Readit News logoReadit News
qqtt commented on Microplastics shed by food packaging are contaminating our food, study finds   cnn.com/2025/06/24/health... · Posted by u/gortok
westward · 2 months ago
And it wasn't until the 1970s that the US banned lead paint in houses. 200 years after Ben Franklin wrote that it was bad.

Like, clearly plastics are bad. And yet, humans like the convenience, the utility.

qqtt · 2 months ago
Also, as a reminder, leaded gas (avgas) is still used all over the United States pumping lead into the environment. If you live near an airport you are especially at increased risk of lead exposure in the environment.
qqtt commented on The Document Culture of Amazon (2021)   justingarrison.com/blog/2... · Posted by u/Tomte
huntaub · 5 months ago
It's interesting, after my time at Amazon (8 years) -- I struggled to visualize decisions without a document, because you get so used to reviewing things in that way. However, it's EXTREMELY heavy-handed. People will give you comments on the structure of your document (to "raise the bar") instead of the content of the document, and often you can't get documents reviewed until they are aesthetically in the right place for people to digest them. Ultimately, I think it makes sense when you're at a large organization with high attrition (such that you need to keep track of all of the decisions which are made), but otherwise, it's probably not worth it to do a formal document writing process.
qqtt · 5 months ago
I don’t think that is specific to Amazon. If anything I think the whole paradigm of “over analyzing communications with vacuous update suggestions that don’t matter” is probably the most consistent thread I’ve found in all of corporate America. I’ll never forget early in my career we had huddled around a coworkers computer with our entire team including senior manager writing an email to a VP and the senior manager was making punctuation and the most inane wording updates you can imagine. I once thought there is no way the absurdity of the cost to benefit of that situation would be topped, but how naive I was - turns out generally companies seemingly can’t avoid that kind of atmosphere.
qqtt commented on A few words about FiveThirtyEight   natesilver.net/p/a-few-wo... · Posted by u/JumpCrisscross
qqtt · 6 months ago
As someone who was super interested in the 538-style of election coverage in 2008, I've kind of fallen "out of love" so to speak with election models and forecasting in general. I'm not really convinced about what it adds to the conversation around elections. We can all look at various polls and get an assessment of who is generally ahead. Weighted polling aggregators and forecasting models just collect all these polls and spit out some data. It's easy to hand wave and think some new information is being revealed, but ultimately it is just a "garbage in garbage out" situation - you are entering polls as input, some hand waving is going on, and you get some forecast as a result.

I think part of my cynicism comes in the wake of the 2016 election, in which the forecast rightfully counted some scenarios in which either candidate could win, upon which conclusion of the model was basically "the result fits in with the forecast, because either candidate could have won according to the model" - in which case I personally concluded, if no matter what the result, we can always just say "the candidate who won could always have won given the forecast" - what are we really adding to the conversation here? We can simply look at polls and understand who is generally ahead, and not be any better or worse off.

qqtt commented on How I use LLMs as a staff engineer   seangoedecke.com/how-i-us... · Posted by u/gfysfm
doug_durham · 7 months ago
I've had exactly the opposite experience with generating idiomatic code. I find that the models have a lot of information on the standard idioms of a particular language. If I'm having to write in a language I'm new in, I find it very useful to have the LLM do an idiomatic rewrite. I learn a lot and it helps me to get up to speed more quickly.
qqtt · 7 months ago
I wonder if there is a big disconnect partially due to the fact that people are talking about different models. The top tier coding models (sonnet, o1, deepseek) are all pretty good, but it requires paid subscriptions to make use of them or 400GB of local memory to run deepseek.

All the other distilled models and qwen coder and similar are a large step below the above models in terms of most benchmarks. If someone is running a small 20GB model locally, they will not have the same experience as those who run the top of the line models.

qqtt commented on Nvidia’s $589B DeepSeek rout   finance.yahoo.com/news/as... · Posted by u/rcarmo
ezoe · 7 months ago
I really don't understand the market thinks Nvidia is losing its value.

