xxpor

Thank you, this is a much more coherent way of saying it.

is money the problem or just that most people don't care about most things, but a few people REALLY care about a few things? There's plenty of groups without much money that still gum up the works because they're persistent.

Seems like that would imply you should be getting people to adopt now now still even if it costs a stupid amount, if you think it's valuable, rather than limiting token budgets. It'll only get cheaper over time.

Essentially every single electronic financial transaction that you do (outside of crypto exchanges) involves an IBM mainframe. A huge number of businesses run on top of IBM I (like Costco).

It's plenty alive, just not as much inside of Silicon Valley itself.

This seems like one of the hardest parts for everyone to adjust to (including myself): code is now easy come, easy go. Or in other words, everyone seems to get trapped in the sunk cost fallacy, even if there's not even that much sunk cost any more!

>If everybody improves their looks, the net effect will be zero.

I'm not sure that's true. I think there's a baseline issue here. Regardless, even if it netted out to zero, you'd end up with a different order of who gets hired when, so for any individual it'd still make sense to try to improve your looks.

Maybe with vfio/igb_uio/uio_pci_generic? Still root level access.

Can this be patched? Is there a chance it's a hw watchdog that you can't fix in microcode?

But humans have used AI with ingenuity.

How much has section 199A encouraged this?

It's funny, because LLMs have context switching costs too! Cached tokens cost less than non-cached. There's no reason to think that doesn't apply to humans.

Unless and until desktop OSes make typing symbols not on the keyboard as easy as iOS or Android, I can't be bothered.

Seems like t is a very critical variable then. For example, you could imagine a particular market is "perfectly" efficient at the moment (however you want to define the boundaries of a particular market), and there is no opportunity. But then a completely unrelated company or university makes a fundemental advancement in materials science that fundamentally changes the landscape. An exogenous shock in other words.

In a certain sense I guess this is why every anti-trust suit fundamentally comes down to defining the market bubble more than anything else.

The actual paper's title is

"Markets are competitive if and only if P != NP"

Seems that HN's auto-headline rewriting in this case has made a critical error :)

>Artificial intelligence, by expanding firms' computational capabilities, is pushing markets from the competitive regime toward the collusive regime, explaining the empirical emergence of algorithmic collusion without explicit coordination.

I have to dig more into the paper but I don't see how this follows, except in the most straightforward way. Basically, if everyone uses the same methods to derive price, of course there will be "collusion", or in other words, everyone will have the same price. But this doesn't seem like a result of compute per se, but simply better communication networks and information flows. You could have gotten the same result in medieval England by having everyone post their selling prices on the town square board.

Again, I haven't dug into the paper yet, but it seems like what really matters for firms is "compute"/$ (if the "compute" is an LLM or an assistant that has to go walk the 10 minutes down to the square makes little difference)

The world is not zero sum. Value is created, not just preserved. Anthropic and OpenAI creating value does not imply that smaller guys can not also create value.

The MacBook Neo (at least pre announcement) was a better value than anything else, including a chromebook.

Approximately everyone (at least in the F500) outside of Big Tech uses them. For example, Costco's entire inventory management system runs on IBM i (so, POWER). You can see the classic terminal look around the store. Banks run a TON of z and i. You'll never see them because they're essentially always in data centers, but I guarantee you interact with them even if it's very non-obvious because there's 50 microservices between the UI and the actual system of record.

Europeans being so scared of debt is so funny. Just pay off your card every month.

The liability model is completely different in the US from Europe w.r.t. merchant vs bank.

The interchange fees are much much higher in the US, which is what pays for the rewards. Europe has an artificial cap.

What does an open source dev get out of their work at all? Satisfaction?

For the "traditional" open source model of give away the software and sell the support, s390x customers could be fantastic customers: love paying for support, lots of $$$, super sticky once you get them.

But yeah for a random indie dev the PITA makes it harder.

You can hit 10 gig aggregate on an A57 quite easily, given standard memory bandwidth (I've done it). They must be doing something stupid on the software side, like too many copies. Or if you're trying to shove 10 gig in one flow at 1500 mtu yeah that might be painful.

This is the difference between the people on this site broadly and everyone else broadly.

I gotta say this is the kind of stuff that LLMs make trivial to answer these days.

IIRC it's code :( Very silly IMO.

Doing the cabling job was a weekend long project for me, I just never want to have to do that again (yes yes I should have run conduit and pull strings, but single mode just means I didn't have to even do that)

I think this is the first time one of my comments has ever gotten mentioned in a subsequent post, so that's cool :)

Glad it was helpful and not me being an idiot. That's a shame about the temp read out. I just checked my MikroTik and can see the same thing. In fact, the only SFP module reporting a temperature at all is the real fiber one, all of the DACs/converters report nothing. No voltage either.

I'd guess that the mediatek blobs are exactly 64k, and mostly 0s?

It was on my machine at least, I remember I had to do an additional install to activate that tab...

No remotely western company will risk US sanctions violations or whatever other regulatory burden by using US technology where it can't be used. Even Chinese companies depending on how state backed they are might not be willing to risk it.

Do you really think the EU wants to sign up for PR that’s essentially “the US is being too mean to Russia” right now?

The RISC-V move was laughable. It’s still US tech, developed largely with DARPA funds.