curtisf

Not meaningfully.

Volcanic winters only last a few years. The largest ones are estimated to only have a few degrees effect on global temperatures, so we could temporarily be in 1980s climate before returning after 3-5 years to an even hotter one than ever.

The climb would probably accelerated by the inevitable policy reversals by climate change deniers who would take hold of the temporary rapid reversal of global warming to burn as much fossil fuels while they have the chance

I'm pretty confused by most of the article.

The focus is placed on "AI Literacy", but it seems to use this to just mean 'volume of AI use'. The discussion of the Netflix case study is extra perplexing, since the summary here admits they didn't find any actual productivity improvement, just that only a few hours of "training" could induce on the order of $50/person/day on tokens.

That seems... the opposite of literacy?

The H1B visa is explicitly designed for high skill (high paying) jobs which companies have (supposedly) demonstrated they cannot find enough citizen workers.

There are much simpler mechanisms to making that would make the enforcement mechanism more effective without destroying the economy, like prioritizing them by salary instead of randomly.

You could also just have a more proactive government which punishes businesses for abusing the visa category.

"Immigrants taking good jobs" isn't an immigrant problem, it's a big-business problem

This has everything to do with art direction, and not technology.

The real world has much more light bouncing fidelity than even modern games. There are still dark things we can't see.

Physically based rendering should be exactly the opposite of what the article is complaining about: it gives you the "correct" way to communicate how light is moving through a space. So the player and the game designer should be able to communicate much more easily, and the artists should be able to focus on actually communicating what they need to, instead of tweaking non physical phong and ambient lighting parameters

Most of the big consumer VPNs include "privacy" with an implication of anonymity in their marketing, so it shouldn't really be surprising

It does seem like, especially for the supposed political goals of the recent governments, there's things to watch out for.

But despite denying it ("This isn’t hyperbole"), it seems like most of this article is, in fact, hyperbole.

The main (incredibly grating) assumption is that government is intently destructive and non-productive:

> But only one of them leads to capital accumulation and becomes an engine of generational wealth growth.

> ...It is unavoidable that the government appropriates and ultimately compromises and destroys a lot of productive capital. Well and good, provided the economy can regenerate it at least as fast as it is harvested.

Government is only unproductive to the extent the people want it to be. Governments fund education, nutrition, and support immigration, i.e., produce essentially _all_ of the available _human capital_. Research and development produce enormous values both for society and the economy (the internet was designed, tested, built, and expanded by a government!). Governments foot the bill for enormous utility and trandportion subsidies to enable entire economies to exist at all.

The only difference between a government agency and a corporation is the profit _motive_. The government can do exactly the same things as a corporation would, and in fact, that's why it's relatively common for governments to charter purpose made corporations to do certain things.

The inefficiency and ineffectiveness of government is mostly a contrivance of people who _want_ government to be ineffective and inefficient -- mostly as a rhetorical bludgeon to further a "small government" agenda (i.e., moving as much economic power out of the hands of agencies chartered to do something _other than_ maximize shareholder value)

Sure. A reasonable model for incoming requests within a short window of time is as a "Poisson process", which means the expected number of incoming requests within any interval is proportional to the length of that interval.

The parameter of that distribution is the expected (aka average) rate. If the intervals are time intervals, then the proper units of the parameter are events/second

It's basically using the "-" embedded in the definition of the eml operator.

Table 4 shows the "size" of the operators when fully expanded to "eml" applications, which is quite large for +, -, ×, and /.

Here's one approach which agrees with the minimum sizes they present:

        eml(x, y             ) = exp(x) − ln(y) # 1 + x + y
        eml(x, 1             ) = exp(x)         # 2 + x
        eml(1, y             ) = e - ln(y)      # 2 + y
        eml(1, exp(e - ln(y))) = ln(y)          # 6 + y; construction from eq (5)
                         ln(1) = 0              # 7

After you have ln and exp, you can invert their applications in the eml function

              eml(ln x, exp y) = x - y          # 9 + x + y

Using a subtraction-of-subtraction to get addition leads to the cost of "27" in Table 4; I'm not sure what formula leads to 19 but I'm guessing it avoids the expensive construction of 0 by using something simpler that cancels:

                   x - (0 - y) = x + y          # 25 + {x} + {y}

"Consensus" in this post refers to the "consensus problem", which is a fundamental and well-known problem in distributed systems.

It's not about political consensus.

However, the paper that introduced it and proved it possible, Lamport's "The Part Time Parliament", used an involved (and often cited as confusing) "Parliament" metaphor for computers in a distributed system

"Consensus" in distributed systems need not be limited to majorities; it really just requires no "split brain" is possible. For example, "consensus" is achieved by making one server the leader, and giving other servers no say. A majority is just the 'quorum' which remains available with that largest number of unavailable peers possible.

It could also be useful in low doses to supplement, for example, a seasonal vaccine in a year where they are especially unsure about prevalent strains, or where their predictions were already proved wrong early in the flu season

> For optional types, 0 is decoded as the default value of the underlying type (e.g. string? decodes 0 as "", not null).

In the "dense JSON" format, isn't representing removed/absent struct fields with `0` and not `null` backwards incompatible?

If you remove or are unaware of a `int32?` field, old consumers will suddenly think the value is present as a "default" value rather than absent

Isn't it?

You can have Dependabot enabled, but turn off automatic PRs. You can then manually generate a PR for an auto-fixable issue if you want, or just do the fixes yourself and watch the issue number shrink.