Stop it. You’re either a paid propagandist, you are an unwitting soldier, or you are knowingly fighting a culture war. Just stop it’s gross and unbecoming. if you are being sincere, I apologize but you still need to stop. Stop watching videos like that that are meant to make you mad, ignore people who are just trying to steal brain cycles from you, and for the love of all that is good don’t go reposting them; you are benefiting the person in that video and giving them exactly what they want and in essence agreeing with their entire perspective. Stop it.
A lot of the world had hospitality rules and treated outsiders kindly. Lots of people were allowed to come and go as they pleased they actually provide interesting reads. Borders as we understand them today were invented in the 18/1900s. Mass slavery spanning multiple continents and racism on that magnitude hasn't happened since and hopefully won't happen again (except maybe Rome & Egypt but that wasn't trans continental)
One doesn't exclude the other. You / anybody could be most welcoming to visitors and have your slaves serve them the best you had and treat them very well. Norms change, sometimes shockingly, and even within one's lifespan. Now young generations will most probably realize this when they will become out of touch and rejected by new young generation in maybe 2 decades.
The microtubules were from a pigs brain according the material and methods. These proteins exist in all animal cells. So this probably explains why single cell organisms are so intelligent despite not having a brain
Probably not. There were hopes that dark matter might arise from supersymmetry, and that if so the LHC might be able to create it.
Thus far they haven't found it, which is a big strike against supersymmetry, as well as a loss of an avenue for exploring dark matter. So back to the drawing board.
At that drawing board, they have other tools to look at. Often, they're astronomical and cosmological. One big clue is the "Bullet Cluster", where two galaxies collided, and the regular mass smashed into each other but the dark matter kept going. And they can look at the distribution of the Cosmic Microwave Background, which would show the influence of early dark matter.
Using that they know that dark matter must be "cold", i.e. not moving near the speed of light. So it must be fairly heavy -- heavier than neutrinos, at least, another particle that's maddeningly hard to detect. (They do have neutrino detectors that also hope to spot a dark matter collision event, but it's unlikely.)
If supersymmetry doesn't cut it, they'll need a new way to fix other problems with the Standard Model. Those would hopefully predict another dark-matter-like particle (massive, weakly interacting), which in turn would point in the direction of a detector. But there aren't any front-runners at the moment.
Dark matter is more of an observation than a theory. The gravitational motions of galaxies doesn't really make sense without it (and with dark matter + General Relativity, it fits perfectly, so we have good reason to believe it exists).
There are a few different theories on what dark matter is; there's axions, supersymmetry (from string theory), cold dark matter and more.
Dark Matter is not the same as antimatter, which CERN did produce.
There are speculations if there are antimatter galaxies out there and that they are in fact the dark Matter that we search for.
But dark matter is in essence matter that should be there, e.g. because a solar system behaves like it is in its gravitational field, but cannot be detected by our instruments.
Maybe it is a flaw in our theory, like the time we found out that newtons physic has some flaws, or we can't detect it because it is made of stuff that we can't measure yet.
Enter Mills classical theory of atomic structure that predicts dark matter is just hydrogen with the electron in a lower orbit that doesn't radiate (hence dark). This stuff has been created in the lab and measured every which way, for example in a gas chromatograph where it flows through faster than normal hydrogen. https://brilliantlightpower.com/theory/
imo his bets were really cool wework is the famous one and idk it would have been cool to see commercial real estate replaced with locally owned spaces with remote work becoming a norm but idk i can see how that might be preference
this is such a dumb question but can arm chips even run AI models? it seems like AI on the edge is still 10-15 years away with everyone trying to build a moat
Imo it feels more like 1-2 years away. Smaller 7B, 34B and 70B models are becoming a lot better, with more context length. Faster inference methods are coming out day by day. Better ways to quantize/distill models. All of that on top of chip advancements we saw a couple days ago with M4, Qualcomm/Googles arm chips...
I can't imagine more than 2 years for GPT4 level LLM on edge devices.
The question is, will ppl want GPT4 on the edge when GPT 6 is one request away?
"According to Precedence Research of Canada, the AI chip market is poised for explosive growth, with projections indicating a rise from $30 billion this year to over $200 billion by 2032.
Another research firm DataHorizzon Research even projected the AI Chip market to be 1,114.3 billion by 2032."
