This is such a left-field comparison. One H100 costs $25,000, whereas one Macbook Pro/iMac/iOS device costs roughly a tenth of that. It's not at all surprising that it's cheaper to rent something that has CapEx costs 2 orders of magnitude less than that of 8xH100 ($200k for the GPUs alone).
The problem is that H100s are enterprise products while Apple ones aren't. If you have trouble with your H100s how does it compare cost-wise with having trouble with your consumer Apple hardware?
Machine learning was widely considered to be a subset of AI, until it got a big resurgence almost 2 decades ago. Now some people use the terms interchangeably.
As everyone knows, this is in sharp contrast with serious engineering operations like Amazon or Google, where there are no disagreements on technical designs. Ever.
Since 1920, the vast increase in welfare beneficiaries and the extension of the franchise to women - two constituencies that are notoriously tough for libertarians - have rendered the notion of "capitalist democracy" into an oxymoron
I no longer believe that freedom and democracy are compatible.
Both quotes by Peter Thiel in a Cato Unbound[1] blog post, 2009. The second quote is - let's call it "interesting" - considering Thiel is the patron of a VP candidate who may be a heartbeat away from the presidency.
You're likely reading the quote wrong, since it reads completely differently out of context. He was referring specifically to how beneficiaries of the government are incentivized to vote for policies which provide government benefits to themselves, thereby continually maintaining or increasing the size of the government. His implication is that as the government grows bigger, as it does with continually increasing beneficiaries, who vote in order to increase their benefit as the system allows, the freedom of those who are not advantaged by a growing and naturally increasingly regulatory government will decrease, due to a higher tax and regulatory burden.
> He was referring specifically to how beneficiaries of the government are incentivized to vote for policies which provide government benefits to themselves
I can believe that, but one has to be willfully ignorant to believe that such voter self-interest started in 1920, and that previous cohorts voted in an objective manner, always devoid of self-interest and for everyone's benefit.
The underlying question is "Whose interests does (or should) the government concern itself with"
A government beneficiary doesn't typically refer to anyone who is advantaged by a governments laws, but essentially a person or entity who receives a monetary benefit from the government, which is likely what is being referred to. This is what did not exist in the US till the early 20th century.
> but essentially a person or entity who receives a monetary benefit from the government, which is likely what is being referred to. This is what did not exist in the US till the early 20th century
Are you seriously suggesting the voter pool received no monetary benefits from the government before 1920? President Lincoln signed the Homestead Act in 1862 - does getting 160 acres from uncle Sam for a token fee count as "monetary benefit" in your books? The act grant was for "heads of households" 21 years and older. I bet there were similar land grants in the original colonies predate the declaration of independence.
No, of course I wouldn't argue that, and I not only did not, but it also has nothing to do with what I mentioned Thiel was referring to. I think you also know that your example is tangential and hardly comparable. The Homestead Act, and all other related land grant acts, have no relation to the modern beneficiary system that only came into existence in the US in the early 20th century. The modern beneficiary system is what is being referred to by Thiel.
> I think you also know that your example is tangential and hardly comparable. The Homestead Act, and all other related land grant acts, have no relation to the modern beneficiary system that only came into existence in the US in the early 20th century
I posit that the distinction is arbitrary. There is no qualitative difference between civil war pensions of 1862 vs the G.I. bill of 1944. If there was a change in government doctrine, I'd love to see concrete contrasts rather than hand-waving. Or perhaps Thiel's gripe is quantitative rather than qualitative?
The line referencing the franchise is a separate quote and I'm not even going to pretend to understand sdwhat he was thinking when he wrote that. I assume that he regrets that quote, since he hasn't said anything similar since.
I'm dying to know how I'm incorrectly reading the part where he calls giving women the right to vote has rendered "capitalist democracy" an oxymoron. He seems pretty clear on it to me.
> If VCs disappear overnight most tech would not change ideologically. It hasn't changed too much ideologically for the past few decades.
What has changed is that the proportion of people who wind up in tech primarily due to passion has drastically dropped as it became more prestigious. I'll paraphrase something I read elsewhere that rang true to me. In the 80s and 90s, amoral,greed-is-good, get-rich-by-any-means people got into banking and finance because it paid well. Now they go into tech.
That still wouldn't change the political leanings much, which is my main point.
However the kind of moralization, where the industry has suddenly become amoral greedy monsters is imo wrong.
