"Don't make the mistake of anthropomorphizing Larry Ellison." -Bryan Cantrill
Larry can be very cold hearted, but I can't fault him for this. Sparc/Solaris was a great choice in the 1980s, a reasonable choice in the 1990s, and a bad choice ever since. There can't be much more than a handful of legacy customers left. I am surprised that it took this long to finally die.
As a humor impaired literalist Aspie, that comic doesn't make sense to me. The delta-V need to reach the sun is orders of magnitude higher than what is needed for a sub-orbital attack. You can't just take ICBMs and "launch them into the sun". A sentient AI should know that.
I'm not sure how NPUs are implemented, my guess is you have an array of gates like a FPGA
Most likely it is a FinFET ASIC with local memory and lots of FP16, FP12, and/or FP8 multipliers for doing matrix ops. That is what Google's TPU is, and this is targeted to the same apps (deep NNs).
All of you Wikileaks supporters should applaud the transparency created by this breach. If you dont, then you're a hypocrite
I believe we should have more transparency. But that doesn't mean I have to believe everything should be transparent. The government needs to have some secrets. 99% of classified material shouldn't be classified, but the other 1% should be.
Anyway, I don't see the big deal about this breach. I had a "top secret" clearance for more than a decade. The government hands them out like candy corn on Halloween, and you can just assume that any tech within 100km of the Beltway likely has one.
During the 10+ years I did defense work, I don't think I ever saw anything that made me go "Wow, it would be really bad if the commies knew about this!" It was mostly mundane stuff.
Extraction of coal and its burning in coal fired plants exceeds the emissions generated by extraction and use of uranium in nuclear plants, by a factor of two, in modern times.
Citation? Even the 1978 Oakridge study didn't claim a factor of two, and it was written when coal plants were far dirtier than they are today.
Yes, radioactive elements released into the environment due to coal use is significantly larger than with nuclear plants
Not true. This is mostly a myth. Most radiation from coal is thorium, which stays in the ash, and is not biologically active. The comparison was made in 1978, when fly ash stack emission standards for coal were way more lax than today. Even so, coal radiation was only more than nukes during "normal operations", but nearly all environmental radiation from nukes is from leaks and accidents.
There are plenty of good reasons to stop burning coal, but "radiation" isn't one of them.
Imagine that: Companies only embrace open source when they benefit from it.
Companies are often poor at deciding what is in their best interest. Reddit's explanation is that going closed source will allow them to do secret stuff. But is keeping secrets really beneficial? Might it not be better to discuss changes openly, and get feedback from users, before committing development time?
I once worked for a company that was considering going open source. There was huge internal opposition from people that feared giving away the "crown jewels" and allowing competitors to "steal" code. After months of debate, we went ahead and opened everything up.
Over the next year, we had a total of this many downloads: 0.
the Rust Moderation Team, which enforces the Rust Code of Conduct. This code of conduct ensures a tolerant environment for all. Anyone who doesn't show tolerance is excluded.
We should use Rust to bring peace to the Middle East.
You can also short Bitcoin. Go to Google an type in "How to short bitcoin". Several links will tell you how to do it.
Before you do that, you might want to understand why Bitcoin is going up. To understand that, try Googling "Currency controls in China".
China is running huge current account surpluses, and moving money out of the country is severely restricted, yet the value of the RMB relative to the USD has been weak. Why? Where is the money going? Think about that, and then think about whether shorting bitcoins is really such a bright idea.
If Satoshi were ever allowed to cash in his exclusive pre-owned block of coins, then it would be a Ponzi scheme.
Nonsense. Satoshi's coin stash is public knowledge, recorded in the blockchain. There is absolutely nothing fraudulent about it. Claiming that this makes it a "Ponzi scheme" makes as much sense as saying Google is a Ponzi scheme because Larry and Sergey have founder's stock.
Charles Ponzi ran a Ponzi scheme. Bernie Madoff ran a Ponzi scheme. They lied, cheated, and defrauded their clients, and went to prison. Satoshi lied to no one, cheated no one, and defrauded no one. Bitcoin may or may not be a good investment, but what you see is what you get. It is an open system, and win or lose, you have no one to blame but yourself.
Bitcoin may go up, or it may go down, but it absolutely is not a Ponzi scheme. If you think it is, then you don't understand Bitcoins, you don't understand what a Ponzi scheme is, or both.
Nasdaq hits 5000, everyone started piling in, and then came the big crash. This is no different
Actually, this is different. A stock is inherently worth the value of future profits. Once it became clear these companies would never be significantly profitable, it was clear that the stocks were way overvalued. Bitcoins have no inherent value, so any valuation is just as "valid" as any other. People were predicting imminent collapse when Bitcoin passed the "ridiculous" value of $1.
