coherentpony

It’s sarcasm. Russia does not have good long term energy plans for Germany.

> OpenBSD is on 7.9 now and all releases are possible breaking changes.

> don’t think of version “8.0” as a major release per se, since OpenBSD is a fixed schedule release - not a Major.Minor release

Are these two statements a contradiction?

Thinking out loud, maybe the spirit of your comment is, “Every OpenBSD release is possibly a breaking change; the version numbers don’t mean anything.” Otherwise, I don’t see how it’s relevant to mention the current release ends in .9, then explain how the next version is constructed.

Please help me understand. I truly have no sense of how things work in OpenBSD land. The spirit of my comment here is entirely in good faith, just trying to learn.

> Why is it important that the build host is portable?

The person you’re replying to did not say the build host has to be portable. They said that the software configuration script needed to be portable:

> And [for `configure`] to be portable to such systems you needed to check everything.

Edit:

> Why not choose a single platform for your CI and build for all of your targets on those using a compatibility library to cover up differences.

You can. Nothing precludes you from doing this. But there are situations where you control neither the build environment nor the install environment.

I read it and didn’t get that impression.

Perhaps you could endow your claim with some evidence.

Not really.

LLMs are intended to model language. This is clear by observing how people expect them to respond when asked questions. The implementation of that model is akin to “pick the next word with highest probability”.

In some contexts, this is absolutely the wrong thing to do. In some contexts the LLM will give you totally the wrong sentiment, or even an incorrect fact. Humans call those “misalignments”, or “hallucinations”, or whatever other softened or anthropomorphised language to play down the problem. The reality is that sometimes they are wrong. The model is wrong.

It is not an abuse of notation at all.

It’s a package manager for Mac.

“All models are wrong. Some are useful.” - George Box

> Tbf, at this hour, it hadn't even occurred to me.

I am refreshed when I such honesty like this.

No defensive quip. No snarky response.

A gentle reminder that we are all human and we get tired and miss things.

My employer is counting token usage, so explaining my project between tokens isn’t necessarily a bad thing. I am clearly a more productive engineer because of it \end{sarcasm}

Uber’s situation was different, though. The reason Uber were bleeding money is because they purposefully made all their rides cheap to undercut the taxi businesses. People used Uber because it was cheaper than renting a taxi.

Now you can’t really find taxis anywhere, even at airports it’s a lot more difficult than it used to be.

Once the taxi business was disrupted enough, Uber’s pricing skyrocketed and customers had basically no other options for competition on pricing.

OpenAI basically created a new market. There is no AI chatbot incumbent to disrupt and swallow.

If your comment is intended to convey sympathy on these workers, I think you're going to have a difficult time finding folks that align with you.

If your comment is intended to remind folks that these workers can simply resign of their own free will to find meaningful and dignified work at a different employer, I think you're going to have an easy time finding folks that align with you.

> The task is to place four black queens and one black bishop on the chessboard so that there is no square not under their attack

> In other words, after arranging the five black pieces, it must be impossible to place the white king anywhere without it being in checkmate.

These two sentences mean very different things in the normal rules of chess. And if you replace the word “checkmate” with the word “check” in the second sentence it still doesn’t mean the same thing as the first sentence.

The first sentence implies that all the pieces must be defended.

Edit: Eh, I guess it depends on how you view the word “attack” since all the pieces are the same colour.

You can saturate the entire power budget on pretty much all GPUs just by moving data in and out of HBM. There is no compute needed at all to do this, and bandwidth bound workloads are extremely common in the scientific computing space.

Is it? Nobody else can really build on their work.