What I'd like is a good bidirectional Latin <-> English AI translation model, ideally downloadable (though even an online version with an interface like DeepL - which doesn't do latin - would be better than the current situation of having nothing at all). It probably wouldn't be on par with the best human translators, at least not at the beginning, but that's not a problem.
Readit News> Consider these criteria when you’re choosing a cofounder -- it’s one of the most important decisions you’ll make, and it’s often done fairly randomly. You want someone you know well, not someone you just met at a cofounder dating thing.
And yet...
For that matter, I'd even say that it can be dangerous to choose cofounders within one's friend circle. It tends to make people more blind to lacks and red flags (for the needs of a tech business) that would clearly be recognized as disqualifying if selecting someone who isn't a friend, on the basis of a focused rational evaluation.
EntrePrescott commented on Chicken Chicken Chicken: Chicken Chicken (2002) [pdf] isotropic.org/papers/chic... · Posted by u/luu
chicken chicken :-( …… (*)
________
(*) edit: chickenshit: I just spent some time putting together a chicken story made of mostly chicken-related unicode emojis, math/logic operators and "chicken", but the hacker news site apparently doesn't really support emojis and removed most of them, thus ruining the story.
So I pasted it here with emojis: https://paste.ee/p/XbUG3
> they would usually not entertain us and would always claim that they were going to build everything by themselves.
I'd assume it's an attempt to have exclusivity (and thus a shot at exponential growth) instead of targeting slow and stable growth ? From your description alone, it feels your business model is more targeted to small business than startups (which is a good thing IMO)
> I'd assume it's an attempt to have exclusivity (and thus a shot at exponential growth) instead of targeting slow and stable growth ?
My guess from the context would rather be that they think (rightly or not) that they can do it cheaper themselves or by paying someone else a fixed cost rather than giving out a profit share like the pricing model in the FAQ says:
> Our pricing model is based on the principle that we take certain percentage of the total profit our SaaS lets you drive home.
Many reasons, some of them not technical (e.g. historical baggage and closely guarded IPs), but mainly because GPUs are by far not as standardized and "open" as CPUs. On CPUs, the instruction set is basically the abstraction layer to the underlying hardware, on GPUs the abstraction layer is a software driver instead, and that needs to be much more abstract because the differences between the various GPU architectures are much bigger than the differences between ISAs like x86 vs ARM.
Having said that: your idea absolutely makes sense, and I would love to see shader compilers merged into regular compiler toolchains, so that CPU and GPU code can be easily mixed in the same source file (technically it's definitely possible, but this would also be the death of "3D APIs as we know them" - those would basically be merged into language stdlibs, and it would require many parties working closely together - so there's a risk of the 'many cooks' problem).
But give it a decade or so, and hopefully we'll get exactly that :)
> I would love to see shader compilers merged into regular compiler toolchains
they are already using the same compiler infrastructure: pretty much every relevant shader or otherwise GPU oriented compiler out there is based on LLVM. As for the parts of the toolchains that are different: that's simply because GPUs and CPUs are inherently very different.
> so that CPU and GPU code can be easily mixed in the same source file
what advantage would it have to mix together into the same source file the code for totally different targets with totally different parallelism models? I find it cleaner and simpler (apart from maybe trivial one-liner shaders that you can embed in a string) to keep them separated. Also makes debugging much easier.
Lager also means camp, as in KonzentrationsLAGER (concentration camp)
One could put together a phrase where that one would clearly come out when speaking it out, though not (or not as clearly) in written form, e.g.:
"Frag mal den Wirt, welche Alkohol-Konzentration s'Lager-Bier hat"
I know that quote is not yours, but it is the claim we are discussing and that you are defending.
> I avoid the term "worth" for precisely that reason: that it tends to trigger by equivocation and thus sidetrack
You're the only one engaged in side tracking.
> that sounds like you being triggered at the colloquial use of "worth" for what a person can get paid on the job market, because you conflate that by equivocation with some philosophical, emotional or moral notion of personal "worth"
Nope.
> The job market is not at all about what people are "worth" in those senses but only about what "market worth" not they as persons but their work time has, i.e. for what value they can expect to find someone else who will be consenting to give their money in exchange for that work time.
Yep.
Except, markets are never perfect. It is not unusual that individuals who can produce a lot of value for companies can struggle to find employment that provides commensurate pay. The reasons for this are diverse. One example is the explicite collusion that Google engaged in. Other examples are Cargo cult disfunctional hiring practices, ageism, racism, sexism, elitism, nepotism, ...etc the list goes on and on.
