sebastos
Point being: phrases like 'rationalization' and 'wishful thinking' exist for a reason. You should be extremely skeptical of how fairly you are assessing the prospects of a company run by people you hate. You are almost definitely interpreting the outlook uncharitably.
And yet… when it’s Elon Musk’s company, we are suddenly all numbers and figures, and we waggle our fingers disapprovingly that he doesn’t have board approval. Yes, with Musk you have a childish huckster asshole. And increasingly it does appear he’s gone off the deep end, buying into his own self mythology. But the one redeeming quality he still demonstrates is refusal to settle for doing the same thing over and over. He continually and unreasonably pushes the envelope.
Tesla has definitively become a successful company. They defied all the naysayers in reaching that success, and it has turned into a global behemoth. They have oodles of money. The fact that Musk tirelessly insists on trying new moonshots that seem ridiculous is a GOOD thing - it’s the thing we _lack_. Inventive, audacious risk-taking is exactly what our stupid extractive scam economy lacks. Compared to you and me, yes, Musk is a cringey edgelord with the energy of a weird kid at the sleepover who tells bragging lies. But compared to his cohort who run large businesses, he is a goal oriented doer who attracts great talent and then relentlessly pushes them to achieve the impossible. And they actually succeed some non-zero amount of the time. It doesn’t matter that not every idea is a winner. That’s not how moonshots work. The point is that _some_ moonshot ideas do work though and actually move us up the tech tree. And the probable reality is that the delusional unrealistic asshole _helps_ push you there, precisely because they cannot be reasoned with. No, you cannot build moonshot companies without grandiosity, because the people working on it need to have a mission that is bigger than dollars and cents or common sense. If the only thing pushing you is good financials, you will quit as soon as “projections” start to look bad. In the area of moonshots, projections are just the opinions of uninformed non-believers who will ALWAYS mount until the world convinces you to stop working on the “stupid” thing.
All that said, the flying car is the dumbest thing I’ve seen him push and I don’t find it remotely exciting. Self-driving and robots are way cooler.
The existence of an incentive doesn't predestine the outcome.
Von Neumann was the one who inappropriately failed to credit them in "First draft...". Goldstine was the one who distributed it knowing they were legally unable to publish themselves. These are the unethical actions that clouded the record. Between these two sides, I'll be trusting Eckert and Mauchly's account.
>They claimed quite a few things that were later disproven in court or through historical study.
Ehh.. I'm curious which things you're referring to. The patent trial was hogwash, so depending on the topic, 'disproven in court' could mean literally nothing. I hope you're not just an Atanasoff crank...?
I’ve been consuming a lot of talks / writing recently about “enactive” pictures of how our brains function. From what I gather, recent studies have called into question the entire idea of real world concepts being “represented” by an area of the brain at all. While it’s true that atandard fMRI-style snapshots of brain activity are semi-stable over the course of a short experiment, it’s not true over longer timeframes. The response to the same stimulus will change over time. They refer to this as “representational drift” in the literature, and some people are using this to bolster theories of mind that they consider non-representational. They instead emphasize the brain as a kind of dynamical system that learns to “resonate” with the world to pull itself back into homeostasis. The focus shifts away from facts and memories as data, and sees neuronal plasticity more as a mechanism for tuning the brain’s resonant frequencies. This obviously places high importance on the spiking, recurrent nature of actual neurons, as opposed to the neurons-as-functions / back-propagation / ML approach.
My mind’s not made up on how interesting and revolutionary this approach is / isn’t. The distinction seems to be about whether learning is more like “writing to disk” or “tuning a PID controller” - but in either case, the world is leaving a stateful imprint on your brain that will impact how it processes future data. Is that important to understanding how brains work, or is it just semantics?
It’s unrealistic to imagine that we could ever fully moderate these meta comments away because there’s always going to be new problems and corresponding urges to discuss them. Nor do I think we really want to, when it comes down to it. They’re often useful, or at least cathartic.
…but. They DO make for dreadful reading if you actually came to read about the article itself. Thus my idea to add a wiki-style meta section. Then you get best of both worlds.