Ok, few here will deny the AI (chip) market is exploding. And CEOs will have visions of datacenters packed with expensive AI chips, extracting value from consumers. But if I were to take a guess:
AI models will be optimized the heck out of. Their architecture is only at the beginning of a long road of innovation (and in particular: simplification - aka race to the bottom). With so many heavyweights getting into the game, competition will be fierce.
Bottom line: yes, AI chips will be everywhere. But they'll also be cheap(-ish). Not unlike current day cpu's, flash, RAM etc.
With that in place, the next revolution: local-running AI models in everybody's hands. Cheap, easy to use & tinker with like mobile/PC apps today.
i used it through work so idk how the landlord side of things works
isn't it like AirBnB but for offices? isn't that good? like obviously there are complaints about AirBnB and stuff but it let your average person list their spaces
They tax people, especially high earners, at a higher rate than Americans. It’s not complicated. The US is the wealthiest country in the history of the planet. We could afford to fund social security if we wanted to but some people are opposed to it.
if you don't mind me asking why? won't everyone just get the money they put in from their salaries? in my head it's like a way to save pre-tax am I simplifying it too much
EU citizens generally pay much higher taxes, and get better retirement benefits for a wider variety of jobs, many of which would not be a career path that would have a good benefit package in the States.
And insurance that's not coupled with your employer.
The flaunting of wealth also isn't exactly culturally as strong as it is in the States.
My plan in the States -- in all seriousness -- is to be the local mountain hermit. I'll live semi-permanently in some hidden shack, I'll come down to town for odd jobs, hands-outs. Fringes of society for me.
could you say more about what makes it a ponzi scheme? in my country there's traditional retirement account you contribute to from your salary whether you work at a private / public org and you get that when you reach 65 is that bad idk much about life but especially clueless about these things
I wouldn’t call it a Ponzi scheme, but it’s less you get an account and more you pay into a big account and get a stipend based on your peak income. So money we pay now goes to pay current retirement benefits. And hopefully by when I retire the next generation will be paying so I can retire.
this is so maddeningly confusing to my brain that's used to you get what you put in
can you explain like I'm 5-10 why is the fund running out if every generation pays? are people in the workforce right now not paying into it or has there been a significant change in demographics between 1983 and now? wouldn't an entire generation need to stop paying for this to happen or is that ismplifying it
> has there been a significant change in demographics between 1983 and now
Bingo. The baby boomer generation that is hitting retirement now is living longer on average than any prior generation. Basically the math for payouts expected a certain amount of eligible people would either not make retirement age or would only collect retirement on average of X years before dying. That looks to be a miscalculation at this point:
Some countries have solved the problem, while others haven't. There is not much to figure out. There are three basic tools: higher contributions, higher retirement ages, and lower benefits. You just have to make decisions. Ideally decades in advance, to avoid unfair sudden changes.
We did not... In essence it is even more pay as you go. Tax everyone more and distribute that to pensioners. Though quite many pensioners are rather poor. Some with high earnings in late career do quite well.
Scandinavian is the usual example but like the UK for instance lived there for a bit everyone got dental / health through the NHS that would be the equivalent of medicare right? it didn't seem to be as political
question for the initiated: why do space agencies divide their resources and attention between different projects? Wouldn't it make sense to focus first on making the moon and it's resources accessible kind of like airplanes then systematically expand to Mars, asteroid belt, and so on instead of spreading out too thin without conquering the closest
- Betting everything on a single huge project is risky. You wait for years for completion, and if some critical part of the project costs more/takes longer than expected (much like Artemis today) you risk achieving nothing at all.
- Small, cheap projects that don't bankrupt the agency if they fail, when they succeed, generate ongoing positive PR and scientific results. NASA famously promoted this concept after one or two expensive projects had problems (of course, not famously enough that I remember more details).
- Some of those smaller projects are critical, like climate monitoring. You can't just set aside those sorts of tasks for a literal moonshot.
- Smaller projects contribute towards the big ones: NASA has given SpaceX a fair bit of money over the years that is paying off with Starship and Artemis.
Any papers or books (or thoughts) on why humans developed IC engines before solar powered engines? At first glance solar power seems more accessible than digging for petroleum / natural resources + the sun held an important place in various early religions as well
>why humans developed IC engines before solar powered engines?
IC engines are relatively cheap compared to other ways of transporting people and things, and society lacked a compelling motive to question the IC engine or to try to replace it till a scientific consensus formed (after computer modelling of the climate had become sufficiently cheap) that greenhouse gases were deeply involved in most climate changes and human-caused emissions were bringing discernible global warming -- in the 1990s.
