shitpostbot

That makes sense. It's probably less "doing crazy convolution calculations on how sampled ambient noise changes as the helicopter gets close to a pole", and more "rotten wood vibrates slower"

That's very progressive of you and all, but the vast majority of South Korea's military is men doing their mandatory service when they come of age, so it is very much relevant to call out the gender

This is currently a huge source of inefficiency in modern chip design.

I've worked on some of the current highest profile chip projects doing "frontend" RTL design, and at every major chip company I've worked at, and from talking with coworkers about their past experiences at other companies, the handoff-wall between RTL and PD is leaving a substantial amount of perf per power/area on the table. (like 30% I'm general)

RTL designers generally have no visibility into how their designs are getting laid out, and generally don't want to have to care. PD engineers have no visibility into the uArch and low level code details, and maybe they want to care but everything is too obfuscated in general.

So when your pins are misplaced during an early iteration, RTL will blindly add retiming to resolve timing issues and make PD happy but never check if it's actually needed. PD will slave away trying to make busted RTL work with placement and recipe adjustments rather than asking RTL for a trivial fix, etc etc.

There are a ton of small things where visibility into either side of the process would result in measurably better hardware, but the current team structures and responsibility boundaries encourage people not to care.

It's far more reasonable to assume it moves infinitely fast between peasants, but comes to a halt at each one.

Or if not infinitely fast, but we're going to assume a chain could accelerate it indefinitely, than it's still more reasonable to assume each pass happens exactly how fast it needs to for 6s/num_peasants, comes to a halt, and then moves to the next. That way all the peasants have the same, minimum, speed, Instead of some slow, other absurdly fast based on an arbitrarily assumed, linear, acceleration.

(Why not assume exponential acceleration and say after 10 passe s it hits light speed)

Well yeah, this is just supposed to be a paradox where you break down the flaw in the way the problem is presented. Recognizing that there is a flaw isn't the point.

That does not track.

If you believed Bitcoin was under valued, you would just buy Bitcoin and not pay a 100% premium to buy shares in their company.

Also being inflationary is a feature of the US dollar, not a downside. It feels like crypto shills never discuss why inflation is intentional and good and rely on the financially illiterate to be shocked by those 93% and 1/5th numbers

Let's not pretend this stuff actually works

They didn't though?

first designed specifically for inference. For more than a decade, TPUs have powered Google’s most demanding AI training and serving workloads...

What do they think serving is? I think this marketing copy was written by someone with no idea what they are talking about, and not reviewed by anyone who did.

Also funny enough it kinda looks like they've scrubbed all their references to v4i, where the i stands for inference. https://gwern.net/doc/ai/scaling/hardware/2021-jouppi.pdf

Signal is end-to-end encrypted. One end is the Signal app on your phone. The other end is the Signal app on their phone. The Signal app is developed by people, using computers. Both of those things can be compromised, neither of them are under the perview of the U.S. security agencies.

I would put the market value of a backdoor into all Senior White House communications as certainly >$10B, and probably >$100B, limited only by how long the buyer believed it would be a reliable source of intel. (it may be better to offer it as a subscription service.)

At that point everything should be assumed to be compromised until demonstrated to a reasonable degree of confidence that it's probably safe. A random install from an app store is not that.

Is this just a proxy measurement for wealth?

A food insecure developing country might be overtly reliant on staple carbs like rice and grains. Easy access to protein sources like meat could also just mean easy access to excess calories, regardless of whether a carb heavy diet would otherwise be more predictive of obesity.

It's because they want to have 0 responsibility for what is posted on their platform. Any past action on their part to counter the spread of misinformation establishes precidant they do not want.

Also, outrageous, conspiracy-oriented, and rage-bait content has much higher engagement anyway, which is why their algorithm has historically encouraged it so heavily. Explicit misinformation falls into those categories and has been good for their bottom line and getting everyone's parents addicted to the platform

You say "the co founders" like it was ever anything more than a hashtag. There are literally thousands of organizations using the name started by entirely random people, many of which are legitimate charities and many of which are grifts

Did you literally just make that up and try to pass it off as an authoritative fact?

Seems like all they need to do is, when prompted to generate images of people, ask for clarification on whether the user wants to constrain the appearance, use the default output of the model, or otherwise offer to modify the prompt to reduce biases or however they would describe it. Doesn't even have to be interactive, just a note on the side would be enough.

Ultimately the only "real" concern was silently perpetuating biases, as long as it isn't silent and the user is made aware of the options, who cares? You'll never be able to baby-proof these things enough to stop "bad actors" from generating whatever they want without compromising the actual usage

For those of you who read this and immediately started wondering what crazy stuff this guy believes, it's "Evolution is a hoax"

If it would be better for the society, then the society should be incentivising it, or at least making the calculation sensible. Hence the discussion

I had always assumed they were doing it completely mathematically though. Like collating spectrometry readings to know what elements were present where and figuring out the temperature for blackbody emission or something, or even just linearly transforming the raw data from the spectrum the telescope can receive to the visible spectrum.

Kinda disappointing if it's really just a paint by numbers Photoshop to look nice

+1 to IC being decades behind.

I think the average programmer would be horrified if they really knew the state of modern chip design. SWEs already know how bad most software is, but imagine an entire industry of tens of thousands of people writing code (HDL/TCL), who often don't even think what they do is programming, that has evolved over the last 50 years with minimal interaction with the rest of the software engineering world.

Verilog is a nightmare. The tools are buggy. Everyone has Stockholm syndrome. Version control is considered state-of-the-art and you're lucky if your org uses it.

I've seen a lot of HDL code in my career, and there's a huge number of well respected senior engineers who think having any form of hierarchy, abstraction, or even for-loops is very advanced design practice.

The only good part is the bar is so low it's easy to standout and climb. I think the industry is in a position where it would be surprisingly easy for a startup of seasoned SWEs with a decent understanding of how to write optimized hardware to churn out competitive chips with 10x the velocity of the big players like Nvidia/AMD/Intel

I propose Betteridge's law of internet comments:

Any question at the start of a reply can be answered with, "No, that's obviously not what they said, let's try to keep the drama to a minimum please."

Darn, and here I thought he solved massively distributed quantum entanglement based networking in a one sentence throw away line on an internet forum

But it was never free speech that denied them their rights. The entire point of free speech is that it protects the rights of marginalized groups and enables them to advocate for changes in society.

Racists never needed the protections of free speech to argue for denying people their rights because those views already had widespread societal acceptance.

Now that explicit racism is no longer the norm, organisations like the Klan need to rely on free speech protections, but thats only evidence of how unacceptable their beliefs have become.

These earnest arguments that limiting speech will help protect people are terrifying.

Protesters should make a parabolic reflector with the focus about 50ft out. Pretty sure cops would stop using these things instantly