Is there really a moral panic? Apart from a few viral Twitter posts, I don't see a major sobriety push by my colleagues.
Profits of main alcohol suppliers has certainly taken a hit over the last 5 years but this is arguably far more because of rise of remote working, inflation (drinking at pubs have become much more costly than before) and people in general just addicted to their phone rather than going out (similar to the impact on almost all social activities no just going to pubs)
Not an expert, but as I understand from my colleagues you can make a case for lots of really important problems related to protein folding to be included in the list. As protein folding hasn't been nearly "solved" by alphafold as has been reported in many places.
Devil's advocate: OpenAI not being able to use compute is highly correlated to many other AI companies not being able to find a meaningful use of this compute.
Failure to take into consideration those kind of correlations ("If my biggest client isn't able to buy it, I would be able to find someone else who will") is one of the principle causes why many risk models turned out to be garbage during the Great Financial Crisis.
But I also doubt Nvidia is on the hook if OpenAI just no longer wants the compute. I bet they are only on the hook if OpenAI cannot pay for it (is insolvent in some way).
I also have to bring up that OpenAI has already spat out an inference chip that beats Nvidia on flops per watt. So they could potentially not need the compute while other ai companies do.
This war started as a regime change operation in Iran, one of the shakiest regimes in the world pre-war, but ironically the war might end up with most of the nations who supported the war (either vocally or quietly) "regime changed" (loosely defined), including Israel, US, some European countries and now possibly some Gulf nations, awhile the Iranian regime seem to have tightened its grip more than ever.
Yet MAGA supporters were saying early in the war that they are "plan trusters" as prior US admins sucked at regime change because it is a "skills issue" and none of the prior admins had the triple digits IQ of Hegseth, Trump and Bessent.
If they were going to try this it needed to be done months earlier when the protests were raging. Instead the brain trust fumbled the initiative and let the Iranian leadership kill and scourge their local allies into compliance. Then fumbling the decapitation strike coupled with the decades of preparation for a decapitation strike (via redundancy of command) the genius brigade seemed to be unaware of because they fired all the experts, and the total repression of the protesting populace, led to an unusually strong system in Iran. They also almost certainly let racism play a big role in underestimating the Iranians, who are a very technically sophisticated society and have been preparing for this scenario since day one of the revolution.
Everything that’s happened was predictable and predicted, which is why other administrations who were more than happy to topple foreign governments when it suited them to not do so in Iran. MAGA feels like the junior dev that blames the compiler for their own syntax errors.
Not sure where you get the shaky regime idea, but Iran was not on the verge of collapse from protests prior to the war. It may have been on the verge of more aggressive clamping down from the IRGC, but collapse wasn’t around the corner.
>This war started as a regime change operation in Iran
I believe this war started with a tomahawk missle murdering a school full of children and then the US denying involvement. I very clearly remember it. US attacks Iran unprovoked. First act, murder their children in school. If you wanted to solidify opposition to the US in Iran, I don't think they could have done a more effective job.
They haven't denied it yet, it's still under investigation. They may be able to workout they were the only country in this war with Tomahawks responsible for the triple-tap missile strike, after the mid terms. Or they may just move on from it and never talk about it again, like the Epstein files.
All the Kingdoms in middle east are very fragile. Gulf coast countries economies are crashing due to the blockade. Bahrain, UAE, Kuwait, Qatar, Saudi Arabia. One Arab spring away from a new government and this could be the spark.
The goal wasn't regime change. They didn't even propose a replacement, unlike Venezuela where there was someone to step in. Trump admitted it was Israel's demand, plus there are signs of market manipulation.
Some Iranian-Americans are very pro-Shah, particularly the many kicked out during the revolution. They were celebrating the war like it'd bring back the Shah, but frustrated that the US govt and even Western media as a whole ignored the exiled royal family... because that's not the point of the war.
Do you even realize that one of the only reason anybody still supports this war is precisely because of comments like yours? By dividing people into teams, and antagonizing them, you result in people never willing to stomach giving an inch and doubling down on stupid.
