Note, the portions of DLSS4 that improve 2x frame generation performance/stability and the improved models for upscaling are coming to other rtx cards. DlSS4 multi-frame generation will not.
This is true, but it's worth noting that 3x was 5ms additional latency beyond original FG and 7ms for 4x, so the difference in latency between DLSS 3 FG and DLSS 4 MFG is probably imperceptible for most people.
yeah but it means MFG still has the same fundamental problem of FG that the latency hit is the largest in the only scenario where it's meaningfully useful. That is, at low 15-45fps native FPS, then the additional impact of an additional frame of buffering combined with the low initial FPS means the latency hit is relatively huge.
So Nvidia's example of taking cyberpunk from 28fps to 200+ or whatever doesn't actually work. It'll still feel like 20fps sluggish watery responses even though it'll look smooth
The interesting thing about this thought experiment is that you assume Netflix would have slightly above average employees if they have slightly above average compensation. Now what happens to the experiment if Netflix has ridiculously above average, end of the bell curve compensation (as they do)? Serious question, I do not and have not worked for Netflix.
I was really giving them the benefit of the doubt. I don’t think Netflix had anything special above and beyond any other Silicon Valley software company. They just pushed this narrative and nobody questioned them.
Netflix as a business isn’t even way ahead of competition anymore. It’s not better than Hulu or Max or anything else.
Netflix’s platform crumbled handling live streaming a boxing match, while Amazon and the rest of the legacy media companies have no issues streaming NFL games every weekend, and I’m supposed to believe that Netflix engineers are better than the ones at Paramount+ who never made me wait for a buffer to watch Premier League or NFL on CBS.
Yeah perhaps times have changed. When I was an intern at JPL 10 years ago they brought some senior Netflix folks in to talk about their CDN reliability efforts and it was really impressive. I believe it was called Chaos Monkey and it effectively would take down data centers in production at random, forcing their network to be extremely reliable. Pretty wild idea.
Personally, I would not try to negotiate an onsite role into a remote one, not because I don't think it will work (though it probably won't), but because you don't really want to be the one remote exception in a primarily onsite team.
The rest of the team will end up having to go out of their way to accommodate you, your accomplishments won't be as visible, and you'll be passed over for performance-based compensation and/or promotion.
Though I guess that's fine if it's a job you plan to take for a year or whatever and move on.
I have done this in various teams, often where I'm the manager or team lead.
You end up being an "external" person. They'll make plans without you. The primary communication channel is always in person. As a colleague put it, you end up the drunk person in the group who's going, "huh??? what are we doing??" while the rest of the team feels like they have to drag you along. You may well be the most productive person on the team, but people tend to resent accomodating you.
I do believe the entire team remote is better than the whole team onsite, but it's also a lot more work. It's like adopting a framework; it may be better or worse in the long run but it's complex and requires some investment, and you can't have one person running on a different framework.
We've also had things like drama and internal politics - these are always much better handled in person. As in we've had corrupt assistant managers just completely screw up the senior devs, but because that assistant manager met with us in person, we'd favor them instead of the people actually doing the work.
Is this a joke? It's widely known by anyone paying attention that Democrats embraced mail-in voting much more aggressively than Republicans, especially in 2020.
To be fair, I think the public bristled at the longshoremen strike because the vast majority of their leverage comes not from (most) of their jobs being particularly high-skill but from the fact that they can unilaterally destroy the entire economy for everyone else. Add to that the fact that their union chief was extremely blunt about the whole thing, and that longshoremen make, on average, triple the average household income in the US, it wasn't a very sympathetic cause.
Fighting for anything but your right to be an asshole has never, ever been popular in the US. The labor wars of the late nineteenth and early twentieth centuries that led to modern professional comforts like the weekend were wildly unpopular; the women's suffrage movement was unpopular; the civil rights movement to end what we would clearly call Apartheid now was extremely unpopular; MLK was unpopular during his entire tenure in the public eye; today you see the same contempt and tone-policing of protestors against both police brutality and the mass slaughter in Gaza. It's a tale as old as time and media outlets are more than happy play along and fan the flames.
Popularity (especially with a population that's so easy to discomfort as americans are) is largely irrelevant to power, which is what actually matters. Unions would be complete fools to NOT leverage the american economy to better themselves or to force a move from the federal government.
Luke would have been literate. Paul states elsewhere that Luke is a physician, and in the book Luke states he was contracted by a third party to write the book.
Questions about authorship aside, note that only Matthew and John claim to be disciples/people who directly interacted with Jesus. Luke is purported to be a physician/associate of Paul who was paid by an unnamed benefactor to document the life of Jesus based on interviews with eyewitnesses and research from earlier sources, and Mark is purported to be writing down an account of the life Jesus based on Peter's eyewitness testimony in Rome several decades after the fact.
Yeah you're correct. I mistakenly said unnamed due to the theory some people have that Theophilus was not a real person but is some kind of metaphor/personification of the church.
idk 2.5% yearly raise and 5% for promotions seems kind of meager to me. Seems like a yearly raise should both cover cost of living and throw in another percent or 2 to compensate for having another year of experience. I know a lot of people in a lot of professions don't get this but tech comp is what it is.
Then a promotion raise that constitute only 2 years of yearly base raises seems pretty lacking to me since a promotion generally comes with increased responsibilities and higher standards.
I've worked as a developer for companies outside of big tech who complain all day long about the fact that they can't compete with big tech on compensation while they hemorrhage engineers to big tech. I'm sure NYT does the same. No amount of moaning about this will change the fact that they are directly competing with these companies for talent.
I'm not anti-union at all and see them as necessary in certain types of jobs (I hope the Boeing Machinist's Union guts Boeing), but I have no interest in being a part of a union as a developer because it seems like collective bargaining just ends up locking everyone into the level of salary/career progression of the lowest common denominator.
