And we’re busily setting up local models we control ourselves on our network edge.
If you're running Apple hardware I've liked what little I've seen personally from the MLX enhanced models running locally.
- Posts
- 2
- Comments
- 1752
- Joined
- 3 yr. ago
- Posts
- 2
- Comments
- 1752
- Joined
- 3 yr. ago
Ohhh nice! I could see replacing dozens of nested
ifstatements with dozens of nestedcasestatements!If it helps, I'm from the other side of networking and infra. You could swap the labels and make the meme accurate for me.
In the mid 1980s I learn the BASIC programming command GOTO and fell in love for a lifetime. If you look any anything I used to write in Ruby script or today in Python you'll see my love affair with "if" "elfi" and "else" continues. My universe is nested "if" statements all the way down.
Right. So what’s your preferred solution to the problem, then?
That is a legitimate policy question for discussion, and I appreciate thats a topic you're interested in diving into, but I'll pass today. I'm talking on the topic from the OP post.
Homes are not supposed to be investment vehicles.
Unless you're arguing against the ownership of personal property, home's are an asset to the homeowner.
The fact that they are treated as such is quite literally the cause of the ongoing housing affordability crisis, and by extension the homelessness crisis.
Homes as investment vehicles are a symptom, but not the cause. Make homes free of charge, and land itself is still a limited resource.
You cannot seriously be speaking in favour of it?
Regardless of either of our feelings about ownership/asset, the author is speaking in the context of the current reality where homes being personal property and that home owners should be happy about half their home values evaporating. That's pure batshit crazy cope.
If I'm understanding the author's premise right, this is some crazy cope.
Suppose you own a $1M home, then deregulation halves its value. Yes, someone who has zero desire to live in any other home suffers a $500k loss.
That's most people. I would think a homeowner rarely buys a house they don't like.
But suppose they want to upgrade to a better home.
Sure, life circumstances could change like added kids so the house is more cramped, but that's not the rule, and would require very specific timing for all parents at once to move at the same time.
Then they have an offsetting gain: The dream home that previously cost $2M now only costs $1M, so their consumer surplus potentially rises by a full $1M.
Only if they didn't own a home before. If they did own a home already, they lost half its value during the price fall. Also, this assumes they even wanted to move. If they didn't they just lost half the value of their home. Worse, if it has a mortgage, its now underwater and they can't downsize because their mortgage was base upon the original value. They likely can't even move to an equal value home because their mortgage carries so much negative equity.
And the same goes to a lesser extent if they were planning on downgrading: The home that cost $500k is now just $250k.
So the homeowners just lost $250k in value. Where is any possible upside to that?
The same holds for any homeowner who loves his children. Even if you’re in your “forever home,” even if you have no desire to travel, crashing housing prices have a massive upside: cheaper housing for your kids. Maybe even cheap enough to buy the house down the street. Yes, their inheritance will be less, but they’ll get to enjoy cheaper housing for a lifetime.
Again, only if your kids don't own a home already. If they did, your kids are now screwed even worse with 50% negative equity on their mortgages.
Yes, their inheritance will be less, but they’ll get to enjoy cheaper housing for a lifetime.
They'll have to enjoy it for a lifetime, they'll never be able to afford to move from all the negative equity. They're also wiped out from ever tapping the previous equity in their homes via a HELOC. So any large home repairs or possible financial emergencies cannot be saved by owning a house.
TLDR;
If all this sounds like wishful thinking,
Thats exactly what it is.
... consider the polar case where housing deregulation drives the price of housing to zero. Yes, this wipes out the value of whatever housing you already own. But it also means that you can move to a palace anywhere on Earth for free.
No you can't. Someone is already living there. If the home is worth $0, but someone is paying to maintain and defend that home, you're not getting a free home.
Indeed, it means that you could own a palace in every location you desire for free. Lose the value of your home, gain access to every home of your dreams. It’s not just a fair trade. It’s the deal of a lifetime.
You may want to lay off whatever chemicals lead you to this conclusion.
Decades ago when I was in my 20s, I saw so many of my peers get buried in CC debt. I avoided CCs for quite awhile, but eventually realized I needed to know how to use them responsibly.
Like, always use auto pay, but when you want to spend, go pay a bill early. Whenever you feel consumerery, whip out the app, and pay the bill to zero.
When I was in my 20s there was no app to pay a CC, but I accomplished the same thing by mailing in a payment the same day as I made the purchase, and did that for every purchase. This made that mental connection for me that spending on CC means immediate consumption from my bank account, and that if I didn't have the amount of money to pay for the purchase from my CC, I didn't allow myself to buy it.
With the exception of a few months when a major repair bill hit and I had to shoulder it on debt, this allowed me to never get into CC debt. I'm still using CCs heavily decades later, but always paying off the statement balance 100% ever month and never paying interest. I credit my behavior when I was younger to accomplishing this.
I have been on Amtrak trains. They’re fine.
