carbotaniuman

Theory isn't really all that applicable to this though - in theory nothing is stopping anyone from writing all code in assembly, but obviously that doesn't happen.

I think more practically cars have adding driver assistance feature for a while now - more cameras, blind spot monitoring, ultrasound for parking, lane drift indicators.

It is therefore not unreasonable to assume that adding more sensors is helpful (but even the old adage of more data is better than less would probably say that).

I don't think std::span is bounds checked. Try again.

Cool, let me know how to improve the code security on my vendor compiler then, I'll be waiting.

I've used vendor-specific C++ compilers with no bounds checking and a barely conforming stdlib, so by your logic C++ has zero bounds checking... Defaults matter!

There is no proof that humans are just glorified Turing machines and even as a nonreligious person, I find such a statement to be as lacking in evidence as those that claim humanity has some soul or similar that cannot be replicated.

The actual logic of gggp's statement also doesn't make any sense. We as humans also under and overestimate the soundness of programs.

Sometimes, a perfectly fine solution is massaged to better adhere to best practices because we can't convince ourselves that it's correct. Rust requires that we convince the compiler, and then we know it's correct via the compiler's proofs, instead of requiring us to do the proof all the time.

The ML one seems to not be piracy from a legal POV.

One way you can think of this is speeding up the "slowest programming language". And removing/reducing blocking calls has benefits for languages like Ruby too.

Does the functional equality being impossible to determine thing work for math problems? I know it works for computable functions, but math functions are pure and total so it seems easier.

I'm sure the US government would have been real keen on you reading Kremlin news source 40 year ago...

This is from the company that just made the Apple Vision Pro. I don't see any reason they couldn't do limited forays into enterprise.

But you've heard of YC :P

What incentive would there be for a drug company to undertake a drug program that has a negative expected value? Ultimately, someone has to pay the cost, society just decides if and where.

Sadly they're just an investor in that company - misinformation travels quickly. The era of anime dystopian megacorps is not upon us yet thankfully.

> There is this insidious cognitive bias in (software?) engineers to only consider the happy path when thinking about the consequences of their actions.

This applies to buying off the shelf software (and other things) too. Vendor provided software is not immune from bugs or shortcomings or terrible vendors.

The tradeoff is you lock some of those gains down in safer assets. Probably the wrong choice for retirement earlier on, but if you need money during an economic crisis, say you got laid off, then that might change how it's viewed.

I feel like if you're working at a startup, you value some things more than just straight cash. Hour for hour, I'm fairly certain FAANG pays more than all but a few startups.

What's the point of not supporting the TLS changes? A lot of the HTTP/3 holdup in other libraries has been the TLS situation, so not supporting that means you're getting basically minimal value for the work you're putting in.

Replacing RAM chips on GPUs involves resoldering and similar things - those (for the most part) maintain the signal integrity and performance characteristics of the original RAM. Adding sockets complicates the signal path (iirc), so it's harder for the traces to go where they're needed, and realistically given a trade-off between speed/bandwidth and expandability I think the market goes with the former.

You can always shut down rather than do so - it's happened in the US.

Yes, but compared to the alternative where the parent company is responsible for an unknown amount of liabilities, capping ones liabilities at 6.5 billion might be better for shareholders.

I guess it's a matter of students don't have money to spend and bad optics, while a company might be cowed into paying the bill.

This is definitely untrue. I was bullied out of the golang community for asking about generics when I first started learning it. Obviously, I don't think my experience is indicative of the entire community, but the experience from the community left a bad taste in my mouth.

I get that the perfectly efficient market is more of a model then something existing in reality, but who would be doing the arbitraging here?

I think it's literally just dang typing out the title and giving more context.

I would argue no - the entire concept of prompt engineering exists for this reason.

Sadly you can't just spool down data either - data isn't fungible!

A gun can also force people to participate in transactions they don't want to engage in.

You don't need to become Manhattan to have density and mixed-use? I used to work at a place with a restaurant next to it (allowed by a reduction of parking minimums). Guess where a lot of my fellow employees are?

What? As an obvious example if this were to be correct (it in no way is), why couldn't Nvidia then buy Intel cards to retain the lead? Why could Nvidia not keep building its own AI?

What is the security boundary then? Everywhere I read treats them as a security boundary for say, untrusted code.