My whole point is that "What people are worth and what they can get paid are not synonymous".
Edit: In this specific case, a major factor is the bargaining issues that arise with "joint employment". The associated ruling allows workers to bargain more directly with the entity for whom they are producing value.
You project some personal conception of "worth" of x as if it was some normative and objective value inherent by essence to each category x would belong to. It's not.
For whatever x, your estimation of the "worth" of x may differ from mine or that of any third person. The estimation of what x (be it a product, a service, or work time for a job) is worth to someone is inherently totally subjective to the eye of the beholder (be they seller or buyer, e.g. employee or employer… or external observer) and situation: The price that you'd be willing to pay out of your pocket for someone else's development work is likely much lower to the price you would ask for you doing the same work.
You're free to set your personal subjective estimation of what your work time is worth at, say, a gazillion dollars p.a. For whatever reasons, justified or not to others. Doesn't change the fact that it may or may not not be subjectively "worth" that much to people who are in principle interested in buying that work (though not necessarily at that price). For whatever reasons of their own.
There is no such thing as an inherent objective "worth", only subjective "worth" in the eye of each subjective beholder. All of that is totally subjective.
Objectivity of "worth" only exists in the purely observative statistical sense: In particular, "market worth" is simply the term for the value at which statistically two sides (each with their own subjective "worth" estimation) mutually consenting to the transaction find together.
> If they can't find better paying job, then that is exactly how much they worth on the job market.
Given that Google et al were found to be colluding to limit job mobility and wages in the tech industry, this is a bit of a rich take.
What people are worth and what they can get paid are not synonymous.
First of all, that line you quote isn't from me.
Then: Ugly as that Google thing was, its intent and effect was to prevent competition ("poaching") by a handful of big competitors. Ugly, sure, but that only represented a small fraction of the tech industry. Equating these "Google et al" of that context with the job market of the tech industry is just absurd. That being said, de-facto-cartel behavior like that on the employer side or like unions on the employee side do make the job market somewhat less of a free market.
> What people are worth and what they can get paid are not synonymous.
Aside from the fact that - again - there was no mention of "worth" in my comment, that sounds like you being triggered at the colloquial shortened use of "someone's worth" for what a person can get paid on the job market, because you conflate that by equivocation with some philosophical, emotional or moral notion of personal "worth" (all of which are subjective btw) and feel indignation at the projected idea that those two totally different things would be equal for some people. Well guess what: they aren't. The job market is not at all about what people are "worth" in those senses but only about what "market worth" not they as persons but their work time has, i.e. for what value they can expect to find someone else who will be consenting to give their money in exchange for that work time.
I avoid the term "worth" for precisely that reason: that it tends to trigger by equivocation and thus sidetrack from the rational economic background of the link between individual salaries and the job market, when in reality nobody is arguing that the "market worth" of the work someone is selling would be equal to the (philosophical, societal, or whatever other, let alone financial) "worth" of that person themself. While the former is sometimes colloquially shortened to "someone's market worth", the job market is not about the "worth" of people but about the level at which, statistically, they sell their work time i.e. at which they find someone who consents to pay that much for it.
then that is exactly how much they worth on the job market.
The job market is not our god. Life is not some kind of economic art project.
> The job market is not our god
Thank the FSM it isn't. But then again, a god is not what determines the price of any given type of work. That would be not a god but… salary negotiations (at the individual level) and more generally the job market (in the larger statistical view)
> Life is not some kind of economic art project.
Neither are salaries. Nothing artsy about them. Instead, they are simply determined by the level at which two sides find together in agreement to the exchange of work against money for a price they mutually agree upon. "Job Market" is just the word for the statistical view across all individual such transactions.
Li Qiang is head of government as premier and is chief executive of the Chinese government.
If you ask a Chinese citizen what their biggest problem is, many of them would say too much federalism. Individual provinces have more individual authority than even US States and most controversial policies (1 child, social credit, lockdowns) you hear about are provincial and not federal policies.
Uhm: the king of England (which incidentally happens to be king of quite a number of other territories that have yet to fully emancipate themselves from monarchy) is NOT the head of government in any of the the territories he is king of, but merely the head of state… which in constitutional monarchies is a rather formal show pomp role with very little political power. Conversely, the head of government in the UK with actual executive power is the Prime Minister, not the king.