If DeepSeek reduce the required computational resources, we can pour more computational resources to improve it further. There's nothing bad about more resources.

qqtt · 7 months ago
Well you have to keep in mind that Nvidia has a 3 trillion dollar valuation. That kind of heavy valuation comes with heavy expectations about future growth. Some of those assumptions about future Nvidia growth are their ability to maintain their heavy growth rates, for very far into the future.

Training is a huge component of Nvidia's projected growth. Inference is actually much more competitive, but training is almost exclusively Nvidia's domain. If Deepseek's claims are true, that would represent a 10x reduction in cost for training for similar models (6 million for r1 vs 60 million for something like o1).

It is absolutely not the case in ML that "there is nothing bad about more resources". There is something very bad - cost. And another bad thing - depreciation. And finally, another bad thing - the fact that new chips and approaches are coming out all the time, so if you are on older hardware you might be missing out. Training complex models for cheaper will allow companies to potentially re-allocate away from hardware into software (ie, hiring more engineering to build more models, instead of less engineers and more hardware to build less models).

Finally, there is a giant elephant in the room that it is very unclear if throwing more resources at LLM training will net better results. There are diminishing returns in terms of return on investment in training, especially with LLM-style use cases. It is actually very non-obvious right now how pouring more compute specifically at training will result in better LLMs.

qqtt commented on AMD Instinct MI325X to Feature 256GB HBM3E Memory, CDNA4-Based MI355X with 288GB   videocardz.com/newz/amd-i... · Posted by u/kristianp
roenxi · 10 months ago
The part here I find funny is that AMD's market cap currently sits at @ 2x Intel's so the analysts of the world obviously think they're sitting on something. And yet they are still in headlines as the market underdog.

For anyone who doesn't follow AMD at all (good move, their consumer support for compute leaves scars) they appear to have a strategy of targeting the server market in hopes of scooping out the high-profit part of the GPGPU world. Hopefully that does well for them, but based on my years of regret at being an AMD customer watching the AI revolution zoom by, I'd be hesitant about that translating to good compute experiences on consumer hardware. I assume the situation is much improved from what I was used to, but I don't trust them to see supporting small users as a priority.

qqtt · 10 months ago
When it comes to comparing market cap, the more apt business relevant to AMD's MI line is Nvidia's data center division, and investors are probably rightly assessing that AMD will not dent Nvidia's market position any time soon. That said, AMD's data center GPU is growing at an extremely healthy pace and enjoys high profit margins, so they have proven their ability to execute in this space to a degree and as a business it shows a promising future.

When looking at the market cap, there are three main pillars of valuation - revenue growth, profit growth, and net income. If all three are growing, you are an industry darling. If two are growing, you are still likely to be valued highly. If you have only one, you are much riskier. If you have none, it's a red flag.

As of the latest earnings report, AMD profit, revenue and net income are all increasing. Intel, they are all decreasing. If analysts assume trends hold, AMD can grow into its valuation and Intel is currently heading towards being worth nothing unless they change their business. Simply put, a business that is losing all three of revenue, profit margin, and net income is simply headed on the wrong path for investors, and will be punished in an outsized way when it comes to predicting it's future value (ie, market cap).

qqtt commented on Google won't be mandating a strict return-to-office plan   entrepreneur.com/business... · Posted by u/christhecaribou
cush · a year ago
I know multiple people who worked at Amazon (I say worked because they've recently quit) who would log two of their three weekly badges by going in the office at 11:59pm, and again at 12:01 am. Their team, managers, and collaborators never actually expected them at their desks. It was all to appease this mandate.

It's not surprising that Amazon has moved to 5 days a week despite so many people gaming the system and not actually caring about being in person. There's likely some algorithm driving this entire movement that doesn't take into account any of the real nuance that team dynamics requires, let alone taking into account that there are tangible benefits to remote work.

qqtt · a year ago
I honestly don't think there is any algorithm. For all the bluster and commitment to being "data driven", none of the companies I've seen mandate RTO have provided any sort of data-driven reason why it needs to happen. Amazon's policy might as well be "Jassy feels it in his gut that RTO is better for the company so we are doing it".

