Sysreq2
Appropriations is Congressional and specifics how much an agency will get over the fiscal year.
Apportionment is under the Executive and addresses when and how those funds are made available.
They are two distinct things.
Before anyone asks, no I don’t round up for the Boys and Girls Club at Taco Bell. I sometimes feel bad about it though.
1) Our debt is above GDP and interest is rising faster than GDP growth. Debt is fine when being used as leverage but we are upside down at the moment.
2) We don’t have the ability to issue more debt at the moment. The government has no money. They are using employee pension funds to meet obligations with a promissory note. We have negative cash flow and have run out of the ability to extend our line of credit until Congress raises the debt ceiling.
LLMs are great at certain tasks. Databases are better at certain tasks. Calculators too. While we could continually throw more and more compute at the problem, growing layers and injecting more data, wouldn’t it make more sense to just have an LLM call its own back-end calculator agent? When I ask it for obscure information maybe it should just pull from it’s own internal encyclopedia database.
Let LLMs do what they do well, but let’s not forget the decades that brought us here. Even the smartest human still uses a calculator, so why doesn’t an AI? The fact that it writes its own JavaScript is flashy as hell but also completely unnecessary and error prone.
If you don’t like Elon Musk that’s fine. But his companies get stuff done. Blue Origin has been around longer, has gotten more from the government (Yeah, really) and been getting a billion a year from Bezos with nothing to show for it. It’s insane how much SpaceX has done while everyone else has been doing nothing.
Everything else is just details.
Regarding the modern Progressive movement though, I find them a bit too authoritarian for my tastes. There are countless examples but classic Western liberalism is at odds with their ideology. They’ve fallen into the classic revolutionary entrapment of their own power being tied with continued upheaval. If you are not with them completely then you are the enemy. From the Google Manifesto to JK Rowling’s cancelling, they remind me of the mob during the French Revolution. They just eat their own and refuse to accept any kind of meaningful critique.
Liberalism requires debate, disagreement and questioning the status quo. I don’t see that amongst the modern Progressives. They would rather burn it down than build something better.
Ironically, I fear them gaining power as much as I do the religious right. Neither contains the capacity for building the coalitions needed for stable governance. I like moderates. Stability. Peace. Compromise. Mutual Respect. Empathy. I just don’t see those values in those circles.
Now that I’ve politely disagreed, I suppose it’s just a matter of time before someone comes along to insult me and prove my point.
Corporate greed and military spending aren’t up for debate though. We can bicker about guns and immigration policy all we want but some topics aren’t even on the table for discussion.
Every engineering company releases stuff like this. It’s not meant to change the world. It’s marketing to recruit other engineers who would find that problem interesting.
But the Government has to buy them from businesses that meet certain characteristics. Woman owned, etc. That’s a great thing, right?
In this case however, that female owned business is the guy who invented the things wife. Who he sells them to at a mark-up. Who then sells them to the government.
Economy of scale? Ya! They are the number one buyer and pay the most. Honestly, who cares though, it’s only a couple million a year. Drop in the bucket.
How did Boeing fail? Death by a thousand cuts. That same story probably plays out across the entire supppy chain. Every part, every product, every supplier. Compounded over and over again.
I have accounts for all three and will generally try to branch out to test them with each new update. Admittedly, I haven’t gotten to Grok yet, but Claude is far and away the best model at the moment. It’s not even close really.
The maxim of make it work and then make it work better probably applies. He has repeatedly said that since humans only need 2 eyes to drive, AI should too - but that completely ignores the neurological differences between a camera outputting a flat 2d image and the complex make up of our eyes. There is a lot happening there behind the scenes, abstracted away by our brain, that he discounts.
Anyways, yeah, I agree. My only concern is people turning against self-driving because of implementation failures in the short term. Self-driving is going to save lives. Let’s not throw the baby out with the bath water and discount the work being done by people who aren’t Elon. If you seperate FSD from the politics, the business, the fandom, it is an amazing piece of technology. A computer is now driving as well as a person. Like that’s insane. In a different circumstance we would be applauding it in amazement. That team has done amazing work.
You assert that 3 people died this week due to Tesla related fatalities in the US alone. That adds up to more than 150 per year! But considering that Tesla’s comprise 5% of the car market, that 150 is a drop in the bucket compared to the 43000 that die in car accidents in the US every single year.
Tesla’s fully autonomous self driving is about as safe as a regular person. Many of it’s “accidents” as shown by the various investigations have shown that “drivers” in the plurality of cases had several(>5) seconds to react but failed to do so.
The curious case of Tesla’s safety record will one day be a case study in every undergraduate business class. The naysayers want to see the company fail, the CEO fail, or the technology fail. But the problem is not the technology, but rather the people using it. It’s been long known that increasing protective equipment in sport decreases minor injury but paradoxically increase the likelihood of severe ones.
Why? Because people are lulled into a false sense of security. Individuals take risks they would not otherwise due to the inhibition of the natural feedback mechanism that would otherwise deter them from continuing to push the bounds. Since they keep getting away with it, they continue to push, only to discover that the failure mode has gone from mild to extreme.
Those small injuries are the warnings that keep you safe and prevent you from taking greater and greater risks.
Technology is like that. Cars are safer now than ever. Seat belts, crumple zones, air bags - and yet looking at the statistics you would never know it. This has led to urban legend like cars in the 1940s being “safer” due to their all steel construction. But this is not true.
What is true is that people drove slower in the 1940s. Most highway traversal occurred at a mere 40 miles per hour. A far cry from the 80 everyone does on the way to work today. As safety increases so too does our tolerance for risk.
Ultimately, that is the problem with self driving cars. They work too well. They unintentionally encourage drivers to take greater and greater risks. And they get away with it. Until suddenly. They don’t.
Someone mentioned that it’s not just Boeing who isn’t the company they used to be. It’s endemic through out American manufacturing. From the latest Boeing failure, Rocketdyne, Chevy and Ford. America doesn’t build anything any more. What it does build is overpriced and not well engineered.
‘Meeting Friday’ was the message. You completely ignored the rest. It was just extra padding (intentionally so). Maybe 2 words is too short. But can you honestly tell me that the majority of emails you receive is suscinct and to the point? Or do you simply skim them for highlights and extract what is relevant to you?
That’s really the take away I was trying to get at. People equate quantity to quality far too often. We send way more content than we need to out of fear that someone will equate less with bad.
We put to much emphasis on the look rather than the substance. People are afraid to send out an email with 2 words: Meeting Friday and instead pad it out with pleasantry and detail, context and importance, but none of that really matters.
This is the industry roadmap from 2022: https://irds.ieee.org/images/files/pdf/2022/2022IRDS_Litho.p... If you look at page 6 there is a nice table that kind of explains it.
Certain feature sizes have hit a point of diminishing returns, so they are finding new ways to increase performance. Each generation is better than the last but we have moved beyond simple shrinkage.
Comparing Intel’s 14A label to TSMCs 16A is meaningless without performance benchmarks. They are both just marketing terms. Like the Intel/AMD CPU wars. You can’t say one is better because the label says it’s faster. There’s so much other stuff to consider.
I guess I have to ask: why do you presume there exists an undetectable force that makes your equations work and not that the equations don’t account for everything?
Seems silly. You would never believe 85% of software bugs were caused by unseen, undetectable stochastic physics errors that only manifested as a system crash. The fact that doing the same thing over and over again produces the same result certainly doesn’t cement that theory in my mind.