Asian faces have just as much variance as European faces. If you spend time around Asians, your facial recognition neural network will reprogram itself, and you will have little difficulty recognizing individuals.
Want to bet Taco Bell tries a drone delivery in Mongolia next?
I would bet against it. Chinese (and presumably Mongolians) don't care much for Mexican food, There were a few Taco Bells in China, but they closed a decade ago.
That's been tried so many times... but keep expecting better results.
I have been involved with "remote workers" many, many times, and it is the "remoteness" that is a far bigger problem than the nationality of the workers.
why would they be suddenly unacceptable if they wanted to stay in Muncie?
Because they would be unproductive and drag down the productivity of their entire team. That is reality. Look, there are a reason that "tech hubs" exist, and there is a reason that companies located in them are far more successful. There is also a reason that "distributed" companies tend to fail. Hiring someone in Silicon Valley will cost twice what an equivalent worker in Muncie would cost, yet successful companies realize that is a price worth paying.
There's been a rapid increase in the value if cryptocurrencies without any clear underlying reason to support the increases.
There is no clear underlying reason for ANY price. Bitcoins have no inherent value. A bubble in stock prices can be seen when valuations are out of whack with P/Es. A bubble in real estate can be seen when valuations are far above rental revenues. Even a bubble in gold is apparent when the valuation rises far above the cost of mining, since gold mining can be expanded without any inherent limits. None of these apply to cryptocurrencies. Even the cost of mining them is not a good measure, since there is only a limited number to mine. They may be mined sooner if the price goes up, but that just means there will be even fewer mined later on.
Slashdot Mirror
Then why the fuck did he buy it?
To kill MySql, which was a long term threat to Oracle's core business.
Maybe his company could have done less of a dick move
Without dick moves, Oracle wouldn't be Oracle, and Larry certainly wouldn't be Larry. Being a dick is his core competency.
"Don't make the mistake of anthropomorphizing Larry Ellison." -Bryan Cantrill
Larry can be very cold hearted, but I can't fault him for this. Sparc/Solaris was a great choice in the 1980s, a reasonable choice in the 1990s, and a bad choice ever since. There can't be much more than a handful of legacy customers left. I am surprised that it took this long to finally die.
Energy is mv^2, so that would be 125 times as much fuel. But you also need fuel to lift the fuel, so likely another factor of 5.
Bottom line is that you can't launch an ICBM into the sun, and Randall's "sentient AI" isn't very bright.
Maybe because of this
As a humor impaired literalist Aspie, that comic doesn't make sense to me. The delta-V need to reach the sun is orders of magnitude higher than what is needed for a sub-orbital attack. You can't just take ICBMs and "launch them into the sun". A sentient AI should know that.
I'd rather have the chinese spy on me than my own government.
You must not have much of a basis for comparison, then.
Americans are four times more likely to be arrested and imprisoned by their government compared to Chinese.
I'm not sure how NPUs are implemented, my guess is you have an array of gates like a FPGA
Most likely it is a FinFET ASIC with local memory and lots of FP16, FP12, and/or FP8 multipliers for doing matrix ops. That is what Google's TPU is, and this is targeted to the same apps (deep NNs).
All of you Wikileaks supporters should applaud the transparency created by this breach. If you dont, then you're a hypocrite
I believe we should have more transparency. But that doesn't mean I have to believe everything should be transparent. The government needs to have some secrets. 99% of classified material shouldn't be classified, but the other 1% should be.
Anyway, I don't see the big deal about this breach. I had a "top secret" clearance for more than a decade. The government hands them out like candy corn on Halloween, and you can just assume that any tech within 100km of the Beltway likely has one.
During the 10+ years I did defense work, I don't think I ever saw anything that made me go "Wow, it would be really bad if the commies knew about this!" It was mostly mundane stuff.
Extraction of coal and its burning in coal fired plants exceeds the emissions generated by extraction and use of uranium in nuclear plants, by a factor of two, in modern times.
Citation? Even the 1978 Oakridge study didn't claim a factor of two, and it was written when coal plants were far dirtier than they are today.
Yes, radioactive elements released into the environment due to coal use is significantly larger than with nuclear plants
Not true. This is mostly a myth. Most radiation from coal is thorium, which stays in the ash, and is not biologically active. The comparison was made in 1978, when fly ash stack emission standards for coal were way more lax than today. Even so, coal radiation was only more than nukes during "normal operations", but nearly all environmental radiation from nukes is from leaks and accidents.
There are plenty of good reasons to stop burning coal, but "radiation" isn't one of them.
Successful companies listen to their customers rather than watching their competitors.
Imagine that: Companies only embrace open source when they benefit from it.
Companies are often poor at deciding what is in their best interest. Reddit's explanation is that going closed source will allow them to do secret stuff. But is keeping secrets really beneficial? Might it not be better to discuss changes openly, and get feedback from users, before committing development time?