This is the guideline that people find, by far, the hardest not to break. @dang or whoever - has anyone ever considered adding some kind of 'meta' discussion area to each topic? This would provide a place for people to commiserate / troubleshoot without diluting the main discussion? As we saw here, the discussions can sometimes be plenty productive (e.g. the author seeing and reacting to the criticism, paywall workarounds, etc.), it's just not what people interested in the actual subject want to read. And conversely, if it was moved into a special meta annex, people with a problem or a gripe would know right where to look.
>If a stock never intends to pay dividends, the value of the stock is simply the price the next shumck is willing to pay.
So, by construction, we're talking about the value of shares in a hypothetical company that admits it will _never_ pay dividends. And we're asking what value that stock has BESIDES selling it to another shmuck, so for the purposes of the exercise, it's clearest to just imagine we are not allowed to sell to someone else. Most people will tell you that the stock nevertheless still has value because you own a share of the company itself, which entitles you to a share of its liquidation value. However, the argument I've been making here and in other posts are that:
a. A company tends to be "greater than the sum of its parts". The techno-social arrangement of people and business flows is part of what allows the company to be profitable, so disassembling it, selling off the machinery and returning whatever cash assets it had to the investors is unlikely to cover the market cap (at least, as they are priced today in current climate)
b. Even looking at whatever value IS leftover, the circumstances that lead to you realizing that value are extremely fraught / carry other baggage. It usually doesn't lead to common investors getting value back out, and cannot realistically be a justification for the current valuation of most big non-dividend stocks. For instance, consider how valuable it was to own a share of the underlying capital assets of Bed Bath and Beyond when it declared bankruptcy. It was far worse than just point 'a' ("oh no, we sold all the inventory and real estate it still didn't cover the market cap"). No, if you were a common investor, you essentially got $0 because there were lenders and preferred investors ahead of you in line that consumed those assets and left you crumbs.
c. Acquisitions are the best chance of turning your "ownership of the company itself" into dollars... but this is also slightly cheating, because you're appealing to sale of the shares to another entity again. Now, in real life, if a single entity owned the entire company, it would probably be able to extract some of the business's cash flows (a power which common investors lacked). So it's not quite fair to call the acquiring entity "the next shmuck", since they may be able to realize actual $ value in a way that the common investor couldn't. But technically, if we're playing along with the thought exercise, the premise is that the company continually reinvests in itself and refuses to pay out to the owners. If somebody buys out the company, takes it private, and redirects the profits to their own coffers, the new owning entity is essentially getting dividends by another name.
Voting rights are also not valuable by themselves - they are only useful to steer the company towards greater future payouts, which means you are appealing to some other entitlement to value.
If you zoom out, a company is a temporary arrangement of people and things that makes more money than it spends _over time_. They are not really designed to accumulate and store value in and of themselves. The machines the employees use to do the work is a small fraction of the overall utility of a living breathing business. The valuable part is the capacity of this techno-social organism to reliably and continuously make profit, which is far greater than the sum of its parts. So if the profit that’s being earned is never paid out to stakeholders, then there’s no point in being a stakeholder. If the profit is redirected to make the organism bigger, then you are trading now-dollars for future-dollars which must be appropriately discounted. If everyone expects a company to do this forever, then the correct price is what the expected liquidation share should be, and that number is basically zero.
Yet, stocks that do not pay dividends exist at high valuations. What that tells you is that modern day stock trading is tulips: the lion’s share of the value derives from a temporarily stable, shared, _correct_ perception that someone else will buy it back from you.
The reality is that general investors are the greater fools in this arrangement. The prevalence of preferred stock is a tell that there are owners and there are “owners”. What we should do is recognize this and admit that the big initial investors and employees themselves are the owners, because they are the group small enough to actually realize liquidation value (should it ever be necessary). The public investors have no realistic claim on that value, so their shares should be more clearly labeled as dividend rights, which would cause them to be priced as such.
