torginus

I checked a few recent global elections of note, and it seems Polymarket isn't really good at predicting outcomes of those, but they called the 2024 Trump win pretty solidly months before, so my guess would be they are much more accurate on topics the US public is well informed on.

Good thing Elon Musk told us that AI will make saving for retirement pointless, as it seems all those retirement accounts with index funds are about to get nuked.

Yeah, but Bambu parts are extremely cheap considering their quality.

I don't care what they say. Having done resin printing, it's toxic and fiddly and you can very very easily ruin your machine. The auxiliary chemicals like isopropyl alcohol are toxic as well, and need to be changed quite regularly if you want to avoid your prints getting an oily sheen.

It also generates copious amount of hazardous waste. Anything that has to do with this degree of material safety hazards should not be a hobby.

Before resin printing, lots of people had a hobby doing resin casts, the forums are full of health-related horror stories, this thing can and will kill you over time.

Dunno about that, but my experience with AWS is their stuff generally works, the other big 2 doesn't.

Generally speaking, on AWS you can buy compute, storage, network and other basic 'goods' and just like a supermarket where you can get either flour and eggs, a cake mix or a ready-made cake, AWS is willing to serve it to you in various levels of ready-ness, and you can start at the level you want, and build your own layers on top if you don't like AWS's solutions.

And AWS's solutions are generally built like that as well, there's no magic to Lambda or Fargate or EKS, its just they run the same EC2s, but with some proprietary magic that lifts some complexity from your shoulders, at the cost of generally some markup, and loss of some otherwise desirable features.

But the core thing is that AWS's offerings are generally solid, so as AI evolves and companies become more willing to take on more complexity, they will move to lower level services, but not necessarily out of AWS itself.

Their core selling point is customer trust that their product works as advertised.

From my interactions with them, is that they really care about customer success, and everything including AI is a means to an end to them.

I think building a cool product with undefined reliability and capabilities, then selling fantasies about what it will possibly be able to do down the line isn't really what they do - or what their customers are paying for.

I am talking about current market realities. I am not saying compute is in demand, or what AI will or will not be able to do, tech companies who hold the purse strings do.

Your argument suggests that there's a hard cap on AI demand (AI can't do as much as hoped), but currently compute demand far outstrips supply, it's just companies can't pay for it - it's a cashflow problem.

In this analogy, gold would be compute. So the more accurate analogy, would be that there's plenty of gold underground, and there's plenty demand for it (as of now), it's that extracting it is so expensive that we might go broke before we can get the gold out.

And the point I'm making, is that shovels are sold at min. 5x markup, and the shovel company (Nvidia and others) has no interest in seeing the market collapse, and is willing to use its generous profits to prop it up.

I think if you use common sense reasoning you can see why the failure mode of AI financing predicted by AI skeptics is unlikely - that is, companies will be swimming in debt and are unable to pay for hardware.

The thing is, these AI GPUs are sold at insane markups - a 5090 was like $1700 MSRP, and a datacenter GPU can't cost like more than triple to make - its just that there's so much demand, that people are paying these markups; thast means these companies are flush with cash, and its in their best interest that their customers don't become insolvent, because then its back to selling GPUs to us rubes, who get sticker shock at 'even' a $1000 price tag.

Therefore they both have the ability and willingness to maintain this forever.

Demand also seems to be there in droves, so the only scenario I can imagine is if datacenter or power infra buildout becomes impossible - plausible, but not what people are worrying about right now.

My first car was a hand-me-down van from my dad. It was big and akward, but I mostly used it for regular car things, and it was kinda bad and difficult at those, but I could manage.

The fact that it did the things I wanted it to (barely), while allowing me to ignore 90% of the design intent behind it shows it was designed in an opinionated way, just not in the way I cared.

Same goes for C++.

My understanding is that thinks C++ sucks period (an uncontroversial opinion even among C++ devs).

His reasoning was that C was a pretty minimalist language introducing structured control flow and little else, yet it's flexibility and neutrality has allowed people to explore lots of approaches.

C++ on the other hand is highly opinionated, and a lot of its opinions are considered wrong or at least controversial (template metaprogramming, RAII, exceptions, diamond inheritance, just to name a few).

A lot of the C++ community doesn't use these features (for example Chrome, LLVM have exceptions turned off).

Jai on the other hand goes heavily into typed AST macros (along with a reasonably powerful type inference enigne), a very powerful extension of the language, that this language has gotten right - the feeling you get when looking at the docs is 'well, duh it obviously has to be done like this' - considering how long it took devs to arrive at this system suggests this is far less an obvious task than it looks like.

Other than this, what the language offers over C isn't much - it shares Odin's 'context' idea that you can inject an allocator or logger function and have your methods use that - which is kind of the point imo.

Blow, as outspoken and controversial a figure he is; seems to have designed a pretty unopiniated language - something designed for master programmers (like ones he has worked with in the games industry, who worked mostly in C) to express themselves, rather than a set of 'correct' opinions the language imposes on you.

Imo it's a shame it took so long to release, as I'm p. sure Jai would've been much more influential 2-3 decades ago or more, and would've had a good chance to dethrone C++.

The old JIT was a fork of a pared-back version of MSVC; this was for all platforms, except the .NET Compact framework, which was for embedded stuff, and it was its own fork.

There were other weird things like C++/CLI which was a full-fat MSVC fork used to compile C++ either into .NET IL or x86 code which could be embedded into .NET assemblies, but could still call into .NET code.

But what most people think of as .NET (Framework) was definitely using the old MSVC-based JIT

That is absolutely not true. Not historically, and not now. .NET's JIT has always been very good, bar a few qualifying statements.

It used to be based on MSVC, with the most expensive optimizations trimmed, things like loop hoisting, devirtualization, generally ones with long runtimes, or ones that required whole program visibility.

But otherwise it was competent, if you wrote code aware of these limitations, it could get very close to even C++, and even on naive code, it was always very competitive (with strange wildcards, that if you used raw pointers, which are an obscure C# feature, you could get code to be even faster, due to the compiler's heritage).

It also helped, that due to MS's nature; C# was meant to be used with MS frameworks, written by people who were aware of the compiler's quirks, which you could learn if you looked at these codebases.

Sure if yo measure against LLVM-compiled static languages, it falls short in certain scenarios, but it's been soldily in the pack of other GC languages like Java or Go, and always has been.

I don't get this; Bioware was bought from MS - another soulless megacorp (which for the record is suffering from the same issues today). During the time EA was 'running it into the ground', they released all but one of the core Mass Effect titles, and 3 Dragon Age games, all of which are considered to be good to excellent.