He followed some instructions he got off the Internet, spending $10k of his parents' money. That's not exactly a claim that nobody helped. I was building electronics kits out of magazines at age 12.
In Australia, "footy" is a proper subset of "football".
Four different sporting codes can be called "football": Australian Rules, Rugby League, Rugby Union, and Soccer. Only Australian Rules and Rugby League can be called "footy".
To a compiler writer (which is where I got my start) a compiler's runtime is any code that is needed to run a program but isn't generated by the compiler when an end user compiles their program.
C runtimes used to be a lot bigger than they are now. In the days of MS-DOS, you couldn't assume the presence of a FPU, so floating point was often compiled into calls into the FP runtime. Even today, microcontrollers often don't have instructions which directly implement basic C operations (e.g. 64 bit integer division) so these operations are typically compiled as calls to runtime routines.
As CPUs get more powerful, C runtimes get smaller. But to say there's no such thing is flatly untrue.
People are using scripting languages to piece together subsystems written in low-level code.
This is the way that tasks like this have pretty much always been done. Your web browser isn't written in JavaScript, even though its performance may make it seem that way.
Julia has a tremendous problem. It's not designed for users, it's designed for Julia designers.
I have to disagree with that. Julia is designed for users, but it knows that its use case is not Python's use case.
Julia was designed as an upgrade for Fortran programmers. Like all good upgrade languages, it learned from all of the languages which tried (and failed) to replace Fortran previously, like SISAL and Fortress.
There is a cohort of programmers for whom "the standard approach" means Python's highly idiosyncratic approach. In my (admittedly limited) experience, anyone who predates the rise of Python tends to have no problem picking up Julia.
I don't know, because I'm the exact opposite of Yann LeCun: he's an AI guy unsatisfied with programming languages, and I'm a programming language guy unsatisfied with AI.
I haven't worked in deep learning, so I don't know if he has well-formed complaints or he's just generally unsatisfied.
Second, there is no such thing as a C/C++ runtime.
Yes, that thing called crt0 that you've seen all your life is an illusion.
On a modern CPU, the C runtime doesn't have to do much. It has to set up the stack, argc/argv/envp, atexit handlers, and a few more random things. But it very much exists.
Also consider that C compilers are allowed to generate calls to memcpy if you assign a large struct or something, and many of them do.
Just because you are unhappy with their current tools and know through decades of experience that "more of the same" is not going to improve things, that doesn't mean you know what the future should look like.
Anyone who thinks this is a good idea has never actually known a comedian.
Comedians are not machines that hand out jollity. You're thinking of clowns. Comedians are frustrated idealists, and in that capacity are the most depressing people that you will ever meet.
Clarke did not predict that since the 1970s, housing costs would rise faster than take-home pay.
Back in the day, most middle class houses could afford a dedicated "den" room. Today, it is not economically feasible for most people to work from home most of the time. Certainly not in a manner that OH&S would allow.
No environmental problem, as bitcoin consumption is actually negligible, on the order of a large city (not a country as those who misquote and misunderstand the IEEE article 'absurd cost' claim, that was projection for future)]
At the risk of stating the obvious, there are plenty of countries with populations that are smaller than "a large city"; the population of New Zealand is roughly half that of Tokyo.
I couldn't find reliable data in the time that I had to compare like with like, but a reasonable null hypothesis is that both claims are true. I can easily see how a large city could easily consume the same power as a modest-sized country.
Bitcoin costs less than it costs to mine it - but only if your [sic] paying for the electricity.
This is essentially the same as the theory behind email spam. Most of the cost of spam is not borne by the person sending spam, but by the people receiving it. The cost to each individual recipient is very small, but multiplied by the number of recipients it adds up to quite large costs.
Slashdot Mirror
+1, Adam Curtis
Your ass gets rid of the shit? Hell, it has my vote.
I've heard of Squarespace (although I don't know how to capitalise it) because I listen to podcasts. I assume it has nothing to do with that.
Yeah, I think whoever wrote that spends too much time on Hacker News and not enough time in the real world.
I have an easier solution: ban elected judges and elected prosecutors, eliminate grand juries, ban private prisons, and make plea bargaining illegal.
You'd be surprised how much the prison population will fall when it's not in anyone's financial interest to keep it artificially high.
And nobody helped him. Not at all.
He followed some instructions he got off the Internet, spending $10k of his parents' money. That's not exactly a claim that nobody helped. I was building electronics kits out of magazines at age 12.