Once you appreciate the vastness of the problem, you will see that having a vibrant ecosystem of different competing package managers sucks. This is a problem where ONE standard that can handle every situation is incalculably better than many different solutions which solve only slices of the problem. I don't care how terse craft's toml file is - if it can't cross compile, it's useless to me. So my project can never use your tool, which implies other projects will have the same problem, which implies you're not the one package manager / build system, which means you're part of the problem, not the solution. The Right Thing is to adopt one unilateral standard for all projects. If you're remotely interested in working on package managers, the best way to help the human race is to fix all of the outstanding things about Conan that prevent it from being the One Thing. It's the closest to being the One Thing, and yet there are still many hanging chads:
- its terribly written documentation
- its incomplete support for editable packages
- its only nascent support for "workspaces"
- its lack of NVIDIA recipes
If you really can't stand to work on Conan (I wouldn't blame you), another effort that could help is the common package specification format (CPS). Making that a thing would also be a huge improvement. In fact, if it succeeds, then you'd be free to compete with conan's "frontend" ergonomics without having to compete with the ecosystem.
It seems like you’re not trying particularly hard to avoid the idea of “monetizing” the computer to sound pejorative. It was the creation of the computer _industry_ that transformed the world and established the import of computers, was it not? You were never getting there without monetization. What good is the spread of ideas if someone, somewhere doesn’t eventually start selling computers? This grates especially hard given that the academics were the ones who acted unscrupulously by lifting their ideas and publicizing them without permission or credit. (“Leaked” is a charitable way to say “deliberately disseminated without caution”).
I agree the stored program is important, but the stored program is of ENIAC vintage, even if it wasn’t implemented on it. And Eckert and Mauchly definitively came to this idea before the involvement of Von Neumann. The thing is, they had an obligation to finish the machine they had promised to build for the army before pursuing such a major redesign. So all they COULD do was informally collect their ideas for a 2.0. Von Neumann arrives, absorbs what they’re up to, synthesizes it (including ‘the big idea’ that ENIAC was missing), and the rest is history. That synthesis is published without their names, and that is why we talk about the Von Neumann architecture. Look, I’m sure it’s true that the crispness of that paper can be attributed to Von Neumann, but it’s a non-sequitur to assume that Eckert and Mauchly’s ideas were jumbled. They were at least organized enough to be building a working machine in the background, and if we’re going to argue that the important thing was promulgation of enough information for others to replicate, than the practicum is more important than mathematical tidiness.
In fact, if we’re talking about how the ideas spread, the paper is frankly overblown. The Moore school lectures were really what caused the Cambrian explosion of electronic computing. There, you can find Eckert and Mauchly utterly central to the elucidation of how to build a general purpose electronic computer. And hey look, there they are, deliberately sharing the ideas out to interested practitioners, in a more pragmatic and direct way than the paper.
What I’m building to here is that E&M starting a company was not evidence that they were just out to make a buck. On the contrary, what it shows is that they had _foresight_ about what the next interesting chapter was bound to be. With the Moore School Lecrures, the ‘publishing of the ideas’ stage was over - the next step was to begin building more machines that could do more computation for more users. And while there was plenty that happened afterward to refine the theoretical model, they were absolutely correct that that’s where the action was. In fact, I think that if you look at what many of these proposed fathers of computing did next, it’s an excellent litmus test of how central they actually were. Some of the sillier ones like Atanasoff just forget about their supposed invention and go on with life - that’s a tell that they weren’t that interested in general-purpose, high speed computing. Whereas E&M’s follow-on work was to advance the field even in the face of great setback. This also completely deconstructs the idea that they were just thinking about artillery, or just thinking about weather. They were thinking about _computing_, and their careers afterwards demonstrate this.
The other thing that is important is how to provide a more query-like interface to tease out the data you actually want your node to react to, yet in a way that will be deterministic. You need to guide users away from introducing non-determinism, which can be tricky because innocent things like a message buffer with a max size can lead to such situations.
I have talked with one of the key people at Xronos (https://www.xronos.com/), who are trying to attack related problems. Still, even they aren't quite as pre-occupied with _replay_, which is crucial.