Tech has alway been ruthless. It's always been a cutthroat business. We even valorize that kind of character as the founder. That hasn't changed.
What has changed is the political opportunity. SV can now influence and leverage real political power. That political opportunity is why so many are switching away from being Left leaning Libertarians (with even re-distributive ideas like UBI), to more Right leaning libertarians.
And this is all because the incumbents on the Left aren't willing to make room for the new players in Tech. So path of least resistance is to move Right.
This realignment has happening for a decade plus now.
This is not new: read articles of transcripts of speeches from 10+ years ago by Thiel or pg that lionize young, inexperienced founders and the benefits of working at startups pitched to the youth.
Same question applies perfectly to caffeine. I might just be justifying my addiction, but it’s possible this is still worthwhile as it allows one to manually select when they want to expend their mental energy, overriding the normally semirandom fluctuations brought on by exhaustion, mood, etc.
A big difference is that caffeine isn't addictive. It may seem like it, and you do get a few headaches when you quit cold turkey, but you just don't get the intense graving you get with addictions.
> Numerous controlled laboratory investigations reviewed in this article show that caffeine produces behavioral and physiological effects similar to other drugs of dependence. Moreover, several recent clinical studies indicate that caffeine dependence is a clinically meaningful disorder that affects a nontrivial proportion of caffeine users.
I think you’d be surprised. When i quit coffee cold turkey, I was basically out of commission for a week. Mentally I felt and functioned as though I was running a heavy fever, I could never feel full, and I felt exhausted and ready to sleep the moment I woke up. The headaches were constant and agonizing for about a whole week, easily worse than a migraine, and I had weird mood swings where I’d suddenly feel very anxious or sad out of nowhere. The difference is I was probably drinking 300mg a day or so.
> A big difference is that caffeine isn't addictive. It may seem like it, and you do get a few headaches when you quit cold turkey, but you just don't get the intense graving you get with addictions.
I'm curious what definition of "addiction" you're using to arrive at the conclusion that caffeine isn't addictive.
> Isn’t the standard definition that you continue to use the drug despite it causing serious negative problems in your life?
There's no one standard definition of "addiction", and most concise definitions (one or two lines) are extremely fragile and break down when you try to apply them in any meaningful context.
By this definition you're putting forth, caffeine certainly could be addictive, as could any substance - and in fact, nearly any behavior, which is why professionals generally frown upon using this measure definitionally, because it leads to pseudoscientific terms like "X addiction", for absurd values of X.
I think nicotine is one of the very few components that can enhance some brain functions very slightly. It does however have far more negative side effects as its role in nature would suggest it would have.
This is an exception and other common drugs like caffeine that do not have any positive effects at all. Or any other drug for that matter.
There is fairly good evidence that nicotine causes some mild cognitive benefits beyond the baseline. Of course there are also downsides even separate from the effects of smoking.
...Because someone scraping from a Bytedance IP range is not necessarily Bytedance, just like requests from an AWS IP do not imply Amazon authored the spider
None of my prior work contracts stipulated not to microwave fish in the break room, or how often I ought to shower; yet "Don't stink up the office" is rule most folk innately know, recognize and respect as part of being a decent colleague. Some rules have to stay unwritten (or be in vague clauses), otherwise every contract will be tens of thousands of pages long.
Look, you can argue about the existence of social norms till the cows come home, it won't change the fact that there is a non-trivial subset of open source developers and users that believe the lack of discrimination of any kind is exactly the point of Open Source. The definition is not stipulating these rights indiscriminately by accident, and it did not have to be written that way. I will acknowledge that some people in the community clearly believe that enforcing unwritten social rules with regards to Open Source is the best practice, but I don't accept that this is the common or obvious viewpoint. I think that viewpoint is overrepresented in spaces like Hacker News with a lot of startup-adjacent folks but even here I wouldn't expect the majority of people to agree with this.
P.S.: This all having been said, while I think that there aren't commonly-shared unwritten rules w.r.t. who may do what with open source software pertaining to its copyright license(s), I don't think there's absolutely no "unwritten rules" in open source. For example, I think the CLA rug-pull pattern is a pretty dirty trick, but that has little to do with open source licenses and more to do with outright deceiving people. And even then, it does beg the question of why you would agree to sign something that explicitly grants that right when there is absolutely no reason to do so.
Warranty, charging rate (they pioneered the 800V architecture IIRC), bang-for-buck; Kia features are generous for the trim-levels compared to the competition.
reply