does this mean if you want to add some print statements for local debugging inside a pure function that you will have to remove pure from the whole callgraph? or is there a way to treat it as just a warning?
it seems like in this case SIMD is one of the biggest reasons libdeflate beats miniz-oxide. at that point you are either using assembly or a library of functions that maps in names and functionality to the assembly. I think C isn't really better than other languages in that regard. Its not like its using auto-vectorization to get that SIMD support.
I would argue the effect is more pronounced in non-public companies that have private investors. Private equity especially does this, but VC backed startups also display extreme return on capital seeking behavior (albeit through growth rather than hollowing)
> While the power itself is the perfect example of the opposite, where the market should (according to theory at least) be perfect.
Markets don’t seem to want to solve for outlier situations like extreme weather events or significant hardware malfunctions. Basically I’m talking about what happened in Texas. When it’s a safety issue, it can be hard to align incentives to make planning for outliers worthwhile to market actors.
The market way to deal with outliers is to have an options market. Basically, it is an insurance market for providing electricity on a tight day. Texas has a different way of handling it that I don’t like.
A big problem in the electricity market is that most customers don’t respond to supply shocks. They pay the same price in an emergency as in normal times. So, when it got very cold and power plants started shutting down, they used more electricity because they needed more heat! The one electricity provider who did pass on higher prices to customers and reduced consumption, Griddy Energy, was roasted in the media. Because customers didn’t respond to the shortage, utilities had to. They instituted “rolling blackouts”, which we really just blackouts for any grid that didn’t have a hospital on it.
It’s more than that - it’s that if price is your only signal, it’s always going to be cheaper as a producer to ignore long-term sustainability, which means the companies which do so will “outcompete” the companies which plan for the future, leaving you with a market full of companies utterly incapable of handling an adverse event when it comes around. It’s not just greed, it’s a fundamental problem with how the market compresses signals about companies and products.
In a spherical cow market, the power producers in Texas would have sold contracts for "electricity (except when below 40 degrees)" so consumers would have known what they're getting into.
Since contracts are superior to everything else in a spherical cow market, CEOs of companies who sold contracts for "electricity" and then couldn't supply it would have had their homes raided and everything they owned traded for generators and fuel until their customers had electricity again. Maybe the customers would've even had the right to do the raid themselves.
But given the relatively low incidence of these events, even in a spherical cow market, won't there always be a non-zero number of companies willing to make contracts they can't always fulfill, under the assumption that the risk is relatively low? And wouldn't those companies then be able to outcompete anyone else in the short term?
Which is why we have ancillary services and grid regulations.
We aim for those to be real-time markets as well. But for some services that doesn’t fit so we instead buy the services on longer contracts.
The goal is of course to have the ancillary services to be as small and few as possible since it is a supplement creating market based pricing for the things the marginal net energy market itself doesn’t provide adequately today.
That seems much more sensible than what is being discussed. Sure fair use offers some protections, but youtube the platform is not required to protect individual youtuber revenues for fair use. Fair use effectivly entails an exception to the normal rules, and as such, requires actual judgement on a case by case basis instead of being something that can be scaled like content id. If you actually got sued, you could use Fair Use as a defense in court, and the judge would decide if you are right or not. In the case you are discussing, no-one got sued because youtube handled it without a court, so fair use never really comes into play.
What is being discussed would be more like if a court tried to get Google to take down individual spam bot youtube accounts that had popped up that same morning. Its rediculous because the legal system doesn't move that fast (nor does DNS), so things that require that level of heavy-handedness are typically much slower processes taking months or years.
Most home computers from the 8bit era shipped with basic on the ROM, and people used it for memory mapped hardware access with peak and poke commands. It was basically the operating system for some of these computers.
The op asked because a usb microscope is basically unsuitable for seeing something this small with much clarity. From other replies it sounds like the purpose is for automated positioning which makes more sense.
That really puts it in perspective in a nice way, thank you. These multiples really give a distorted sense of scale even when you know current production is not what is being valued
The Linux kernel project is not hurting for contributors nor was it prior to LLMs. The processes you describe as roadblocks don’t seem to have been preventing the Linux kernel from getting code contributions. Maybe they don’t need or want more easy onboarding or broader audience?
Go look at the statistics in the article. LLMs are having a huge impact both in terms of new people developing and fixing bugs. “Not hurting” is a value judgement. The actual question is whether people wanted to contribute and the process was what kept them away or talent to enact the change. I suspect process has more impact than you’re willing to give credit too.
> The actual question is whether people wanted to contribute and the process was what kept them away or talent to enact the change.
My point was basically that this question misunderstands the purpose of large open source projects. They are not primarily things people have a right to contribute to, but rather things we want to improve for everyone. Anyone has the right to make changes to the Linux kernel for their own purposes, but contributing is not a right. It is primarily for serving the public good.
I’m not surprised the processes discourage some portion of would be contributors from contributing. I just don’t think that is a problem.
reply