I think the sad truth is that the second evolution of all this frameworking simply hasn't come together convincingly enough, and in one place, for it to gather momentum. It turned out to be hard. And now that it has taken too long, it's my bet that ROS2 and all of its imitators will get lapped by holistic deep approaches. Not the stupid stuff happening with these fake humanoid robot companies mind you, but still - something holistic and deep. Something coming out of the predictive coding research e.g., or world models, etc. Training in simulated environments with generative systems is going to lead to behavior so much more sophisticated than gluing together all of our little services. Roboticists have their own version of the bitter lesson coming soon.
Now, you could argue that this right here is the aforementioned moving of the goalposts. After all, we're deciding that the casual Turing test wasn't interesting precisely after having seen that LLMs could pass it.
However, in my view, the Turing test _always_ implied the "rigorous" Turing test, and it's only now that we're actually flirting with passing it that it had to be clarified what counts as a true Turing test. As I see it, the Turing test can still be salvaged as a criteria for genera intelligence, but only if you allow it to be a no-holds-barred, life-depends-on-it test to exhaustion. This would involve allowing arbitrarily long questioning periods, for instance. I think this is more in the spirit of the original formulation, because the whole idea is to pit a machine against all of human intelligence, proving it has a similar arsenal of adaptability at its disposal. If it only has to passingly fool a human for brief periods, well... I'm afraid that just doesn't prove much. All sorts of stuff briefly fools humans. What requires intelligence is to consistently anticipate and adapt to all lines of questioning in a sustained manner until the human runs out of ideas for how to differentiate.
We’ll know AGI when we see it, and this ain’t it. This complaining about changing goalposts is so transparently sour grapes from people over-invested in hyping the current LLM paradigm.
The problem of understanding what is happening in front of you while driving is preposterously more complicated than just a point cloud of distances. That is .01% of the problem. To solve the remaining 99.99%, you need interpretation of photons and sound waves into a semantic understanding that gives you predictive power to guess how the physical world will evolve and avoid breaking the rules of the road. Show me a mechanized way of understanding the causes of how the physical structure of the world is about to evolve, and I'll show you something that is imitating a human brain, however poorly. The cameras give you _plenty_ of data to determine 3D structure, at a higher resolution than the laser, without being emissive, for cheaper. It's a completely reasonable approach to focus your limited computational hardware on interpreting the data you have instead of adding more modalities with their own limitations that (according to nature) are demonstrably unnecessary.
The world is more complicated than slogans and pitchforks and Elon Bad.
It would be interesting if, with all the anxiety about vibe coding becoming the new normal, its only lasting effect is the emergence of smaller B2B companies that quickly razzle dazzle together a bespoke replacement for Concur, SAP, Workday, the crappy company sharepoint - whatever. Reminds me of what people say Palantir is doing, but now supercharged by the AI-driven workflows to stand up the “forward deployed” “solution” even faster.
There's a line in the first season that runs as an undercurrent through the whole show ("Computers aren't the thing. They're the thing that gets you to the thing"). Joe originally says this to make the viewer think about technology, evoking the dawn of the personal computer and subsequently the internet. But later on, you're invited to re-interpret that statement as being about people: computers and technology were the thing that got the main characters to work together. It's the -people- that are the thing.
Part of what makes the show so good is that it's one of the few renditions in TV / movies of the joy of engineering something, and the constant tension that comes from working with great people. Great people inspire you, but they also challenge you. The show does a great job of portraying realistic conflicts that arise between different personality types and roles, as well as cleverly exposing the limitations of those personalities. With just Gordon, you'll get a stable and well engineered product but it won't be revolutionary. Joe has the vision but he can't actually _do_ the substantive part. Cameron has great substance and technical ability, but she's impractical and inflexible. Donna is responsible, effective, and clear-eyed - but unchecked, purely rational decisions erode the soul of a company into nothing. These differences frustrate our characters, and yet there can be no success without them.
I think many of us spend our whole careers chasing those rare moments where the right people are in the room solving problems, butting heads, but ultimately doing things they could never do all by themselves.