Certhas

60 ms·

751.
by Certhas 6y ago
I think long term it has enormous potential to take over as _the_ language for modelling. The reason is that for every hyper optimized climate model there are a thousand small or medium models. For these Julia offers sufficient performance
752.
by Certhas 6y ago
This comment section is remarkable. If the name change is perceived to be in order to be welcoming to corporate, nobody has a problem with that. Imagine if the name change was perceived to be in order to be more welcoming to underrepresente
753.
by Certhas 6y ago
It's a question of ressources. Just like it's hard to see Microsoft becoming irrelevant simply because they have so much cash that they can just keep trying. What exactly was Tesla first on? They managed decent range but there EVs
754.
by Certhas 6y ago
Or If we get a universal income, the cost of personal cleaners goes way up, and it suddenly makes way more financial sense to automate such routine jobs...
755.
by Certhas 6y ago
VW is the company with the third largest R&D budget, after Amazon and almost tied with Alphabet. More than ten times larger than Tesla. Over recent years they built a substantial tech base for EVs that they are on the brink of introduci
756.
by Certhas 6y ago
We kind of need a version of CC-BY-NC. Preferably with a governance model that then distributes money from commercial licenses to contributors... Or government funded Open source. There is no reason for society to try to do something as int
757.
by Certhas 6y ago
Hydrogen to avoid curtailment is key. Hydrogen is super inefficient. But if you would be dumping the energy otherwise that doesn't matter.
758.
by Certhas 6y ago
Seems like mostly also strictly better names. Though being German replacing master with leader is ironic in our cultural context (the literal translation of leader is Führer...).
759.
by Certhas 6y ago
No, one just needs to live in a racist society with a racist history. I am not a fan of ignoring context but I get why American companies, with their specific history would want to do that.
760.
by Certhas 6y ago
That's not what the parent said. The TCP request includes info that deanonimizes the request. Or put another way, a TCP request sent by your app from my computer can not be considered anonymous.
761.
by Certhas 6y ago
You're saying we should just trust the journalists to be truthful, no need for us to be able to check the journalists work.
762.
by Certhas 6y ago
I think this is the critical point. The marginal utility is quite clear though: Readers can check all sorts of claims for themselves by looking up public details about the person. E.g. are they really a psychiatrist working at X as the repo
763.
by Certhas 6y ago
I claimed fundamental principles, not fundamental properties. :) I think there are a number of ways to add neutrino mass to the standard model without introducing new principles. But this is at the end just semantics. We don't know by
764.
by Certhas 6y ago
How does the fact that we need a small modification to the Standard Model to account for Neutrino masses contradict what I said?
765.
by Certhas 6y ago
We were talking about the rights of witnesses?
766.
by Certhas 6y ago
That's why I was talking about the physics underlying terrestrial experiments explicitly. The intersection of GR and QFT does not appear here. We all desperately wish it were different of course. A new accelerator is also exceedingly u
767.
by Certhas 6y ago
This gets rolled out all the time. Except that that is not Hossenfelders argument. In the very article she is quoted with: “We do know that the only way to find answers is by experiment and the only place to find them is where we haven’t be
768.
by Certhas 6y ago
Germany does have such protection. Parent was probably wildly speculating: https://de.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Auskunftsverweigerungsrecht
769.
by Certhas 6y ago
The logical structure of your statement is: Are five apples and two oranges really more food than two oranges? You have apples, but you still only have two oranges.
770.
by Certhas 6y ago
The article actually addresses that. The precise number is not the point but the ballpark is: "In terms of actual cost to DeepMind (a subsidiary of Google’s parent company) to run the experiment, there are other factors that need to be
771.
by Certhas 6y ago
It is not obvious that a two level model is a cleaner way to think about todays memory access, which has 4-5 levels of caches before you even hit possibly NUMA RAM, then an SSD, then a HDD and then maybe big datasets that can only be access
772.
by Certhas 6y ago
The true spherical cow model of circuits. I do wonder though if this is really the mechanism behind the observed N^.5 law. As you allude to with Bekenstein, just because there is an eventual physical limit doesn't mean the structure of
773.
by Certhas 6y ago
There is the idea that you should treat memory access as an O(N^.5) operation: https://github.com/emilk/ram_bench I am not sure if any serious academic work has been built on this model, but it's a nice short hand
774.
by Certhas 6y ago
They do: https://www.dell.com/de-de/shop/cty/pdp/spd/xps-13-9300-lapt...
775.
by Certhas 6y ago
It very very clearly implies that other software sucks and theirs sucks less. If there would be any ambiguity in this they explicitly bash genetic "other hackers" all throughout their philosophy page. It's not exactly subtle.
776.
by Certhas 6y ago
Well if you read their philosophy page it's half about how they want to write cool software focusing on advanced users, and half about how everyone else is a misguided idiot with wrong ideas... I mean it's kind of in the name. I a
777.
by Certhas 6y ago
Technical soundness is not light peer review. It's the core of peer review. Everything else is editorializing and selling "importance". As a matter of fact you can get plenty of crap into the higher tier Science/Nature j
778.
by Certhas 6y ago
Hey I am not saying people weren't perfectly in line to ask about this and raise the point/push for only releasing at feature parity. That's not what I recall the tone was though, heck even in this thread people are claiming
779.
by Certhas 6y ago
Fair, initial communication focused around a fast timeline and didn't mention extensions. Given the history that was clearly a mistake. I still think the reaction was a bit hysterical. Mozilla had very good reasons (conveniently ignore
780.
by Certhas 6y ago
My understanding: They are not changing the extension model, Firefox Preview simply doesn't have the full extension API of old Firefox implemented yet. Some people are always ready to assume the worst when it comes to Mozilla and threw

More ›