fancyfredbot

The range of opinions is probably healthier than homogeneity. I think labelling people extremists and pushing them towards the centre would be pretty dystopian.

What is easier to change than people's opinions, is the two party political system which tends to resolve such questions to one of the two extremes based on one side achieving a tiny majority, rather than to the average which is usually a lot more sensible.

That's very true but unfortunately Anthropic have locked in contracts for so much compute that they absolutely need to expand beyond the corporations currently paying them.

Realistically they need to 3x their revenue to pay for their compute. While that's plausible, I'm not convinced that it can all come from developers. Many many developers are already using Claude. I think they need consumer, or some other market too.

I took it as a comment about voters than parties.

It didn't even occur to me that it was saying republicans and democrats are the same. That's just ridiculous ;-)

Edit: To clarify there's good evidence that people overestimate the degree to which people on the other side of the political divide hold extreme views by about a factor of two. We genuinely are less different than we think. It's not necessary for people to be the same for this to be true.

For people with IQ over 80, highlighting that people in different tribes are actually alike doesn't count as social commentary?

Not like the banks. Those are carefully scrutinized by large well funded regulators and auditors and subject to complex legal requirements developed over decades.

To be fair tether hasn't actually lost billions of dollars yet, whereas banks absolutely have. Overall though I don't feel inclined to trust most stable coins. The cryptography protects your virtual currency but the governance is what protects the assets backing them, and the governance looks weak.

Why is it showing me $749 excluding tax? Did the price increase by $50 since this was posted?

Some great writing here. The irony of the guy campaigning to delete a personal page having had his own page deleted is poignant. It's hard not to read something like identification with the aggressor into this.

They didn't pay the Nvidia tax

Makes sense now. Thank you!

I'm sorry if I'm being dense here but I can't see how that would work?

The spec on your GitHub says: "Two simultaneously-live resizable values never share a stack."

So I surely can't have a dynamic array of dynamic arrays share a single stack? That's an unbounded number of resizeable values sharing a stack?

You could make it work on a single stack but that would involve having non-contiguous memory for each inner array since you can add to any array in any order.

The spec implies that we need one stack per element of the outer dynamic array which would let you have contiguous memory for each inner array, but you wouldn't know how many stacks you needed at compile time.

Thanks!

I'm a bit confused about how you could decide the number of stacks at compile time. I can see you could see how many arrays are lexically in scope. However if the code puts one dynamic array inside another dynamic array I can get to an unbounded number of total stacks without ever needing more than two in lexical scope at once. Do you also add stacks at runtime? Like a stack of stacks?

What happens if the memory is freed in a different order to allocation? Does the language disallow that? Or does it get allowed but mean the stack can't shrink?

How are you deciding how many stacks to use?

Sad that that a "buy everything" strategy performs best. It's not a strategy which varies much based on other players behaviour which makes it hard to counter and therefore boring as everyone has to play that way. I guess where there's still room for adaptation is the auctions if the player landing on the space can't afford to buy. The bidding strategy here forces some player interaction and room for different strategies...

Mimo is very good.