4 ms·
I think this is just the wrong way to go about learning things. There are 3 things to learn at any given time: 1. That which never changes i.e. humans, yourse
by bckr 4y ago
I think this is just the wrong way to go about learning things.
There are 3 things to learn at any given time:
1. That which never changes i.e. humans, yourself and others
2. What you need to know to succeed right now i.e. deeper in your current tools and systems, or those you'll need to use next month
3. Whatever intrigues you. Maybe this is what you're asking: what's new to be intrigued by?
To the latter, I would say to start learning machine learning if you haven't already.
- eternityforest 4y agoWhat's the best way to learn machine learning without a real GPU or a budget for cloud time? There's lots of demos and stuff that can run on low end CPUs, but is that close enough in terms of skill to what you'd actually be doing on the job to be worth it?
- 0x008 4y agoGoogle colab?
- hlfshell 4y agoUnfortunately this might not be the truth any longer, as it has adopted a new pricing model that is far stingier with gpu time and very confusing to properly track and predict.
- hanrelan 4y agoI think you can go far quite cheaply. Get your code working on smaller/toy models, and then when you want to test it on larger ones you can ship it over to a machine at one of the cheaper providers (vast.ai/jarvislabs etc) to give it a run before pausing/killing the machine. I've been porting Stable Diffusion (which isn't a small model) over to Elixir and as part of doing that have been starting/stopping my jarvislabs machine when I start/stop building. I've been spending about $1/day without trying to be efficient. Also, fast.ai is a great resource for learning ML, I highly recommend it.
- brad0 4y agoFor 1. specifically, I like this quote from Jeff Bezos: > I very frequently get the question: "What's going to change in the next 10 years?" And that is a very interesting question; it's a very common one. I almost never get the question: "What's not going to change in the next 10 years?" And I submit to you that that second question is actually the more important of the two -- because you can build a business strategy around the things that are stable in time. ... [I]n our retail business, we know that customers want low prices, and I know that's going to be true 10 years from now. They want fast delivery; they want vast selection. > It's impossible to imagine a future 10 years from now where a customer comes up and says, "Jeff, I love Amazon; I just wish the prices were a little higher." "I love Amazon; I just wish you'd deliver a little more slowly." Impossible. https://www.inc.com/jeff-haden/20-years-ago-jeff-bezos-said-this-1-thing-separates-people-who-achieve-lasting-success-from-those-who-dont.html https://www.inc.com/jeff-haden/20-years-ago-jeff-bezos-said-...
- azinman2 4y agoInteresting, because I wish Amazon actually had better curation (aka less selection). There’s a lot of crap on there right now.
- tracker1 4y agoI'd add that improving logistics in terms of bundling packages and slowing shipping to handle reduced shipments would do a lot in terms of reducing an ecological footprint (not that I'm big on woke environmentalism). +1 on reducing options and improving curation... I've gotten in the habit of nearly always selecting "sold by amazon" option in searching... if nothing else, at least the return process is less likely to be a hassle.
- amerkhalid 4y agoFunny because I think we are at a point where I wish averages prices were a little higher on Amazon, by eliminating all the junk and fake stuff off it.
- sunpar 4y ago