I've been on Amtrak too and have firsthand experience with them also. The goalpost wasn't if they were "fine" or not. I was quite happy to use it, but was not in a hurry to get to my destination. Your ascertain was they are fast. For longhaul travel (which is what the flight replaces), Amtrak is not fast.
Why do they have an airport but no train station? Trains really seem like the way to go. This is a bizzaire state of affairs to defend.
Because of lots of the infrastructure, rail capacity, rolling stock availability that makes a passenger rail line isn't viable to be self sustaining for that small a population without subsidies, and you're already given them the finger on anything that costs you something.
I probably don’t eat anything from there, and I paid for it if I did. Those vile chuds did not compensate me for the ecological damage of their bizzaire transportation decisions.
This is a strange level of hate for people you've never met just trying to live their lives. Brother, you need some socialism in your life and empathy for your fellow man. We're in this together.
I’m vegan and mostly eat fruit recently BTW.
Ahh, okay. Thank you for this critical information. I have a MUCH better understanding of your positions now. Thank your for conversing up to now. Have a great day.
my air and weather shouldn’t have to suffer so you can keep your “small town lifestyle”, fuck your luxury bullshit founded on the externality of my life.
I have no idea what image you have of these smaller airports supporting smaller cities and their surrounding rural populous, but I assure you most are far away from "luxury". Lets take one small city in the middle of Kansas called Salina. Its a city of 47,000 people. The median income is $61,783 and the per capita income of Salina is $34,886 and has a 13% poverty rate. The next closest airport to Salina is 80 miles away. They're not living there just to keep their "small town lifestyle". Its where they grow the food we both eat.
It has a total of 4 small plane flights a day into its airport:
Salina is also a major agricultural hub supporting 650 farms for total of over 360,000 acres growing grains and livestock.
I don’t mind green energy powered trains. That’s cheap, it doesn’t intrude on my life any, and gets you where you’re going fast clean safe. I’m just against flying them out on a jet.
Fast rail service versus flying? Have you ever been on a long haul Amtrak passenger rail train? Amtrak is not fast. Salina doesn't have an Amtrak station. The closest one is 90 miles away in Newton Kansas. An Amtrak train trip form Newton Kansas to Chicago takes 12 to 14 hours and the service can experience delays making it even longer. A flight (1 of only 4 flights they have) from Selina to Chicago takes 2 hours and 5 minutes.
I’m sorry but I’m sick of subsidizing these obscenely decadent parasites who would probably kill me and mount my blue stained scalp on their wall.
I bet the people of Salina would laugh their asses off at you considering them decadent parasites. You're happy to eat the food they produce, but you'd put their their 4 flights a day into their city at risk so you personally could save $50 on a ticket to Chicago by skiplagging?
I'm not sure I've ever read a more subtle or concise way to say "fuck you" to all of smaller city America simultaneously.
The article states pretty explicitly that RCS is not what they did “a more structured alternative to RCS”
Hmm. If thats the form of the answer you're looking for, I'm confused why you asked the question. My apologies, I thought you were trying to understand a new topic you didn't have context for. I withdraw my long winded answer. Let me try again for you to your original two questions:
Article doesn’t say what they actually computed
“a more structured alternative to RCS”
or what the complexity would be for a normal computer
Your statement is factual. That information is not contained in the article.
I get being naturally suspicious especially if we're talking about messaging that may match some from large companies, but don't let language that sounds that way turn off your brain to critical thinking. If you interact in a system (such as buying a ticket as an airline passenger) you can have an affect on the system. Understand your actions to personally enrich yourself may have consequences on other people just trying to fly somewhere. Don't be blinded by big business hate to justify screwing other passengers using the airlines.
perhaps it would be more accurate for me to say that capitalism in the pure platonic sense doesn’t really exist,
I agree with this without any reservations.
and tends always towards crony or state capitalism where the power of the state is used to funnel money and power towards the holders of capital rather than to provide a free and fair playing field for economic actors.
I take exception with "always". In the USA for example, there have been many notable exceptions where state capitalism implemented protections from abuses that pure laissez-faire capitalism would have allowed. The National Labor Relations Act was a state action that allowed for collective bargaining of workers. More recently the Consumer Protection Financial Bureau acted as an agent against uncheck capitalist forcing a fair playing field.
I'd probably agree if you changed your word to "frequently" though.
Yes it is - capitalism demands that in fact. You’re thinking of free-markets. Capitalism inevitably destroys free markets.
Lets see if we can agree on some definitions.
What you're describing as "free-markets" I know as laissez-faire capitalism. This definition came from, unsurprisingly, the French in the 18th century and was used heavily by Adam Smith in the book The Wealth of Nations. I think we all agree there are very few, if any, true large scale laissez-faire capitalism in operation today.
What have in most places is regulated capitalism where there are government rules that change the outcome to a different outcome (sometimes better/sometimes worse) that would have occurred under laissez-faire capitalism.
Are we in agreement with these definitions or do we still have discussion needed to arrive at the same place?