I once worked for a company that was considering going open source. There was huge internal opposition from people that feared giving away the "crown jewels" and allowing competitors to "steal" code. After months of debate, we went ahead and opened everything up.
Over the next year, we had a total of this many downloads: 0.
Just because we don't vote your way doesn't mean we aren't human beings.
Houston (Harris county) voted for Hillary.
the Rust Moderation Team, which enforces the Rust Code of Conduct. This code of conduct ensures a tolerant environment for all. Anyone who doesn't show tolerance is excluded.
We should use Rust to bring peace to the Middle East.
Lol, you're actually using the argument that it's worthless to say it's not worth less!!!
No inherent value is not the same as valueless. Here are some other things that have little or no inherent value:
1. Gold
2. Diamonds
3. Dollars
And least I can short Amazon and Tesla.
You can also short Bitcoin. Go to Google an type in "How to short bitcoin". Several links will tell you how to do it.
Before you do that, you might want to understand why Bitcoin is going up. To understand that, try Googling "Currency controls in China".
China is running huge current account surpluses, and moving money out of the country is severely restricted, yet the value of the RMB relative to the USD has been weak. Why? Where is the money going? Think about that, and then think about whether shorting bitcoins is really such a bright idea.
If Satoshi were ever allowed to cash in his exclusive pre-owned block of coins, then it would be a Ponzi scheme.
Nonsense. Satoshi's coin stash is public knowledge, recorded in the blockchain. There is absolutely nothing fraudulent about it. Claiming that this makes it a "Ponzi scheme" makes as much sense as saying Google is a Ponzi scheme because Larry and Sergey have founder's stock.
Charles Ponzi ran a Ponzi scheme. Bernie Madoff ran a Ponzi scheme. They lied, cheated, and defrauded their clients, and went to prison. Satoshi lied to no one, cheated no one, and defrauded no one. Bitcoin may or may not be a good investment, but what you see is what you get. It is an open system, and win or lose, you have no one to blame but yourself.
... is a fraudulent investment operation
Bitcoin is not fraudulent. Everyone can see exactly how it works. The source is open.
... where the operator
Bitcoin has no "operator"
... generates returns
Bitcoin does not "generate returns".
Bitcoin is the dictionary definition of a ponzi scheme.
... other than being totally different.
It's basically one big ponzi scheme
Bitcoin may go up, or it may go down, but it absolutely is not a Ponzi scheme. If you think it is, then you don't understand Bitcoins, you don't understand what a Ponzi scheme is, or both.
Nasdaq hits 5000, everyone started piling in, and then came the big crash. This is no different
Actually, this is different. A stock is inherently worth the value of future profits. Once it became clear these companies would never be significantly profitable, it was clear that the stocks were way overvalued. Bitcoins have no inherent value, so any valuation is just as "valid" as any other. People were predicting imminent collapse when Bitcoin passed the "ridiculous" value of $1.
They all look alike to me.
Asian faces have just as much variance as European faces. If you spend time around Asians, your facial recognition neural network will reprogram itself, and you will have little difficulty recognizing individuals.
Btw, Asians think white people all look alike.
Want to bet Taco Bell tries a drone delivery in Mongolia next?
I would bet against it. Chinese (and presumably Mongolians) don't care much for Mexican food, There were a few Taco Bells in China, but they closed a decade ago.
Aren't there piles of FPGA designers in Si Valley?
Sure, but they have an unemployment rate of about 0.1%, so there are very few actually available.
What's that thing about women in STEM?
There are plenty of women in STEM, they just aren't programmers.
That's been tried so many times... but keep expecting better results.
I have been involved with "remote workers" many, many times, and it is the "remoteness" that is a far bigger problem than the nationality of the workers.
why would they be suddenly unacceptable if they wanted to stay in Muncie?
Because they would be unproductive and drag down the productivity of their entire team. That is reality. Look, there are a reason that "tech hubs" exist, and there is a reason that companies located in them are far more successful. There is also a reason that "distributed" companies tend to fail. Hiring someone in Silicon Valley will cost twice what an equivalent worker in Muncie would cost, yet successful companies realize that is a price worth paying.
There's been a rapid increase in the value if cryptocurrencies without any clear underlying reason to support the increases.
There is no clear underlying reason for ANY price. Bitcoins have no inherent value. A bubble in stock prices can be seen when valuations are out of whack with P/Es. A bubble in real estate can be seen when valuations are far above rental revenues. Even a bubble in gold is apparent when the valuation rises far above the cost of mining, since gold mining can be expanded without any inherent limits. None of these apply to cryptocurrencies. Even the cost of mining them is not a good measure, since there is only a limited number to mine. They may be mined sooner if the price goes up, but that just means there will be even fewer mined later on.
So $4857 is just as reasonable as $1.
Can Orion Slave Girls photosynthesize?