louthy
Companies tend not to do illegal things. Especially if they’re public or have shareholders that might lose significant value if found out.
I haven’t looked for a one-app-to-rule-them-all, but in principle it’s possible.
I think the UK banking sector is in rude health. It’s very competitive and it’s easy to move. The quality of the apps is very much part of any competitive advantage.
I have accounts with four uk banks and it’s trivial to manage them. It’s an example of legislation working really well.
Do you not run apps at all?
Mona Lisa Vito, is that you?
That's just corruption. That's not equitable. In the UK that would be criminal and there's pretty much no way to game the system. That doesn't mean there aren't queues, but nobody gets a preference.
You read that where? What evidence do you have? In my experience, Americans are often blissfully unaware about how poor their health services are.
As someone who has seen many health services up close (from founding a health tech company and literally visiting myriad health establishments around the world, over the past few decades), the US hospitals and clinics always struck me as the most run down. But as soon as I walked in the boardroom at UHG or HCA, it suddenly all became a lot more glamorous.
And whilst the US does ok with cancer outcomes, so do other nations like Germany, Switzerland, Japan, South Korea, Singapore, Canada, and the United Kingdom.
Most advanced nations have universal healthcare with similar outcomes to the US, but for significantly less money. They also don’t leave citizens destitute for having the unmitigated gall to impose an unexpected health emergency on themselves.
The US system funnels profit, it doesn’t provide better healthcare.
You’ve dealt with every health system on earth as a patient?
> There are no specialists in all of the government-run systems
This is completely inaccurate. Every government run system has specialists.
Everything you have said is incorrect.
At least that’s what it looks like from the rest of the world
Consent is required. The banner is just one mechanism, but not required. A website could hold off on all tracking until a suitable point in the usage of the site (like creating a profile, for example) and ask at that point.
The banner is an artefact of the hostile way most sites choose to try and hoodwink the user into being monetised and ultimately to piss users off so much that they complain about the legislation rather than the lack of online privacy.
Erm, not sure how direct you want. But at least in dotnet you can use the Vector64, Vector128, Vector256, and Vector512 types [1] where each method gets effectively directly converted to a raw SIMD instruction. So, Vector512.LoadAligned call will be replaced with a raw SIMD register load instruction - supported by the CPU it is running on; and generally a JIT compiler will spot common patterns-of-use to optimise those too. There's no runtime check to see what is supported and no per-function-branching. It's as close to the CPU as you can get really (in a compiled language). Maybe I'm missing something?
If you just mean the difference between hand-coded assembly and the output of an optimising compiler, then sure, you can always be better with hand-coded assembly.
[1] https://learn.microsoft.com/en-us/dotnet/api/system.runtime....
[1] https://learn.microsoft.com/en-us/dotnet/api/system.runtime....
Except in languages with a JIT compiler
Thank the Brits for that.
Also, how’s the modern world in general working out for your nation?
Yep, Brits again… [1]
Using fire to signify a message is thousands of years old. The earliest use of beacons in the UK dates back to the medieval period, primarily as a means of communication to warn of impending invasions or other dangers. Positioned on hilltops and along coastlines, these beacons were part of an early warning system signalling the presence of a threat, such as an approaching enemy fleet.
One of the most famous early examples is the network of beacons used during the Spanish Armada in 1588. As around 150 Spanish battleships approached, beacons were lit along the southern coast of England, from Cornwall to London. As a result of this rudimentary but effective system Lord Francis Drake had the time to mobilise the country’s defences and defeat the Spanish fleet before they were able to reach the English shore.
[1] https://www.paintersforstal.co.uk/news/the-history-of-beacon...
Not sure I’ll need to upgrade my computer ever again :D
Sure, but for example - today - I am literally building and optimising high-performance collections for my open-source library. Big-O is irrelevant, because I have built pretty much all of the fundamental collection types, what I care about is lower than that: what happens when enumerating any one of those collection types. Big-O tells you the scale of the problem, but not the per-element cost, which is still important when you're building core data-structures.
I am concerned about cache-friendly memory-layouts, how to do collection compositions without unnecessary memory allocations, keeping enough guards in place to make the types safe whilst removing as many branches as possible, reducing memory copying as much as possible, and catching stupid shit the compiler or JIT does and try to work around it. Literally what happens per-instruction, per-iteration, not how to pick a big-O based data-structure: trying to make all data-structures as fast as possible.
Anyway, we seem to be talking past each other. You're talking about the basics, I'm talking about the original source of this thread which was that (apparently) LLMs are surprisingly bad at optimisation. Which, I am trying to highlight becomes almost voodoo at a low-enough level and that highly-optimised code looks progressively more strange and opaque (in the hunt for a few nanoseconds here and there), which for an LLM wouldn't look statistically significant. I think the basics of data-structure choice should be easily within the realms of an LLM's current capabilities.
There are plenty of real-world reasons why you'd want to get knee deep in this stuff. I wasn't suggesting not using tools (I've literally spent the day knee-deep in JetBrains' memory and tracing tools!), but those tools can only tell you what is happening now, not what to do to improve it.
Profiling is, of course, essential. But performance tweaking can be quite a laborious process: if you're judging things by big-O notation, then that's a different level above the real low-level tweaking (imho of course). Picking the correct data-structures is all in the 101 of performance engineering. That's in the literature. But it's all too basic and simplistic. Most performance minded engineers wouldn't need a profiling tool to know which data-structure to use.
At the smallest level there's a lot of mental theory building and experimentation as you try out different approaches, which is where the instinct and intuition starts to build. I never see any of that in discussions about performance engineering.
At a low enough level, every performance tweak becomes unique and bespoke.
Of course, you could find people online talking about how to write high-performance code, but beyond a few basic techniques, their advice may not work for you — nobody can write a generalist article about performance engineering that will definitely solve the problem you have right now.
Arguably, there are fewer patterns for an LLM to infer as highly optimised code tends to become more and more opaque in the search for a nanosecond here or there.
Ok, as somebody with ADHD I find it offensive because I don't need constant supervision, implying people with ADHD need constant supervision is belittling and just plain wrong. So, I will call out an offensive trope if I see it.
> If you truly are offended, perhaps there is some truth you are reacting to preventing you from truly responding in good faith
No, because if there was some truth to it, I wouldn't be offended. Perhaps stop with the amateur psychology? You're not very good at it.