I found this report on the ban of single use plastics in QLD.
Retailers found it difficult to determine whether they were financially better or worse off because of the plastic bag
ban as the new bags cost more to purchase but people were taking fewer. Of those interviewed, 94 per cent of
retailers noted that implementation of the plastic bag ban was not at all challenging for them. Retailers attributed
this to being very well prepared, having a smooth transition, with few to no noticeable changes
This sounds like this is all packaging, so I guess the using less isn't actionable on the consumer level and
customer complaints about the bans, the lack of suitable alternative products and the increased
cost of available alternative products.
So it seems the price increase was noticeable enough to complain about at least.
I guess I'm kind of well off, but cheap by nature, so I actively sort out the reusable products to avoid the cost or the cost isn't the primary concern when I forget them.
I think it's great that they set it on open math problems for this reason.
It's relatively straight forward to prove/disprove if it did anything novel or just combined a bunch of things it's trained on like i'd expect.
won't meaningfully change anything about their lives
The HAFF would in no way benefit me personally, nor would the negative gearing and capital gains tax changes since they will take some time to do anything, so I agree.
somehow betraying their supporters
I also agree it wouldn't betray their supporters, I imagine most are well off enough that these changes can be easily sacrificed for the hope of something better.
I think these are policies that are better than, actually nothing.
I recognise that there are those less fortunate that they may be just enough to tip the scales for some. I don't feel good sacrificing them because I thought it didn't go far enough.
I understand they need popularity to get votes and power.
But they block and sacrifice mediocre reform for popularity.
For example with Max's favorite, the HAFF, investments need time in the market to grow, delaying it for ~8 months at 10% (2024-25 nominal returns %pa) is 0.66 billion forfeit.
I'm not saying that all of that would have been invested in housing, rather than fund growth, but it definitely can't now.
So how much is the popularity worth?
And if they can compromise their strategy for votes for even mediocre reform in a reasonable time, how can we believe they will act different with power?
From their actions rather than their words, It seems to me they are pandering to people want reform, whilst halting the mediocre reform that is happening anyway without them. Because they know the people they are pandering too won't check their homework. And we are supposed to trust that it will flip and they will be able to negotiate change later?
Ah, that's probably it.
And yeah, governments need to figure out how to manage this. I think it's destined to be bound by whatever is actually economical post hype. Not pending efficiency breakthroughs of the likes of mores law.
I am a software engineer by trade, so biases' being what they are. But what I was more trying to demonstrate is that it is provable. Not that making the proof is easy.
I know you said all, but I'm curious which part do you think is horse shit?
Do you think Torvalds is lying about using AI all together?
or just how useful AI actually was?
The commit with the alleged AI use is in the an RC for the next release, and it is authored by Torvalds.
Code is probably one of the easiest things to verify, for that reason I struggle to see any other viable uses for LLMs tbh.
user: write code that correctly asserts what 1+1 equals.
LLM: assert_eq!(1 + 1, 4);
LLM: hmmm, that crashed.
LLM: assert_eq!(1 + 1, 3);
LLM: hmmm, that also crashed, I must be doing something wrong, let me try one more time.
LLM: assert_eq!(1 + 1, 2);
LLM: that worked!
LLM Response: assert_eq!(1 + 1, 2);
user: what does this sentence mean? "Buffalo buffalo Buffalo buffalo buffalo buffalo Buffalo buffalo"
LLM Response: This doesn't mean anything, or someone really likes buffalo's
I can always run the code to check, I still don't know how that sentence makes sense.
I didn't think these files were supposed to do anything more than this. Its supposed to provide a loose framework of the project, its supposed to trigger the agent to use specific tool more often.
Exactly.
I think npm and cargo just make Dependency (mis) management more accessible. You still need to choose worthwhile dependencies, and if you don't want to update frequently, dependencies with stable long term support.
I think the best analogy to highlight the drawbacks of Rust is to say it's like "Good test coverage.".
If you read that as 100% test coverage you can spend a lot of time doing some trivial overhead that probably isn't doing a whole lot. But, if you have half a brain it's probably not particularly harmful.
If you read that as effective test coverage, you probably know the problem quite well and it's probably some overhead, but you get to feel a bit more confident and have some executable documentation.
Neither of which I have heard to be useful or converted in the game industry so it sounds like a waste of time.
That said, if you're like me and that overhead sounds nice, then you might like Rust :P
The problem of not teaching the less experienced and just doing the work yourself has always existed. Perhaps to a lesser degree in some industries that mandated it by necessity/demand.
AI makes it more convenient/viable or reduces necessity/demand but the lesson is the same and will be learnt again, at least eventually.
The edge case is software development, for the bog standard stuff I write at work it probably helps me get work done about 15%-30% faster and with costs of $200-$400 USD a month the math actually works out. At current prices anyway. Also the electricity costs of running open weight models is even cheaper and if there is a pop HW prices may make that an obvious choice too. The worst case IMO would be a slow boil of prices to recoup the unsustainable growth then a slow decline to wherever normal ends up. In that case everyone is left indignant.
Agreed, However I also wonder how or if LLMs could help with what we don't know we need.
With the processing pace of LLMs and the massive context the can processes at once. It seems like it could make the broader connections that are usually the harder to find more accessible.
Pretty sure all my repos are MIT licensed for the betterment of everyone, but I'm not on the list! So I guess I'm not good enough, or they are failing to follow the attribution clause of it.
How does a credit score help? In my country we have a register for things like cars than you can see if any debt owed on it, so I guess tracking is on the asset side. Otherwise, wouldn't it just be fraud and the banks would take legal action? That would still produce a record that could be checked too.
