Jorge1o1

Well, pretty much all of the LLMs are based on the decode-only version of the Transformer architecture (in fact it’s the T in GPT).

And in the Transformer architecture you’re working with embeddings, which are exactly what this article is about, the vector representation of words.

That’s actually a really good point! I wonder if one day there will be analogues for music and writing?

I suppose you have gumroad / serialized novels or webcomics but I’m not sure if there’s any albums where the musician is putting out one song at a time

Well, to me it seems like he just shared the original so that others could benefit from the work he had already done, but that since his main priority is to continue making new videos, he may not have the time resources to:

- Avoid breaking changes

- Keep APIs stable

- Test and document everything, etc.

I personally think there's nothing wrong with that. We wouldn't say that a musician is *obligated* to put out a second album or a remaster. We wouldn't say that an author *must* make a sequel to their popular book. But when it comes to code sometimes we feel like the original author has an obligation to keep working on it just because it would convenience us.

(edited for formatting)

Monkey see, monkey do?

Andrew Yang launched a presidential campaign based on this idea, he wrote a book:

“Smart People Should Build Things”

Sibling comment mentioned the connection between lox and Pisces, but the connection to Cancer is that the mascot for Rust is a crab.

I think it’s health related, as the article mentions.

>One executive in the entertainment industry said younger people were less inclined to go out raving until 6am as they were more health conscious and less frivolous with money than previous generations

This is the same generation that has 12 step skincare routines, eats only organic food, chooses to vape or zyn rather than smoke because of secondhand smoke, everyone has an Apple watch on their wrist tracking calories, etc.

If anything I’m surprised that binge drinking and going out late as survived as long as it has.

And as far as the money comment, this generation is not less frivolous there’s just less money to go around haha.

thank you!

A classic example would be that if you have a test (say for cancer) with a false positive rate of “””only””” 5%, and your disease has an incidence of say 1 in 1000.

Let’s say that you get a positive diagnosis for the disease, and you ask someone the question:

What is the probability you actually have the disease?

Most people will say 95% or 99%, but your actual probability of having the disease in this example is <2%

Is this Q? or k?

Well, theoretically you could make your current "Add Link" button and your current "Remove" button just trigger a server-side request and then refresh the page.

maybe some combination of the <noscript> tag and then if so wrapping the buttons in <form> and making the buttons submit those forms?

As a kdb+/Q programmer I would say it depends on the type of problem.

For example, when working with arrays of data it certainly is easier to think and write “avg a+b” to add two arrays together and then take the average.

In a non-array programming language you would probably first need to do some bounds checking, then a big for loop, a temporary variable to hold the sum and the count as you loop over the two arrays, etc.

Probably the difference between like 6ish lines of code in some language like C versus the 6 characters above in Q.

But every language has features that help you reason about certain types of problems better. Functional languages with algebraic data types and pattern matching (think OCaml or F#) are nicer than switch statements or big if-else-if statements. Languages with built-in syntactic sugar like async/await are better at dealing with concurrency, etc.

Ebay is full of $1 timeshares. There’s even a website with 17,000 timeshares for a dollar called sellmytimesharenow.com

Relying on an economic system to make moral decisions is like driving in screws with a hammer.

Capitalism is not perfect, but at least to me this is more of a moral issue than an economic one.

I think your CO2 point is a great example, why would a Communist or Socialist economic system be inherently more eco-friendly than a Capitalist system? You now have a system where there is a government willing to "plan" or "intervene" in certain aspects of the economy, but unless the government actually cares about pollution nothing will happen. You could even theoretically have a centrally-planned economy that WANTS to increase emissions.

The largest polluter in the world is a Communist country, and in the last 30 years their CO2 emissions have sextupled, while the US's emissions per year have remained flat.

Morality != Economics