>Only ~30 top professionals actually make enough money to have a full career playing chess, maybe a few hundred more can sustain a meager lifestyle with coaching gigs.
Was this different before chess computers were invented?
Yeah but the thing is that someone tries to waste time of humans.
This is why I hate "interacting" with bots, scripts or AI/LLMs. It just wastes my time, again and again and again. Oddly enough not all humans understand that. About two months ago, a german developer involved with ffmpeg, spam-slopped their mailing list with AI (it was an AI proposal for some change to ffmpeg in the future). He still does not understand why that is a problem.
True, but sustained low interest rates (they are still way too low) cause investment to be moved from productive activities to speculative activities to completely ludicrous activities, as the saner tiers fill up and there's still money left to allocate.
Regardless of whether they are "truly" stateless, if they have no identity documentation -- which your AI answer repeatedly indicates is a situation applying to a larger number of Roma -- and they refuse to say where they're from (or they say they're from that country; or they name a country that isn't where they're from; or the named country refuses to take them) then once again, where are they being deported to exactly?
My point with all this is that it is VERY important to ask specific questions of the folks like DHH who are promoting mass deportation plans, because otherwise having public support for this kind of thing is exactly how you end up with people getting sent to concentration camps (or worse). They're demanding "just deport them!" while hand-waving away even the most basic details of what that might mean, and simultaneously making disturbing analogies to shooting wolves. It's not hard to connect the dots here.
As for "That seems like a them problem"... For a directly analogous situation currently happening in the world, consider all the people the US has blindly deported to the CECOT prison in El Salvador. Is that a "them problem" too, where a large number of undocumented Venezuelan migrants with tattoos are being sent to a concentration camp for gang members in an entirely different country?
I get why people don't bother replacing the default allocator from musl all the time (it's there, convenient). But in an application whose purpose is to be FAST, I find it weird they haven't bothered replacing it with another more performant one.
mallocng is bad at dealing with contention during multithreading. I've had applications that usually were I/O bound suddenly become "malloc" bound when building with musl in multithreaded scenarios (and only just 8 threads). Switching to mimalloc improved performance by 20x, very close to what glibc offers by default, and just a bit under a glibc + mimalloc configuration.
I get that there's a real issue there and it's interesting (to some) to address it, but it should have never surfaced this way in the first place.
It's clear that the idiot does favors for the highest bidders. If you follow that money it points you, in various ways, to the AI companies.
Who would have an incentive to tax physical goods entering and exiting the country? Somebody who is competing for investment dollars and whose product is digital.
Who benefits from immigration overreach? People whose products are especially relevant to mass surveillance.
Dismantling the US biomedical superiority and our public health endeavors might've been Trump's idea, but it happened in a room full of people who sell capabilities related to convincing a nation full of sick people that there's nothing untoward happening to them.
The market is controlled by AI companies right now, and Trump is letting the market have its way with us, therefore the AI companies are having their way with us. This is what happens when you abandon antitrust efforts and end up with companies that are too powerful for the government to regulate: they end up running things. It's the robber barron's era all over again. You can't absolve them of responsibility just because the president is OK with it.
And that's what the moat is made of. There will be opportunity costs associated with putting everything you've got into datacenters, and those are costs that most governments are too competent to be tricked into paying.
It's somewhat unfortunate that programming is still pretty hard to start with.
Early home computers would boot up with BASIC. Granted, the user experience was horrible, but at least you could start programming right away.
What is stopping us from creating an operating system that has programming as a first class citizen?
There is JavaScript in the browser, but that still feels as an afterthought, and incurs all kinds of security problems.
Why must we wait for AI to work around this? Is it really true that only very few people are interested in programming? Why not teach it in primary school, along with reading and writing?
It's a pattern much wider than Google or event technology sector. It's very apparent in AI craze trough society, public governance sector, journalism etc. For people like me (growing up in seventies) it seems that there is teenagers everywhere and nobody is responsible for anything any more.
Yes, at some point the world needs to accept that these tools are very good, to a limit, for specific human augmentation uses (coding, text manipulation) and stop pretending the TAM is "replace all white collar work across the globe".