Obviously this war has been the US' latest great failure, and at the beckoning of a foreign power which makes it especially catastrophic. If people could focus on this, rather than trying to divide things into teams and then sling mud, they'd have vastly better outcomes come November (and on) than just using it for divisive mudslinging which does nothing but ensure that all elections, regardless of how bad the decisions of a incumbent, or how awful a challenger, will remain these sort of 50/50 coinflips.
I am saying that adding your tribal bit to your post is just completely self defeating. And yes, the goal is indeed to avoid hurting people's feelings. I don't know why you'd mock that. People are not machines, and when you make somebody angry at you, or otherwise make him feel insulted - he'll happily argue that 2+2=5 just to avoid giving an inch to you.
Bridge building hasnt worked. Hillary's biggest campaign failure was drawing back from her deplorables comment, she should have leaned into it - thats what Trump did, go harder into division, and he's president now. Instead of being milquetoast corporate stooge full of fake politics talk, she might have seemed to actually stand for something. You're bringing 1990s politics into the 2020s and its proven multiple times it doesnt work any more. A small group of fanatics is actually more powerful than a large cohort of half-committed these days.
It's not about bridge building, but rather not bridge burning. When people are antagonistic to 'the other side', it means the last thing in the world they'd ever think of doing is aligning with you. 2028, after Iran, should be a landslide. But watch - it's going to be another coin flip. And people themselves are creating that scenario by acting like half-witted tribal kids on a playground, instead of actual thinking/empathetic adults.
It's universal. Politics in the US has become so completely broken. Last presidency was Weekend at Bernie's, now we have one where El Presidente is trying to LARP as General Jack D. Ripper.
The reason people accept, and even defend, all of this is solely because they find "the other side" detestable, and people like our GP here play exactly into this by making themselves completely detestable to anybody that's already not as far out, and in the same direction, on the partisan horseshoe of stupidity as they are.
Do you realise that the only reason the average US taxpayer keeps getting wrecked into one pointless forever war after the other no matter who is in power is because the elites are never held accountable for their mad self-enriching adventures?
Holding people like Hegseth (who literally insider traded defense equities right before the start of the war) and Trump accountable (who practically made a gazillion insider trading each mad meme he posted while the world burnt) is not "dividing people into teams"
Is it possible that they claim they used a "new internal model" to provide an excuse for "training" on new user data, knowing full well this new user data will include Buckmaster's chat?
So the entire "new internal model" is 'parallel construction' in criminology speak to justify spying on Buckmaster's work in a legal way.
It doesn’t seem this is a question of ToS though. I would hope it is abundantly clear to anyone and everyone:
THEY’RE USING YOUR DATA
As they involve themselves directly, explicitly in the process of scientific research and discovery, it becomes a question of scientific and professional ethics.
Determinants are easy to use but very hardly to grasp intuitively, this is not a minority point of view. See countless of StackOverflow questions begging for a conceptual exposition of determinants.
The easiest conceptual handle is geometric: volume expansion, but seeing how this is related to the combinatorial sum over all permutations, or how those two point of views are related to the algebraic one (that a set of equations having a solution or not), is not easy to see even in the 2D case.
I won't be surprised if math professors don't have this issue like you said (especially if someone is comfortable with wedge products), but the vast majority of newcomers who are interested in understanding why something works rather than just how to use it struggle all the time with determinants.
It seems to me more like determinants are often badly motivated. The way I remember it from Apostol's Calculus was like "a volume multiplier would be very useful; it needs to be a signed volume for linearity, which implies antisymmetry. Here are axioms collecting these requirements. They're uniquely satisfied by the determinant. Proof: ..."
Agreed that it should help if you got to learn wedge products first (I didn't).
Yes, but that doesn't prove that the determinant is actually the real signed volume multiplier.
I think this is what led me to feel unhappy about determinants when I was a first-year university student. You need to actually prove that the determinant is the volume of the N-dimensional parallelepiped, and the axiomatic proof doesn't do that.
So you need basically two extra lines after proving those things so that people can say "okay, the determinant eats ignores all input vector non-orthogonality so that it gives volume".
I found that “properties of the determinant uniquely determine this formula that I guessed” approach to determinants to be extremely unconvincing when I was learning linear algebra.