In Australia, "footy" is a proper subset of "football".
Four different sporting codes can be called "football": Australian Rules, Rugby League, Rugby Union, and Soccer. Only Australian Rules and Rugby League can be called "footy".
If the compiler generates a call where there there is no call in the source program, that's runtime.
To a compiler writer (which is where I got my start) a compiler's runtime is any code that is needed to run a program but isn't generated by the compiler when an end user compiles their program.
C runtimes used to be a lot bigger than they are now. In the days of MS-DOS, you couldn't assume the presence of a FPU, so floating point was often compiled into calls into the FP runtime. Even today, microcontrollers often don't have instructions which directly implement basic C operations (e.g. 64 bit integer division) so these operations are typically compiled as calls to runtime routines.
As CPUs get more powerful, C runtimes get smaller. But to say there's no such thing is flatly untrue.
It's worth comparing this with the C runtime for a 32-bit CPU or a microcontroller. It wasn't so long ago that 64 bit division was a function call.
One more thing that I didn't cover is the C++ runtime, which is a little larger due to exception handling.
If the only other alternative is Python, then that is precisely what we need.
People are using scripting languages to piece together subsystems written in low-level code.
This is the way that tasks like this have pretty much always been done. Your web browser isn't written in JavaScript, even though its performance may make it seem that way.
Julia has a tremendous problem. It's not designed for users, it's designed for Julia designers.
I have to disagree with that. Julia is designed for users, but it knows that its use case is not Python's use case.
Julia was designed as an upgrade for Fortran programmers. Like all good upgrade languages, it learned from all of the languages which tried (and failed) to replace Fortran previously, like SISAL and Fortress.
There is a cohort of programmers for whom "the standard approach" means Python's highly idiosyncratic approach. In my (admittedly limited) experience, anyone who predates the rise of Python tends to have no problem picking up Julia.
I don't know, because I'm the exact opposite of Yann LeCun: he's an AI guy unsatisfied with programming languages, and I'm a programming language guy unsatisfied with AI.
I haven't worked in deep learning, so I don't know if he has well-formed complaints or he's just generally unsatisfied.
Second, there is no such thing as a C/C++ runtime.
Yes, that thing called crt0 that you've seen all your life is an illusion.
On a modern CPU, the C runtime doesn't have to do much. It has to set up the stack, argc/argv/envp, atexit handlers, and a few more random things. But it very much exists.
Also consider that C compilers are allowed to generate calls to memcpy if you assign a large struct or something, and many of them do.
That's because he isn't sure yet.
Just because you are unhappy with their current tools and know through decades of experience that "more of the same" is not going to improve things, that doesn't mean you know what the future should look like.
Anyone who thinks this is a good idea has never actually known a comedian.
Comedians are not machines that hand out jollity. You're thinking of clowns. Comedians are frustrated idealists, and in that capacity are the most depressing people that you will ever meet.
Let me guess: Rose gold, cosmic purple, and fairy poop.
What's more ironic is messages of morality and personal holiness from the American tech industry.
The notion of religion being anti-science is only about 100 years old and largely an American invention.
The use case of a business crucially depending on one specific piece of paid-for software is far more common than you think.
One would think that a big-name tech entrepreneur could afford a reasonably clean supply.
What part of "flying army of laser cats" didn't you understand?
Clarke did not predict that since the 1970s, housing costs would rise faster than take-home pay.
Back in the day, most middle class houses could afford a dedicated "den" room. Today, it is not economically feasible for most people to work from home most of the time. Certainly not in a manner that OH&S would allow.
No environmental problem, as bitcoin consumption is actually negligible, on the order of a large city (not a country as those who misquote and misunderstand the IEEE article 'absurd cost' claim, that was projection for future)]
At the risk of stating the obvious, there are plenty of countries with populations that are smaller than "a large city"; the population of New Zealand is roughly half that of Tokyo.
I couldn't find reliable data in the time that I had to compare like with like, but a reasonable null hypothesis is that both claims are true. I can easily see how a large city could easily consume the same power as a modest-sized country.
Bitcoin costs less than it costs to mine it - but only if your [sic] paying for the electricity.
This is essentially the same as the theory behind email spam. Most of the cost of spam is not borne by the person sending spam, but by the people receiving it. The cost to each individual recipient is very small, but multiplied by the number of recipients it adds up to quite large costs.