What exactly do you mean by "career politician?" Being a member of the opposition in a dictatorship means giving up material wealth and putting your life & liberty on the line.
This is one cause but another is that agents are mostly trained using the same sets of problems. There are only so many open source projects that can be used for training (ie. benchmarks). There's huge oversampling for a subset of projects like pandas and nothing at all for proprietary datasets. This is a huge problem!
If you want your agent to be really good at working with dates in a functional way or know how to deal with the metric system (as examples), then you need to train on those problems, probably using RFT. The other challenge is that even if you have this problem set in testable fashion running at scale is hard. Some benchmarks have 20k+ test cases and can take well over an hour to run. If you ran each test case sequentially it would take over 2 years to complete.
Right now the only company I'm aware of that lets you do that at scale is runloop (disclaimer, I work there).
I was a big enough believer in crypto to literally start a company in this space only to leave it completely disenchanted and deeply pessimistic about the direction of the industry. I felt that there were many real legal and regulatory challenges that governments just didn't want to deal with. No government wants to enable money laundering, black markets, corruption and terrorism; or so I thought!
Now we're in a situation that's so much worse than I ever imagined -- Trump coins are vehicles for naked bribery and corruption with a sprinkle of encryption on top. I was worried about black markets, Trump has literally been using his office to grant access to top holders of his scam coin.
This is a big lesson for everyone about why some degree of regulation is necessary.
+1 to this - exactly the same experience. I started a company in the space because I believe that the decentralized technology and its ability to have world impact is truly amazing.
But after spending ~2y in the space, I realized another thing -- the people in this space right now are in it purely for speculation and monetary gains. There's a lot of talk about decade long horizons, but any app that achieves pmf in the short to medium term has to cater to the speculators or die.
We chose not to go down the path of launching a coin or doing speculative stuff, even though the demand for it was intense. We hit some PMF around creators, but didn't have the conviction that it would scale without speculation. A year down the line, I believe that was the right pov to have.
>No government wants to enable money laundering, black markets, corruption and terrorism; or so I thought!
what ever gave you that thought? There are countries that do this right out in the open. The rest of the countries do it in various shades of gray to not be right out in the open, but still visible for those that can see in higher bit depths of gray than black and white
I mean, how much details do you need for this to be understood? Every tinpot dictator openly run black markets, are the definition of corrupt, while many openly operate or support terrorist organizations within their borders. Depending one looking at the US from the point of view of someone living in a country they have rained freedom down on for the past quarter century probably feels the same towards the US. Launching missiles from a remotely operated drone blowing up buildings while incurring civilian casualties definitely has the feeling of terrorism to me. They just hide it under the veil of defeating terrorism shades of gray.
I really feel like your comment was much more noisy than mine ever was.
John Adams told us the Constitution is intended for a moral (or virtuous) people.
The point is the law isn't self enforcing. People have to insist upon Constitutional order, not because of (blind) faith in it, but because the alternative is tyranny. Not anarchy.
Does this country deserve Constitutional order? The People abandoned it by electing someone virulently and openly opposed to it.
The regulation you seek is utterly meaningless in an autocracy. Or even in a unitary executive theory of Constitutional order.
But in the specific case of Trump, among the most untrustworthy liars America has produced, what does Constitutional duty mean to him? What does it mean that he took the oath of office? He said the words but no serious person believes he took an oath.
People still have no idea what we've done. And what is yet to come.
The POTUS is a psycho. And the replacements aren't good people either.
100 days down, 1369 to go. It's going to get much worse.
> This is a big lesson for everyone about why some degree of regulation is necessary.
I really wonder how you come up to that conclusion especially that there is more than a degree of regulation. If regulation will not apply for the top anyway, then it's better to remove all regulation.
Removing crypto regulation only benefits those at the top and scammers, since it gives them one-sided control of the market with few consequences. Which is exactly what's happening.