Article doesn’t say what they actually computed
It does: "Random circuit sampling (RCS)". This is a mathematical exercise.
...but that isn't the important part. The important part is knowing if the answer it computed is right. How do you know if its right? This goes to your next question...
or what the complexity would be for a normal computer
The answer (not in this article but I've seen elsewhere) is essentially a million years of a regular computer.
So you see the challenge. We have an answer from the quantum computer, and a way to verify its actually right by using the slow method that we know would give is the right answer for sure, but its so far out of reach we can't use the slow method in a feasible human lifetime.
So the breakthrough the article is calling out is what the researchers did instead. They built a way to have the quantum computer produce accurate answers (which quantum computers didn't do reliably before because of the limits of science) on lots and lots of smaller shorter problems that we can compute on regular computers where we can verify the answers. Thats what the article is saying here:
"Encoding the circuit reduced the effective logical error rate to one tenth of the physical error rate, allowing the computation to maintain high fidelity despite the large number of operations."
Here's an analogy of how I understood what the researchers did:
Lets say you have 5 friends that love car road trips to places they've never been: Adam, Bill, Charlie, Dave, and Ethan. All of them refuse to use maps or a GPS. As you can imagine if any one of them gets in a car alone and just relies on their gut and signs they'll likely not get to their destination. So instead the researchers put all 5 in one car.
Adam is in the driver's seat and after the first hour has made every correct direction choice. Suddenly Adam is about to make a wrong turn Bill, Charlie, and Dave quickly tell Adam to make the right choice, while Ethan tells Adam to make a 3rd entire choice (which is also wrong). Adam goes by majority rule and chooses the suggested path from Bill, Charlie, and Dave. The car is still headed in the right direction. Ten minutes later Bill tells Adam to alter course, Adam, Charlie, Dave and Ethan contradict this, so the car still stays going the right direction. Another 20 minutes later Charlie and Dave tell Adam to take a turn. Adam, Bill and Ethan disagree and they car stays on the right path.
Eventually the car actually arrives at the destination a long way away from where they started. If any one of them were driving by themselves (or even with just one or two other drivers) the likelihood of a successful trip would drop to zero.
The researchers used a bunch of qubits ("drivers") so even if there were bad directions given by some at any given moment, the overall result was successful. So the researchers can say even though we only had Adam, Bill, Charlie, Dave, and Ethan drive successfully from New York to Chicago, you can see how they work to stay on track and we they'd make it all the way to Los Angeles if asked. So just because we've never had Adam, Bill, Charlie, Dave, and Ethan drive from NYC to Los Angeles, you can trust that they could if we asked. So when we tell you we had them drive all the way from NYC to Anchorage Alaska, you can trust we're telling you the truth and accept they got their successfully even if you didn't do the slow walk all the way to Anchorage Alaska see them arrive with your own eyes.
I thought I read years ago that airlines responded to Skiplagged by penalizing people who didn’t complete every leg of the trip they booked. I’m not sure why they would care.
They care because the real cost of air travel is not equaled everywhere on each mile flown. If the actual costs of flying to many small regional locations was reflected in the cost of the ticket, the ticket would be so absurdly high no one would every flight to that location, and the location would lose critical flight services for the community.
The solution many of those airlines used was to consolidate the majority of the flight into a hub using larger planes which are cheaper to operate per-passenger, and then use much smaller planes from the hub to the remote location charging the passenger the equivalent of a reasonable cost of a ticket for all hops along the way.
What Skiplagging as doing was essentially using the subsidized discount rate provided for the small regional destinations, but consumed by those not going to those places that needed subsidies on their flights going to major hubs. So not only was the airline losing money for each passenger not paying the normal fare to the hub airport, but also showing lower passenger volume to the small regional destinations increasing the cost of flying passengers that wanted to go their even more.
TLDR; Skiplagging screws small cities with low passenger volume risking their ability to maintain flight service at all to their towns.
My experience is more of:
"Here's the quick conversion of units you're looking for but without having to enable a host of other page require questionable javascript hosted sites as well as wading through a set of cookie challenges that require you to make multiple clicks just so they don't install tracking cookies on your device so they can see you long after you've left their one-visit-page. If you still want to go through, here's the direct deep link to the page on that site that contains the info you're searching for so you don't have to wade through piles of nested menus. I'm sorry I release 2 tons of CO2 giving you this answer, but its either that or expose yourself raw to that sketchy site for that trivial answer you're looking for."
Thats a nice ETF. Expense ratio is pretty low and its performance YTD and 1Y are within about .5% of the S&P500 (with it beating the S&P500 YTD).
For others, if you'd received this magical $50k exactly 1 year ago and invested it in ESGV, you'd have about $60k today.
TenForward: Where Every Vulcan Knows Your Name @lemmy.world Even more Star Trek wash party
TenForward: Where Every Vulcan Knows Your Name @lemmy.world Chief O'Brien has the most wholesome Holosuite programs
When you use Lynx Browser, everything on the internet is text: