War on Terror, please have courtesy of reading your posts beforehand, and perhaps also not assuming a US audience.

Dwarkesh, is one of the better tech podcasters. Scott is well known for blogs Slate Star Codex and Astral Codex Ten. Daniel resigned from OpenAI in 2024,and is known for prescient AI boom predictions made in 2021. https://www.alignmentforum.org/posts/6Xgy6CAf2jqHhynHL/what-... Today they jointly published their 2027 predictions https://ai-2027.com/

IDW - Intellectual Dark Web

I nominate this essay, as Paul Graham's least controversial. Perhaps, someone who works with or in the non-profit sector could provide a counterpoint.

Having lived in UK, France and Spain, I know that there aren't daily variations in consumer electricity prices, as there are in places like California. I don't have data if offices are priced differently.

Which countries in Europe charge their electricity to consumers based on 'extreme peaks' at between 60 to 100 cents? https://ec.europa.eu/eurostat/statistics-explained/index.php...

When you say 'defining languages', do you mean as DSLs or choosing appropriate existing languages? If DSLs, which language would you recommend for creating DSLs. Could you give a successful example?

Yep, I looked at it again. My desire to be impressed with grandmaster foresight got the better of me.

I think the move Rowson's referring to is move 9. Since in the essay he says "Yermolinsky offered a pawn as bait, and I very nearly didn’t take it because doing so would allow him to play a series of forcing moves"

So the only pawn that was offered and that Rowson took was on move 10 in reply.

The only reason I checked was to see how far a grandmaster was looking ahead, in this case 14 moves, which i find impressive. "...I discovered a surprising detail right at the end of the line, in which my knight could retreat back to its original square, "

Like you, I wouldn't be impressed if he only saw from move 18 to move 24.

Pure speculation, isn't the most interesting time period in the signal the transition from signal to no-signal (and back again)? How high is the resolution of the sensors? Is it possible that some frequencies are blocked fractionally earlier than others? At a fine enough temporal resolution, there might be more clues regarding the source.

Yes, I know. But the tone of the whole article, is as if, they've found deep flaws across many VMs. They call something 'warmup" which I think has little or nothing to do with the JIT, but is unaccounted variations in the whole running system.

The final graph shows a binary trees program in C, with a 6% variation between "in process executions", and no steady state, it seems logical that most VMs will show the same or worse variation.

The "warmed-up steady state" does exist, but not if they define it so narrowly. All of their iterations and timings are running at x30 to x100 interpreted speed, the only 'cold' interpreted code is in a few microseconds of the first loops of an execution.

It seems that the authors are not measuring what they think they are, or have explained it poorly. Most transitions from interpreter to JIT show speedups of x10 to x100, eg luajit or V8. How is it possible that the variation of V8 (as an example), according to their numbers is showing improvements of only a few percent, when it should be orders of magnitude faster after transition? My conclusion, they are measuring variations after warmup.

All of the warmup, and transitions from interpreter, to JIT, to optimised JIT , happen inside the first few micro or milliseconds of EVERY one of their thousands of process iteration. Their measurements are ALL of the system variation of the VM after warm up has taken place. The VM is optimizing within the first 1-1000 inner loops occuring at the start of EACH process iteration. For most working programmers, a variation of a few percent on a running system AFTER warm-up in "steady-state peak performance", and before any I/O takes place (because language benchmarks avoid I/O), would not be an issue. If it is an issue, then the article perhaps demonstrates that a compiled language would offer less variation.

The benchmarks listed range from a shortest of around 0.4s for fannkuch/hotspot/linux, up to 1.8s for n-body, pypy, linux. This 'long-running' benchmark code (of .4 to 1.8s ), by definition, has to include multiple inner loops/hot code, which is quickly optimized, otherwise benchmark code would have to be millions of lines long, in order to have a sufficient runtime length. Tests need to run for at least tenths of a second, for cross language comparisons, since JITted languages take some iterations to warm-up.

How long were you at google for, and how long since you left? Otherwise, the numbers don't offer much insight.

I've googled generally and verbatim with various quotes from above and your name, and cannot find the essay. It sounds interesting. Can you post a link please.

The same real world react app went from 40MB to 20MB.

They don't ship minified javascript to final app, but bytecode, which they say is 1/3 smaller (both minified). They have moved the parse and compile stages to ahead of time, making the VM smaller, and giving the bytecode benefit. The bytecode benefit also means a quicker time to live/first reponse from 4s to 2s in their example.

Link to the talk, from FB employee announcement made at React Conference today, 15 minutes length. Linked 2 mins in, because the audio is poor to start.

https://youtu.be/zEjqDWqeDdg?t=130

Why are you assuming other renewables is mostly waste/biomass? In the notes below the table, wind is cleary mentioned. My guesstimate would be that wind was a large proportion. I confirmed by checking wikipedia.

EIA Total for year was listed as 4,177,810 in 1000s of MWhr Other Renewables 354,445 in 1000s of MWhr

From wikepedia - national trends section graph https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wind_power_in_the_United_State...

2018 Wind power generated 274,962 in 1000s of MWhr. So makes up over 75% of other renewables. Chart shows wind has grown from 94,000 in 2009. Which combining with the EIA data, showing 143,388 in 2009, means most of the growth in non-solar renewables is from wind.