> Now, imagine the uproar that might ensue from some corners today if a textbook made this sort of direct comparison between two groups, with one group happening to be white and the other black. Some social justice warriors would no doubt raise an outcry. The book would be branded as Eurocentric, racist, and white supremacist, since it doesn’t give equal space to describing the intellectual achievements of the Zulu or to recognizing the validity of indigenous ways of knowing. The picture of the African witch doctor might be described as a “culturally insensitive caricature”. The book would also be criticized for not describing ways in which Zulu society is more healthy than contemporary American society.
This textbook is from 1929 and was probably being written at the exact same time as the Snopes monkey trial (1925). You're reading science hype because science was under attack; and not from "social justice warriors" but from conservative Americans. Notice that the single most transformative discovery in all of biology, evolution, isn't mentioned.
That attack on evolution is still taking place. In Texas there was an attempt to strike all references to evolution and climate change from the curriculum, along with other attempts to introduce biblical references. When did that take place? That was this year; oh, and in 2023:
https://www.wsj.com/us-news/education/texas-education-board-...
Getting mad at "social justice warriors" for an imagined reaction while ignoring the actual attacks on science is... well, it's what I've come to expect.
I still thought that passage was interesting. It is a totally reasonable prediction of how much of public health would read it.
The post and your comment emphasize how the impact of science depends more on the public than the handful of scientists who create it. Roughly ~0% of people understand any given scientific topic. It will always be completely asymmetric. It will always involve stuff like belief in an ideology, struggles for political power, (relatively blind) trust in a movement or leader, etc. As a result, there is no world in which scientists don't regularly harm whoever follows them, the same as any leader in an uncertain/asymmetric environment (by getting stuff wrong accidentally, or actively abusing their power for personal gain).
The part about social justice warriors is actually interesting because that view will come across as "we hate science!" to some people but the real idea is somewhere between "successful science requires exerting some political power over other people" (obviously true) and "western science was built on a foundation of coercion and oppression, making lots of technological progress and causing some unavoidable tragic effects." Whatever the "truth" is, it's really complicated ethically.
Interesting point RE the Snopes trial. You are right, evolution is not mentioned in the book as far as I can tell. Even though it is foundational to understanding the human body (in particular some weird features it have which any half-good creator would never design that way.)
The SJWs / woke cult are a bit of a personal hobby horse for me. I think it is important to mention, since woke ideology comes from academics at top universities, as well as journalists at top media outlets -- people who have a lot of power to shape the public discourse and influence public policy. The power of Christian fundamentalists over society and culture, on the other hand, has been waning, if one looks over the past few decades. Yes, they are in the ascendancy at the moment with the 2024 election and whatnot, but overall their influence is waning. Of course, both anti-science from the left and from the right are issues we should worry about -- I'm just giving an argument why we might want to be a bit more worried about anti-science from the left. How much either issue is discussed probably greatly depends on what circles you run in.
Note I did mention how there is no discussion of sexual health or women's health in the book. That is an issue with health textbooks that has been improved a lot but still exists to some extent today due to Christian conservatives.
When will you feel like you all have won the war here? What is it that you need to happen? Is it simply a matter of removing academics you deem too woke from their positions, or is it more a matter of public opinion becoming less woke? Just really at this point trying to get a gauge for how long we have to live inside this particular discourse.. Because it just structurally is such that it cant last forever, for I hope at least to you somewhat obvious reasons... (Although I wouldn't be too surprised if this is truly a gnostic battle against darkness for you personally. There are some variants here.)
I just miss when yall were simply libertarian and talked about taxes! We can go back to that one day right?
> When will you feel like you all have won the war here? What is it that you need to happen?
I was involved in a previous iteration of the culture war (religion vs atheism) pretty heavily. If this is anything like that, it'll start fading once people feel like the cultural dominance of the group is broken.
If you want a rule of thumb, hollywood being considered non-woke and universities not requiring diversity statements (cultural conservatives consider these to be roughly isomorphic to the old loyalty oaths) would be generally what to look for.
Edit: These institutions losing their influence would probably also be sufficient. There's nothing inherently important about hollywood, so if another locus of entertainment gains prominence, and it has different cultural views, that would also qualify.
