> Lastly, in our experiments we only consider a recursive depth of 1 — i.e. the root LM can only call LMs, not other RLMs. It is a relatively easy change to allow the REPL environment to call RLMs instead of LMs, but we felt that for most modern “long context” benchmarks, a recursive depth of 1 was sufficient to handle most problems. However, for future work and investigation into RLMs, enabling larger recursive depth will naturally lead to stronger and more interesting systems.
It feels a little disingenuous to call it a Recursive Language Model when the recursive depth of the study was only 1.
Yes, I am aware, but I'm very much in favor of removing the useless jack. I have already transitioned into using bluetooth earpuds and headphones with my mobile devices and laptops, and I will never go back to cables.
I'm not totally sure what you mean by "profiles," but you can see all of the activities you've done with a friend like this: `friends list activities --with 'Grace Hopper'` and you can see a graph of your relationship over time with: `friends graph 'Grace Hopper'`
I suspect by "profile" you really mean what the second question is getting at around storing more information. I haven't committed to anything in particular in that vein and I like how this program is currently very lightweight UX-wise. (I want it to encourage users/me to be social and maintain relationships offline.) That being said, I've been thinking a lot about lightweight ways to intelligently incorporate location data as well, so that (for example) if I'm visiting a city for a weekend I could query for friends in that city to do things with.
Do you have other ideas? I'm very very open to suggestions!
This is actually why I'm posting this, both Nim and Rust are higher on my languages-to-try list. Free time is sadly not unlimited and I'd like other people's opinions as well :)
distributed consensus is about having a group of processes agree on a single data value. For example, imagine you have a cluster of server. Each node has a replicated database.
(1) You want all your nodes to have the exact same replica of the database i.e consistency across your cluster.
You would need to reach consensus before any node actually adds anything to its local database to make sure that property (1) is fulfilled.
== Linearizability is just a consistency model i.e a variant of property 1 with stronger/weaker constraints.
If you want to actually learn Korean, check out this site.
[1] An American knowing no Korean moved to Korea and meticulously documented everything he learned, and this website was the result. It's an incredibly thorough study into Korean.
Can confirm this is one of the best text-based sites out for there for learning Korean. On days when I'm really studying, I typically have 4 or 5 tabs open from just this domain alone.
Tae Kim's work is probably the equivalent for Japanese [0]. I think his "complete guide" is still a work in progress, but his grammar guide is pretty much the defacto free resource.
I actually suggest imabi.net over Tae Kim depending on how you want to define "learning the language".
Tae Kim is a great introductory guide to Japanese and is something I often hand to beginners. But for anyone who wants to seriously study the language, imabi.net is on an entirely different level.
Simplicity and minimalism are core values in Go, both in the language itself and the community and developers that use it, so clutter tends not to be a concern.
That aside, tags are currently in use in several ORM frameworks with a fair amount of success.
From experience you don't tend to see tags very often other than when decoding/encoding JSON. If you use an ORM maybe you use tags as well.
Other than that, their usage (at least to me after working with Go for a year now) is limited to things like Toml/YAML decoding for configuration, or (shameless plug) configuration with https://github.com/vrischmann/envconfig.
So they put a paper ballot with an RFID chip inside into a machine which then puts your vote into the chip, then you drop the ballot into a box? How is this any different from a regular paper ballot?
One of the problems in Argentina's elections is that volunteers of political parties steal the ballots of smaller parties from the voting room, and since these small parties don't have the man power or monetary resources to restock the ballots, they lose votes. A better solution would be single paper ballot, but the ruling parties don't want this because they are who benefit for the current system.
That said, this system prevents chain voting (a mechanism to make sure the votes that parties buy from low-income people are not changed).
I know three people who do vote counting every year. They all agree that the voting went very smoothly, with less crowding than usual, and the counting took a third of the time it usually does. This is unrelated to the security issues, but to them, the benefit was very clear
A known bug is that the counting machines doesn't validate the number of votes per ballot, so you can cast multiple votes by rewriting the RFID chip with a NFC enabled phone.
And even if they address that particular bug, because of the inherent nature of the political process, parties' representatives will always want to count the ballots by hand to prevent fraud.
EDIT: As of this moment there is no way an argentine political party would accept black-boxing an election.
It feels a little disingenuous to call it a Recursive Language Model when the recursive depth of the study was only 1.