Many engines, especially early on, can accept any external heat source as power. The most currently popular version of this is a Stirling engine, where you can find many toy engines of this type, like the wide bodies ones you can put on top of a hot drink.
Internal combustion was not actually popular for quite some time in early engines, I assume because it has more advanced requirements for fuel and ignition control, so if solar were a convenient enough power source it would have been used.
Yes, you can use the sun to heat up some water or some other fluid and in an abstract theoretical sense you can use the heat in the fluid to produce mechanical energy, but any engine small enough to go into a car or truck capable of providing enough energy to reliably overcoming rolling resistance or to make the car go up a hill is going to need a much denser power source than that.
Well yeah, as I mentioned if it were convenient to use solar for engines people would have done so. My whole point is that we had the technology and didn't do it because it's fundamentally not viable, not because of semiconductor technology.
Edit: oh, it looks like your radically edited both of your comments
Mirrors used to be difficult and expensive. There's no practical way (pre-semiconductor-era) to make thermodynamic engines on sunlight without a method to concentrate it, to achieve high temperatures.
At any rate, the areal power density is really low and wouldn't have been a good engineering choice, generally, even if it were available. (Agricultural pack animals were solar-powered machines all along. But, it takes no human work to build or maintain the fields of grass that they graze off).
There's an essay and a large HN thread about a related idea—why ancient Romans did not develop (combustion-powered) steam engines, what technological barriers prevented that,
Iron-age solar engines may have been impossible twice-over: impossible because of the lack of mirrors, and impossible again because of a lack of metallurgy for building high-pressure steam vessels.
Solar is weak. <1kW/m2. A small gasoline engine provides ~100kW of mechanical energy. That mismatch is what requires some magical conversion and storage to connect.
Also, the semi-conductor used in photovoltaic solar cells required quantum theory to invent. The IC was “inventable” based on thermodynamics cycles etc. known in the late nineteenth century
The first big investments in petroleum were for lighting via relatively clean-burning kerosene. Petroleum as a fuel came later, when they had a lot kerosene byproduct lying around. There's a obvious problem with solar as a lighting solution: you also need good batteries.
Speaking in general, one reason not to use macOS for servers is that the macOS kernel does not provide all of the necessary APIs for containerization.
A container is a combination of a restricted filesystem (e.g. chroot), separate namespaces (e.g. pids, network, ipc), and resource limits (e.g. cgroups for max RAM and CPU usage). It is a big undertaking to modify a kernel to provide these capabilities.
A few operating systems have these APIs (or something similar). The ones that I know about off the top of my head are: Solaris Zones, FreeBSD Jails, Linux containers, and Windows Server containers in Process Isolation mode.
The macOS kernel simply doesn't provide these APIs and I doubt that Apple is really interested in putting in the substantial effort to develop them.
They don't need Linux style containers, they control the OS. The Linux container situation is just a hack around the general API instability of the Linux userspace, a problem macOS doesn't have.
For inferencing workloads they also don't need to control max RAM or CPU usage as they can just dedicate the entire machine to handling requests.
And for sandboxing, Apple's sandboxing infrastructure is actually the best of any OS (but mostly private unfortunately).
If you don't mind me asking do you know if they intentionally removed support for containers? The closest cousin FreeBSD seems a lot more friendly in terms of support
Plus a lot of devs use mac is it not a large enough addressable market for apple to care about the servers
I'm honestly not really sure how it went down. It's possible that XNU (the macOS kernel) was simply developed before FreeBSD Jails were developed, and they never put in the engineering effort to port over the feature. I don't think there's a fundamental reason why it wouldn't work.
For devs, I think that most devs are okay with the current practice of running a virtualized Linux (or other) guest via Docker and deploying to Linux (or other) servers. macOS does support virtualization. The difference between virtualization and containerization is that a virtualized guest uses its own kernel whereas a containerized guest shares the host kernel.
I'll also point you to two comments in this old HN thread which seem to have good information about Apple's use of server operating systems:
You are comparing market cap to GDP. You should compare revenue to GDP. Still not a perfect comparison, but much much better.
Apple's revenue: 380B. Iran sits at position 40 with 380B GDP in 2022.
That oil is sold unprocessed and won't be powering anything unless it goes through a fairly expensive processing and logistics chain. Iran is also extremely inefficient and unproductive - it's a state after all.
Similarly, African raw materials form the core of many computers and yet Africa is still poor - because the raw material itself isn't that useful.