If you cut out buffer bloat it's easy to forget that everything is only slightly slower, it's the inconsistency in the latency that makes you really notice. With a base of ~130ms when it doubles for those first couple of packets of every page load you really feel it, as long as it's smooth, your brain can adjust.
I have it for my whole house and no one notices/complains.
I found this report on the ban of single use plastics in QLD.
This sounds like this is all packaging, so I guess the using less isn't actionable on the consumer level and
So it seems the price increase was noticeable enough to complain about at least.
I guess I'm kind of well off, but cheap by nature, so I actively sort out the reusable products to avoid the cost or the cost isn't the primary concern when I forget them.
https://www.qld.gov.au/__data/assets/pdf_file/0025/511828/single-use-plastic-ban-review-report-2024.pdf
I think it's great that they set it on open math problems for this reason. It's relatively straight forward to prove/disprove if it did anything novel or just combined a bunch of things it's trained on like i'd expect.
The HAFF would in no way benefit me personally, nor would the negative gearing and capital gains tax changes since they will take some time to do anything, so I agree.
I also agree it wouldn't betray their supporters, I imagine most are well off enough that these changes can be easily sacrificed for the hope of something better.
I think these are policies that are better than, actually nothing. I recognise that there are those less fortunate that they may be just enough to tip the scales for some. I don't feel good sacrificing them because I thought it didn't go far enough.
I understand they need popularity to get votes and power. But they block and sacrifice mediocre reform for popularity. For example with Max's favorite, the HAFF, investments need time in the market to grow, delaying it for ~8 months at 10% (2024-25 nominal returns %pa) is 0.66 billion forfeit. I'm not saying that all of that would have been invested in housing, rather than fund growth, but it definitely can't now.
So how much is the popularity worth? And if they can compromise their strategy for votes for even mediocre reform in a reasonable time, how can we believe they will act different with power?
From their actions rather than their words, It seems to me they are pandering to people want reform, whilst halting the mediocre reform that is happening anyway without them. Because they know the people they are pandering too won't check their homework. And we are supposed to trust that it will flip and they will be able to negotiate change later?
Ah, that's probably it. And yeah, governments need to figure out how to manage this. I think it's destined to be bound by whatever is actually economical post hype. Not pending efficiency breakthroughs of the likes of mores law.
I am a software engineer by trade, so biases' being what they are. But what I was more trying to demonstrate is that it is provable. Not that making the proof is easy.
hmmm, I just copied from Wikipedia as my primary source. That was the faux pas that was cool before AI.
I know you said all, but I'm curious which part do you think is horse shit? Do you think Torvalds is lying about using AI all together? or just how useful AI actually was? The commit with the alleged AI use is in the an RC for the next release, and it is authored by Torvalds.
Code is probably one of the easiest things to verify, for that reason I struggle to see any other viable uses for LLMs tbh.
I can always run the code to check, I still don't know how that sentence makes sense.
I didn't think these files were supposed to do anything more than this. Its supposed to provide a loose framework of the project, its supposed to trigger the agent to use specific tool more often.
TL:DR it's a hint that apparently costs 20% more.
Exactly. I think npm and cargo just make Dependency (mis) management more accessible. You still need to choose worthwhile dependencies, and if you don't want to update frequently, dependencies with stable long term support.
I think the best analogy to highlight the drawbacks of Rust is to say it's like "Good test coverage.". If you read that as 100% test coverage you can spend a lot of time doing some trivial overhead that probably isn't doing a whole lot. But, if you have half a brain it's probably not particularly harmful. If you read that as effective test coverage, you probably know the problem quite well and it's probably some overhead, but you get to feel a bit more confident and have some executable documentation.
Neither of which I have heard to be useful or converted in the game industry so it sounds like a waste of time.
That said, if you're like me and that overhead sounds nice, then you might like Rust :P
The problem of not teaching the less experienced and just doing the work yourself has always existed. Perhaps to a lesser degree in some industries that mandated it by necessity/demand. AI makes it more convenient/viable or reduces necessity/demand but the lesson is the same and will be learnt again, at least eventually.
The edge case is software development, for the bog standard stuff I write at work it probably helps me get work done about 15%-30% faster and with costs of $200-$400 USD a month the math actually works out. At current prices anyway. Also the electricity costs of running open weight models is even cheaper and if there is a pop HW prices may make that an obvious choice too. The worst case IMO would be a slow boil of prices to recoup the unsustainable growth then a slow decline to wherever normal ends up. In that case everyone is left indignant.
at least N95!
Agreed, However I also wonder how or if LLMs could help with what we don't know we need. With the processing pace of LLMs and the massive context the can processes at once. It seems like it could make the broader connections that are usually the harder to find more accessible.
Pretty sure all my repos are MIT licensed for the betterment of everyone, but I'm not on the list! So I guess I'm not good enough, or they are failing to follow the attribution clause of it.
How does a credit score help? In my country we have a register for things like cars than you can see if any debt owed on it, so I guess tracking is on the asset side. Otherwise, wouldn't it just be fraud and the banks would take legal action? That would still produce a record that could be checked too.
I didn't know until recently that the US had such an effective blockade, so enemies of the US are Cuba's only hope, this is great to see.
https://youtu.be/5Dvu7qiM5rg
If you cut out buffer bloat it's easy to forget that everything is only slightly slower, it's the inconsistency in the latency that makes you really notice. With a base of ~130ms when it doubles for those first couple of packets of every page load you really feel it, as long as it's smooth, your brain can adjust.
I have it for my whole house and no one notices/complains.
https://www.waveform.com/tools/bufferbloat https://github.com/lynxthecat/CAKE-autorate
That said, it's kind of niche then more niche to run it on the VPN too, I wish it were more accessible.