Right, I understand that you were able to generate these images from Google Earth. But nowhere can I find, including in that article, where other people could see your generations presented in Google Maps/Earth as if they were real imagery. The whole complaint is that people were able to generate these images at all. Or am I misunderstanding something? It seems like the complaint is that hypothetically you could generate these images and then share them elsewhere and try to trick people. Is that accurate or am I misunderstanding?
Lazy evaluation would save on money. Branch prediction would save on wait times. In places electricity can shut down, lazy evaluation would be preferable to make it work longer on limited battery.
> but I can not help but feel that this has been externally coordinated.
All those things are (externally) coordinated. We've been forced to believe by romanticized narratives that things like revolutions or invasions begins with one guy shouting and everybody following him and changing history but it is not. This behaviors only exist in bad history book or fiction.
Also isn't it strange that we've seen so many insurrections being started against trump in the last 10 years, but suddenly when he literally starts a war with Iran against the will of most of the population nothing happen?
This is a bit sad. Here we have an example of rust and musl struggling whereas C/C++ and glibc does not. That's an oversimplification, but we also had not long ago the rewrite of ... I believe it was coreutils, in rust (or was it utillinux ... but I think it was coreutils), also have issues. Rust needs to toughen up here when it really wants to replace all of C in the linux ecosystem. Alternatively it could admit failure, then people can say that C will be - and remain - the forever king.
My partner is a sleep consultant, and most of the time the families she works with are at their wits end and their marriage is hanging by a thread. Having young kids is incredibly hard on people and relationships.
You don't accept it is possible that it was initially flagged as a dupe or spam why? There is competition for primary submission here, especially for the primary AI companies.
Moreover, if it wasn't flagged at all, like you suggest, then the grandparent was inventing things to be bitterly resentful about... Which is not a behavior any forum should indulge.
It is immensely frustrating that there is so little unlicensed spectrum available vs the massive amounts of spectrum available to militaries and very rich network operators.
Worse is that the unlicenced spectrum that is available is often so heavily encumbered with restrictions in many parts of the world. Wi-Fi HaLow for example, in ETSI regions, is limited to a paltry 14dBm EIRP in no wider than 2MHz channels and an unacceptably punishing duty cycle restriction in most cases that render it barely able to make a TCP connection (some mitigations exist that involve channel hopping on some products but nothing that works for things that require fixed channels, e.g. IBSS or 802.11s).
Fascinating! I am glad you’re getting good results with that. Maintaining abstractions is critical and it’s very frustrating when the LLM ignores them.
I also see this failure mode where it inverts the question and answer the affirmative to the inverted question (therefore the opposite of correct answer).
If you read too quickly or are on a mobile device, the clarifying information may be below the line break.
> Everything bigger is clearly meant to be consumed over multiple sittings or by multiple people.
The same thing happened with crisps (potato chips). The small bags that were standard when I was a kid in the 90s can now only be found in the big multipacks, while the standard size is now the old "grab bag", which is 2+ servings. Of course, since you can't buy the old size as separates anymore, everyone eats the whole grab bag these days.
I don't think the whole "multiple sittings or multiple people" thing holds up in reality.
To dig a bit into why fibers are more efficient than threads.
The OS has a rather opaque view on what happens in a thread. It doesn't know how the memory is used or what memory is efficient. The OS can block a thread when it runs into IO, but it doesn't know or care about what other threads in an application it can or should activate.
Fibers bring the threading into the application layer. While the application can't choose which and when a thread runs, it can make choices about which fibers to run. Further, the application knows intimate details about things like the stack of a given thread. When it goes to park a fiber, it knows just how much memory should be saved off so the fiber can resume and it doesn't have to save off all the memory allocated to a thread's stack. Further, because so many programs are stack based an application can pretty smartly save and reuse segments of the stack which are common amongst fibers. So, for example, if you spin off 1000 fibers at one location in code, the stack for those 1000 fibers will be identical right up until the fiber starts executing.
The main drawback of fibers is they can't implement things like fair scheduling. Applications have few ways to park a currently running fiber to let another one run if, for example, the app wants to make some progress on all the fibers alive. The app has to wait for the fiber to hit some sort of IO point in the code or insert explicit park checks (The JVM actually does this for GC purposes. It creates "safepoints" which application threads make a quick check to see if the JVM wants to start a GC). The OS has more power here, it can simply interrupt the thread and start running something else for a given quanta.