At 12km/h it requires 5.59KW of sun energy to fall on the car (in total, not per sq meter as in original comment).

Actual figure given on website is 5m2 of panels on car. Assume 1Kw per m2 of sun power (near equator, no cloud, midday) @ 22% conversion efficiency gives 1.1kw electrical output from panels.

So one needs 5.59KW sun power input for 1.1kw output.

We've both read the article. On rereading the article, its not clear if the stolen ID was present at all the crimes. My assumption was that it was not.

I make that assumption, because the person accussed of multiple crimes is suing Apple based on their use of facial recognition. He wouldn't do that if the ID was used in each crime.

Another article confirms my assumption is correct.

https://www.bbc.com/news/technology-48022890

"A detective with the New York Police Department allegedly told Mr Bah that the thief probably used Mr Bah's driving licence as identification during one of the robberies. The detective reportedly said that this may have caused Mr Bah to be charged with thefts committed at Apple Stores in New York, Delaware, New Jersey and Massachusetts, according to court papers."

The multiple thefts are linked together via facial recognition in the Apple Stores and tied back to the stolen ID.

If, it was just a single theft and the stolen ID was used on that occasion, then I would agree facial recognition would not be relevant.

Yes, I really read it. Do you have a different understanding/interpretation of the article?

Apple took the stolen ID used by the criminal. Then Apple incorrectly linked the details of that ID (with no photo), with images of the thief.

Following further thefts associated with that ID, the innocent man was accused of all the thefts based on the ID and an INCORRECT photo match to the stolen ID which Apple had created in its facial recognition system, and used as the basis to inform the police of the suspect.

I tried my best not to be snarky. I thought the article was a normal average article.

Edit: I'm not sure the article says facial recognition was responsible, I think that's what the courts will decide. But to me, its clear that facial recognition was involved, based on the article's title and content

I can understand that. But, do you debate specific points in the article based on the views you formed by NOT reading it?

I get that some comments can be interesting without reading the article. But someone discussing and finding fault with an article they haven't read (properly?) ... that's the bit that just baffles me.

Reading the article seems like a reasonable minimal entry requirement, IF someone wants to discuss the content itself.

The reason you don't see the role that facial recognition played is because you still have not read the article. I'm genuinely curious, as this is happening more and more on hacker news. Why do you come on a thread about specific article to discuss it? When I read your 1st comment, it was clear you hadn't read the article. Then, someone makes a comment to correct some of your mistakes, and you still reply without reading the article. It just puzzles me.

No, a form of P-code that was Microsoft specific.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Microsoft_P-Code

I've not seen any mention of 2 serious Google Cloud outages in the last week. Which seems unusual, considering the typical relevance to the HN crowd.

Additionally, it seriously affected 37 signals, who are the creators of Basecamp and Ruby on Rails, and are one of the more high profile tech successes.

In the blogpost DHH (the creator of Rails) calls into question their approach to moving to the Cloud, their sudden decline from 5 nines to 2 nines of availability, and the failure of their risk management in terms of cloud operations.

I find it quite surprising and concerning, that Google Cloud has had 2 such major outages so close together.

https://status.cloud.google.com/

it's solved ... If we have a way to arrange individual atoms on a large scale (or even 100nm portions of material) and fuse them...

What exactly do you mean by this? Fuse them in what sense? What advantages would there be at a smaller scale?

The article inspired me to a couple of hours of research of the field. I feel it helps to see whats currently possible on a relatively low budget. This demo I came across uses an x sens bodysuit for capture (around $7000, plus yearly sub - prices aren't public) , and an iphone x for facial capture in realtime using ARKit programming.

To my amateur eyes, it looks superb, and better than many demos in terms of the sync/accuracy of the facial expression and speech.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=i51CizUXd7A

It's also quite charming and amusing. Here's a background article, explaining the approach.

https://uploadvr.com/iphone-xsens-performance-capture-bebylo...

I think you miscalculated. I get 10MB per trip on average, assuming 10bn total trips. Maybe deduct something for maps and inefficient file formats & data structures?

1 billion bytes = 1GB,

1 billion KB = 1TB,

1 billion MB = 1PB,

10 billion * 10MB = 100PB.

http://archive.is/7gle4

Cached version, no login required

Another n=1. I've been on 2 blood pressure pills for 2 years I was reading about very low sodium diets, and decided to start an experiment on Thursday. Eating only unprocessed foods, non-dairy/meat/fish. I dropped the diuretic pill at the beginning, and have now dropped the ARB medication. Gone from average 140/95 to 124/84 in 4 days.

It seems possible that there are widely varying responses, and for those like me who are salt sensitive, then low sodium may mean 500mg rather than 1500/2250mg that various research suggests. In hunter/gatherer societies, 500mg would be a more typical level one would receive - this research refers to 4 tribes with lowest sodium intake (& lowest BPs) in INTERSALT study. http://publicacoes.cardiol.br/abc/2003/8003/80030005i.pdf.

Also, came across, an article which mentioned no other animal has a sodium potassium balance with more sodium than potassium which is what most humans in 'modern' world now have.

I still dont understand why it requires a VM. What do you mean by 'interlinked' and 'always visible'. What does C lack that means this would not be possible? Does 'balance memory usage and graphics usage' refer to designing for very small systems with only a few megabytes?