DannyBee

63 ms·

451.
by DannyBee 2y ago
"There have been continuous efficiency savings innovations for both training and inference over the last few years." I'm aware - i've run the relevant teams at large scale companies like Google :) Is your claim anyone ha
452.
by DannyBee 2y ago
This is definitely one view, but not sure I buy it at all. History is littered with things that were made orders of magnitude better, people who claimed nobody would be happy until that happened, and then nobody writ large cared . Tech in p
453.
by DannyBee 2y ago
No idea in this case, but often, Deloitte is! See, e.g, https://www.justice.gov/opa/pr/deloitte-touche-agrees-pay-14... https://news.bloomberglaw.com/ip-law/deloitte-sued-over-clai... https:
454.
by DannyBee 2y ago
There are lots of good examples of adoption despite non invention. Ironically, Typescript is not the best one. I can go into great detail - i was overseeing production programming languages at Google at the time, but getting to Typescript
455.
by DannyBee 2y ago
First, here is no data or evidence to suggest this is the case, so not sure why you are trying to make up excuses for them? Second, zstd is fully deterministic in multithreaded cases. It does not matter what threading you select, it will ou
456.
by DannyBee 2y ago
They don't exactly release this data, as you know, which is why it's so volatile - nobody has any real idea, just best guesses, and lots of different smart people have lots of different opinions.. But i agree in practice that over
457.
by DannyBee 2y ago
That only works until it's good enough that nobody cares about the difference.
458.
by DannyBee 2y ago
Inference was already cheapish - businesses already can run gpt-like models by themselves. NVIDIA sales are not driven by inference spending, but training spend. While sure, maybe now people spend more on inference, NVIDIA was not an inv
459.
by DannyBee 2y ago
Let me start by reiterating - zstd is a great option. I think zstd level 5-10 would have been an awesome choice. I love zstd - it is a great algorithm that really hits the sweet spot for most users between really fast and good compression
460.
by DannyBee 2y ago
Agreed fully.
461.
by DannyBee 2y ago
zopfli is the wrong thing to use here. If you want an example of where these things go badly: the standard compression level for rpms on redhat distros is zstd level 19. This has all the downsides of other algorithms - it's super slow
462.
by DannyBee 2y ago
Correct - it is just looking for matches harder, and encoding harder.
463.
by DannyBee 2y ago
I can speak to this - there is no meaningful decompression effect across an insane set of tested data at Google and elsewhere. Zopfli was invented prior to brotli Zopfli is easiest to think of as something that just tries harder than gzip
464.
by DannyBee 2y ago
You can't practically validate it. This is why it's important not just to ask about previous results. This is also why you see so many "solve this random programming problem" type interviews - they hope (wrongly) that it
465.
by DannyBee 2y ago
Fenwick trees are really interesting - I was implementing graph layout algorithms a few weeks ago, and it turns out they exactly answer the question of how many edges cross between two layers of a bipartite graph drawn with straight lines[1
466.
by DannyBee 2y ago
" but your reply comes off as an emotional kneejerk." Lots of these come by, it gets tiring to try to provide detailed critiques of all of them. Feel free to go through comment history and see the last one of these to come along
467.
by DannyBee 2y ago
I'm very confused what magic you believe will achieve what has not so far been achieved. I'm also confused why you believe LLVM didn't start out the exact same way? I say this as one of the main people responsible for workin
468.
by DannyBee 2y ago
Xcode is the reason i've never written true native mac apps. Ever. I program hobby stuff in lots of environments and languages depending on how i'm feeling. I have no trouble starting up Rider, PyCharm, Visual Studio, VSCode, wha
469.
by DannyBee 2y ago
"They were dismissed with prejudice." Lucky him, as his pardon doesn't cover them. But he could still be charged at the state level, and at the federal level with any other crime.
470.
by DannyBee 2y ago
The text is now up - https://www.justice.gov/pardon/media/1386096/dl There is nothing here that would prevent him from being charged with murder for hire, or even other drug crimes. He was only pardoned as to
471.
by DannyBee 2y ago
and now that the text is there- https://www.justice.gov/pardon/media/1386096/dl You can see, this was simply a pardon for his existing convictions, no uncharged crimes, not even things related to these crimes
472.
by DannyBee 2y ago
It is now there, see - https://www.justice.gov/pardon/media/1386096/dl He was not pardoned for any crimes not charged, and therefore could still be charged.
473.
by DannyBee 2y ago
Why nitpick? Do you think you've added something to the discussion here?
474.
by DannyBee 2y ago
They unfortunately have not released the text yet. It should eventually pop up here: https://www.justice.gov/pardon/clemency-recipients (among other places)
475.
by DannyBee 2y ago
Yes, i'm aware - there are federal murder statutes, but they are mostly about murder of federal police officers, hate crime murders, etc. However, murder for hire is also federal crime - see 18 USC 1958 and the DOJ CRM on this: https:
476.
by DannyBee 2y ago
Even if correct, he would still be chargeable at the state level in any related state. The only thing it would protect him against would be the federal murder for hire statute (18 USC 1958). I doubt the pardon will be considered to cover th
477.
by DannyBee 2y ago
To be fair - he was not pardoned for that, he could still be charged for it. He was only pardoned for crimes related to drugs.
478.
by DannyBee 2y ago
Ironically, he was only pardoned for drug related crimes, so he could still be charged with murder related ones if they were not dropped with prejudice (i didn't look) This is all AFAIK, they haven't released the text broadly yet,
479.
by DannyBee 2y ago
Don't worry - jefferson never actually said this because he wasn't a complete idiot. Don't take my word for it though, the monticello folks looked into it too - https://www.monticello.org/research-education&#x
480.
by DannyBee 2y ago
He never actually said it, either.

More ›