Brother in law did some "time with the brass" as he calls it. His take was that the DOD, er DOW would, as an example, never acquire a fighter jet that "wouldn't target and kill a civilian airliner", citing that on 9/11 we literally almost did that. The DOW is acquiring instruments of war, which is probably unconformable for a lot of people to consider.
His conclusion was that the limits of use ought to be contractual, not baked into the LLM, which is where the fallout seems to be. He noted that the Pentagon has agreed to terms like that in the past.
To me, that seems like reasonable compromise for both parties, but both sides are so far entrenched now we're unlikely to see a compromise.
that may be, but the bigger picture purpose of the military is, welfare republicans like. in that sense, republicans are in charge, republicans want stuff that isn't "woke" (or whatever), so this behavior is representative of the way it works.
it has little to do with acquiring instruments of war, or war at all. its mission keeps growing and growing, it has a huge mission, very little of that mission is combat. this is what their own leadership says (complains about). 999/1,000 people on its payroll are doing duty outside of combat or foreseeable combat.
I always use fixed point decimals for accounting. Floating points are approximations of decimals, which is the exact opposite what you want while accounting.
Useful for say, simulating aerodynamics or weather, not useful for precision tasks.
ridiculous asks are expensive. Not understanding limitations of computer systems are expensive.
The main problem is, and always will be communication. engineers are in general are quick to say "that won't work as you described" because they can see the steps that it takes to get there. Sales guys (CEOs) live a completely different world and they "hear" "I won't do that" from technical types. It's the ultimate impedance mismatch and the subject of countless seminars.
AI writing code at least reduces the cost of the inevitable failures, but doesn't solve the root problem.
Successful business will continue be those who's CTO/CEO relationship is a true partnership.
These days, feature-wise, it's probably somewhere in the middle. It had support for things like window functions long before they became available in MySQL and friends.
What it gives you over both is single-file databases which are easy to share, and in-process embedded mode, just like SQLite.
Unlike SQLite, it doesn't only support embedded mode, but can also be turned into a "server" DBMS that supports remote access from multiple clients (like MySQL/PostgreSQL). Hundreds of concurrent connections work fine from what I've seen. This can be changed in either direction at your discretion, the database file remains the same.
Actually, considering its Ingres roots, I'd consider PostgreSQL OG as well. MS SQL Server on the other hand was just a port of Sybase (for OS/2) initially.
My favorite anecdote relating to Firebird/Interbase (its original name) is that it is supposed to be renowned for its durability (i.e. resistance to corruption) and fast start times.
Because of this, they used it within the internal systems of the M-1 Abrahms tank.
Apparently when the main gun is fired, it gives off such a powerful energy impulse, that there is (at least was) a tendency for it to crash the internal systems.
So, they adopted Interbase because of its ability to work well in an environment where hard computer crashes are more a norm than an outlier.
His conclusion was that the limits of use ought to be contractual, not baked into the LLM, which is where the fallout seems to be. He noted that the Pentagon has agreed to terms like that in the past.
To me, that seems like reasonable compromise for both parties, but both sides are so far entrenched now we're unlikely to see a compromise.
reply