Ok the diversity statement thing seems pretty actionable. Hard to say about hollywood I guess bc its feels very subjective: one guy's "woke" is always going to be another's "fun/wholesome" or whatever.
But for the universities ok, this is at least a thing we can hold onto. It's a little rough to implicitly associate the "diversity" considered in hiring/enrolling at a school with the evil professors, because the entire argument then quite easily contracts down to: "there are too many non-white academics, and that is the real problem." But I guess the whole point is to free ourselves from such silly concerns like racism, institutional or otherwise.
Either way, I just hope they/you get what you want. I used to be worried that this whole thing would spiral too much into violence, but its easy to see now that all the people who care about the "wokeness" are, yeah, exactly like creationists: they just want to feel represented, they just want the blurb in the textbook; its not so much about the world outside, but just how they feel about it; that its ok for them to be angry about the kids sports team or whatever. People want to be principled!
I am truly hopeful at this point they will eventually find some peace while still allowing everyone to live with some self-determination and everything else. Its a little long in the tooth now, but hopefully the recent political ascendency will temper it a bit.
> Hard to say about hollywood I guess bc its feels very subjective
It definitely is. But so was my iteration. A good chunk of the previous iterations of the culture war have been as well. A lot of my generation really didn't like how conservative the small towns we grew up in "felt", it felt oppressive and dumb.
> Either way, I just hope they/you get what you want.
Yeah, I'm not participating in this one. I missed a few years of the culture war during a raging alcoholic phase and both sides feel really foreign nowadays and kinda confusing. But I do occasionally like to pop a bag of popcorn and watch people fight.
> I used to be worried that this whole thing would spiral too much into violence
My guess is probably not much more than the 70s (and we're still a long way from that, there were ~2500 bombings in an 18 month period in 71 and 72), but it seems really unlikely to advance to civil war levels.
Both things can be true, and there are real world examples of attacking western science as eurocentrist and what not. The imagined reaction is based on those criticisms.
What far-end conservatives learned and what sjws are starting to discover is that mainstream exposure is a trap. You can get Walmart to say "Merry Christmas" (instead of happy holidays) or "Black Lives Matter", but that doesn't actually translate to any material church attendance or racial equity. All it does is create the illusion that your side is more of an oppressive force than it actually is, which alienates moderates like the author who can potentially be allies.
That last point about differences between dev, test and prod should be right at the top. It's rare to find teams that have set themselves up for success (for reasons I do not fully understand)
Although you're right that there's likely no relationship between wives developing heart conditions and subsequent divorce, there's not enough information from the article to know whether there's anything statistically meaningful about heart conditions specifically. It seems more likely that it's just statistical noise. I read that section and got the impression that the relationship is interesting but it doesn't necessarily mean anything, rather than implying that the original study still has some validity.
In my opinion kubernetes is fundamentally hamstrung by the overly simplistic operator model. I really like the general idea, but it's not really possible to reduce the entire model down to "current state, desired state, next action." It means that an entire workflow ends up in the next action logic, but with so many operators looking at the same system state it's not really possible to know how the various components will interact. The problems with helm are a subcase of this larger issue.
By analogy, this is the same issue as frontend programming faces with the DOM. Introducing a VDOM / reducer paradigm (like react) would go a long way towards solving these problems.
> it's not really possible to reduce the entire model down to "current state, desired state, next action."
This is basically how control theory works in general though. You have a state, a goal, and a perturbation toward the goal. I think this is the right level of abstraction if you want a powerful and flexible tool.
> it's not really possible to know how the various components will interact....Introducing a VDOM / reducer paradigm (like react) would go a long way towards solving these problems.
I think the problem here is that the physical characteristics and layouts of the machines makes such a huge difference that it would be prohibitively costly to virtualize or simulate this in a meaningful way. So instead, people use subsets of the physical structure to verify that configuration states work. You do this by having `dev`, `staging`, `prod` environments, using colored deployments, canary analysis, partial rollouts etc.