This might come down to details of how you explain it: iirc Apostol took those basic moves (axioms) and calculated what the formula would have to be, rather than starting with a formula and checking that it has the properties of a signed volume.
But I don't know, it's been a very long time for me. It's good to have a variety of approaches to the subject.
This is indeed a good concise description of how to connect the two, but even making peace with this, there is something still magical in how the permutations in the sum cancel neatly (in an inclusion-exclusion kind of a way) to get the volume.
I think the volume explanation is one of the most intuitive pieces of math in existence, personally! Uninvertibility of a tranformation corresponds to a volume of zero because the transformation must squish two dimensions together, leaving them impossible to differentiate, det(AB) = det(A)det(B) because applying two transformations applies their scaling successively, det(A^-1) = 1/det(A) because you have to undo the scaling to invert a transformation etc. I don't think the permutation definition is even strictly necessary; if I recall correctly Linear Algebra Done Wrong defines the determinant in terms of its geometric definition and develops its formula from the properties it must have. I think that the concept is well worth the investment of initial confusion. Axler disagrees, however.
But if you see the geometric view then the permutation sum, for certain obsessive learners they want to see why they are equivalent and thats the hard part.
We do a 2 step anonymisation:
1. Mask all symbols, timestamps etc. So the agents cannot infer the assets/time periods.
2. Mathematically transform numerical values and returns. E.g. the market return targets are not the raw market returns, but neutralised and manipulated. So even the agents have certain bullish/bearish biases, it cannot make use of it, as we use the transformed values.
ah i thought so, interesting. I think the challenge is to do 2 while still keeping it realistic, which actually gets very close to synthetic data generation.
we do affine transformations of the data, so all return/ pnl measures are still the same as with untransformed data. The transformation doesn’t change the conditional distribution of the data, which is what alphas ultimately measure
This is not new, most famous conjectures are believed to be true mainly because an already enormous brute force search was conducted finding no counter-example.
Hmm this sounds like an incumbent missing a paradigm shift because they didn't want it to disrupt their core (usually enterprise) business, although riding the shift would have ultimately delivered an order magnitude larger business.
Classical example is Microsoft actively undermining mobile because it threatened selling Windows or enterprise licenses.
Or Yahoo fighting Google's model because the latter model's didn't depend on taking enterprise deals to rank results.
ten years is a very long time in technology, RISC-V ecosystem could be so vibrant and advanced that it might prove more cost effective for Apple just to feed off it (assuming Apple is still relevant by then).
It's almost like trying to predict if the smartphone leaders in 2006 (Nokia / RIM) would want to adopt this new mobile operating system that hardly anyone uses (android) in 2016.
The thing is Apple designs its own ARM cores. They don't use the vibrant ecosystem of ARM for all the important parts of the CPU; they compete with it on their own and manage to win. They only pay a small amount per device for an architecture licence that's very generous for Apple, in large part because Apple was an initial seed investor and first customer of ARM.
If all the current investments in ARM don't suffice to beat Apple's own efforts, I don't see how they could ever need to use RiscV's community to achieve their goals.
As long as ARM keeps the architecture up-to-date and the fees minimal, Apple's staying.
10 years is relatively short time in hardware, that is only at best 4 cycles. In today's world it is only 3 cycles. The amount of time, energy and resources required to switch from ARM to RISC-V only to save $100M a year makes very little sense. That is assuming you can get the same performance switching over in the first place. Which right now isn't the case in the next 5 years.
And I wouldn't be surprised ARM gives Apple some other patents protection as well as discount on other IPs.
Well you can see from the original poster's timeline, that 10 years from now will be effectively 16 years into Apple's ARM journey, so you can add two more cycles.
And also from the timeline you can see that the average Apple hardware transition period is 2.75 cycles, so I wouldn't bet too much that their ARM journey will last more than 6 cycles.
Profits of main alcohol suppliers has certainly taken a hit over the last 5 years but this is arguably far more because of rise of remote working, inflation (drinking at pubs have become much more costly than before) and people in general just addicted to their phone rather than going out (similar to the impact on almost all social activities no just going to pubs)