All the communication of RTO invokes the most fanciful and vague references to "magical hallway conversations" and "increased collaboration" without a single data point to back up any of the claims.

It has been almost humorous to watch such stalwarts of "data driven decision making" turn up a giant goose egg with respect to actual evidence on such a huge, impactful, and far reaching decision.

qqtt commented on Supreme Court rules ex-presidents have immunity for official acts   apnews.com/article/suprem... · Posted by u/_rend
HaZeust · a year ago
>"The legality of the disposition matrix at large can still be tested and re-tested depending on the specific actions of the executive branch."

Ha! So far it's had a pretty good history, and 4 American citizens have been killed from it.

- Anwar al-Awlaki - Abdulrahman al-Awlaki - Samir Khan - Jude Kenan Mohammad

Their due process, as enumerated in the constitution was conclusively violated; and only one (Anwar) was targeted due to involvement in Al-Qaeda.

qqtt · a year ago
I encourage you to read the linked decision I referenced which references this exact case:

https://ecf.dcd.uscourts.gov/cgi-bin/show_public_doc?2012cv1...

The judge ruled there was no violation of their constitutional rights, explicitly because Congress was involved in authorizing military action against the wider threat and specifically in this case Congress was in the approval process for authorizing individual targets.

There was no violation of checks and balances here. That is not to say other uses of the so-called "disposition matrix" might be challenged in the future, but at least in the cases of these individuals, the courts have ruled that no rights were violated.

qqtt commented on Supreme Court rules ex-presidents have immunity for official acts   apnews.com/article/suprem... · Posted by u/_rend
ceejayoz · a year ago
> For your hypothetical situation to arise, Congress would have to declare members of Congress themselves as valid military targets.

Or just add them to the https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Disposition_Matrix.

"As reported previously, United States citizens may be listed as targets for killing in the database. Suspects are not formally charged of any crime nor offered a trial in their defense. Obama administration lawyers have asserted that U.S. citizens alleged to be members of Al Qaeda and said to pose an "imminent threat of violent attack" against the United States may be killed without judicial process. The legal arguments of U.S. officials for this policy were leaked to NBC News in February 2013, in the form of briefing papers summarizing legal memos from October 2011."

qqtt · a year ago
A relevant decision by a Federal judge regarding the legality of the disposition matrix, concerning specifically US citizens abroad:

https://ecf.dcd.uscourts.gov/cgi-bin/show_public_doc?2012cv1...

It's an interesting read, but part of the argument was that there were Congressional checks and balances in place for security threat review and congress authorized force against the group in question which essentially gave the executive branch authority to add the specific targets in question.

The legality of the disposition matrix at large can still be tested and re-tested depending on the specific actions of the executive branch.

qqtt commented on Supreme Court rules ex-presidents have immunity for official acts   apnews.com/article/suprem... · Posted by u/_rend
riskable · a year ago
> The President is ultimately largely beholden to Congress. The government cannot sink into a dictatorship without the explicit approval of the majority of Congress.

This is nonsense. The President can just assassinate all of their political rivals in Congress that would hold them to account. Before this ruling there was an assumption that any such actions would be prosecuted after the President was no longer in office (assuming they didn't have enough power to interfere with a free election). Now that can't realistically happen.

There's a reason why folks are saying this ruling, "paves the way to a dictatorship"!

qqtt · a year ago
This is not really true though. Congress is responsible for granting authority to the President regarding valid military targets. This is why drone strikes are only legal against targets recognized by Congress as security threats. It cannot realistically happen for the President to start targeting individuals outside of Congressional authority.

For your hypothetical situation to arise, Congress would have to declare members of Congress themselves as valid military targets.

u/qqtt

KarmaCake day1402June 16, 2021View Original