> I think this is the right level of abstraction if you want a powerful and flexible tool.
This says nothing about ease of use. And for software development, ease of use matters. Otherwise we would all use assembler, or at most C++. They're very powerful and flexible.
If anything, too much power and flexibility is a problem.
The contents of the letter are interesting in their own right, but there are 2 aspects that strike me as particularly interesting. First off, he doesn't seem to regret killing his wife, more the consequences of his crime. He doesn't mention her by name or say that she didn't deserve it.
Secondly, the person he's corresponding with, Fredrick Brennan is fascinating in his own right. He's one of the 3 central characters inside the HBO documentary, Q: Into the Storm, and has a totally bizarre relationship with Jim and Ron Watkins, the two figures currently steering the ridiculous QAnon set of conspiracy theories. It's a very strange confluence of interests.
He regrets “killing” other’s dreams about working on his file system.
He’s a psychopath. The whole write up does not discuss anything that was asked and he just wants recognition and fame for inventing something (queryable file system) that was already released long before that, namely BeFS, by the real file system god, Dominic Giampaolo who also wrote APFS
He does mention her by name once, but only in passing:
> I don’t post directly because I am in prison for killing my wife Nina in 2006.
> I am very sorry for my crime–a proper apology would be off topic for this forum, but available to any who ask.
I have never heard of, seen or even got wind of a "QAnon" member, group, theory, website or whatever they say it is outside of mainstream news. According to them it's some huge group of evil people but I can't tell myself that they're a real thing. If anyone has any real world, personal experience I would love to hear it.
If you have a subscription, the HBO documentary I mentioned, Q: Into the Storm is excellent. I think that the struggle mainstream news orgs have in talking about QAnon is that it's very difficult to encapsulate all the interlocking conspiracies and figures. There's also a wide degree of variance for what various bits and pieces mean, but there are a few central tenets. The main one is that there's a mysterious high ranking figure in the government, Q (who gets his name due to the Q-level security clearance he or she has). Q makes very abstract posts on 4chan -- and then other sites -- that seem to suggest that there's a massive pedophile ring inside the government and that Donald Trump is working to expose it from within. Many figures are implicated and, by strange coincidence, they happen to be figures that the far right detests. The Clintons and Bill Gates take starring roles but honestly it's impossible to keep track of it all.
Into the Storm is centrally focused on the identity of Q, but in the process of pursuing the answer the creator of the documentary, Cullen Hoback, ends up going on an absolutely wild hunt. I find documentaries of this sort to be a bit hit-or-miss, but this is one of the best of its subgenre. The subculture and background surrounding QAnon is interesting in its own right but, of course, the real highlight is the characters. Fredrick Brenan, Jim & Ron Watkins, and Hoback himself are fascinating individuals.
I would find it easier to believe there is a pedophile ring inside the government and Donald Trump is involved, especially considering his association with Epstein.
QAnon (often shortened to Q) is the name given to the persona that has been adopted by a few different individuals and is almost certainly currently controlled by Ron (principally) and Jim (secondarily) Watkins. Calling the posts "Q intel drops" is coded language the tells me you are intimately aware of the QAnon conspiracy group. Let me be clear: Q is some random dudes larping on the internet to give their own pathetic lives some level of importance they do not deserve. Q is a fictionalized persona.
I don't mean this as an insult, but after looking through your post history, you should consider psychological counseling. I recognize the coded language you are using. I'm sorry to tell you this, but you are in a cult. These people are taking advantage of you.
Although no lead is insurmountable, the fixed capital investment and mature software ecosystem specific to this sector makes it harder to imagine what a competitor would look like.
Given how large the prize is, the next chapter of chip development is likely to be nvidia vs state sponsored projects. China, in particular, will funnel further resources into acquiring this technology by any means necessary, including (more) industrial sabotage and outright theft. It's going to be interesting to see how this will play out. Up until a few years ago China was viewed as being a formidable competitor for projects of this nature, but as the country has moved to become increasingly authoritarian, so too have its decision making and execution declined in quality.
