China is installing something like 500 GW of wind and solar per year now. Even if they're only able to build and otherwise access chips that have half the SoTA performance per watt, they will win.
A dollar is an entirely fictional unit and trillions of it can be manufactured at no cost, while watts are constrained by the laws of physics, photons/electrons, supply chain of electricity and all that fun stuff in the real world.
A dollar is still a useful unit as "the fraction of the economy that can be controlled by currency". It's true that printing a huge pile of it and throwing it at GPUs wouldn't instantly convert into more GPUs, but it would meaningfully represent that other things are being squeezed out to allocate more resources to GPU production even so. That such reallocation is inefficient, arguably immoral, and highly questionable in the long term versus other options wouldn't stop that from being ture.
>dollar is an entirely fictional unit and trillions of it can be manufactured at no cost
If the abstraction works better for you this way, call them interchangeable units of American and Chinese insolvency. Or incremental forfeiture of domestic ownership.
I wouldn’t agree. Even at national scale, these projects cost resources. And the resources of all agents (org, countries) are constrained.
While we could reason in "performance / watt" and "performance / people", "performance / whatever other resource involved", and "performance / opportunity cost of allocating these resources to this use case and not another", "performance / whatever unit of stable-ish currency" is a convenient and often "good enough" approximation that somewhat encapsulates them all.
A simplification, like any model, but still useful.
Regardless, why should a Vietnamese person be forced to restrict their password to ASCII? If you want to sell your devices in a country, the least you can do is to adopt to the local market. I get that Western cultural dominance makes this hard for some, but I think it should be the bare minimum.
It makes about as much sense to insist that everyone across the world use only US ASCII, as it makes to force everyone in the world to use only Cyrillic UTF-8 symbols. I.e. no sense at all.
I would also argue the counterpoint : why are the local markets adopting things that are barely functional to them?
As a comparison, if all Vietnamese people had three feet and three arms, would they all be walking around with two left and a single right Nike shoe while wearing a Champion shirt with an extra arm thrust through the sleeve?
At what point do customers and users realize they are responsible for giving consent?
Aside from merges that combine commits from many authors onto a production branch or release tag. I would personally not leave an agent to do that sort of work.
Rich Hickey, Alex Miller, Stu Holloway, Nathan Marz, and the other people in this video are all very impressive, intelligent people. But never undercount how much if their success is due to consistent effort. They worked hard at something they cared about with depth, and also longevity. Anyone can learn Clojure with a bit of skill and tenacity. Anyone can contribute to the community in a meaningful way. It takes effort though. Please join us and contribute back to the community in ways that help you scratch an itch, give it some polish, and then share it. Or join the forums on Clojurians on Zulip. Come to Clojure/Conj, it was fantastic last year.
I feel this way about Common Lisp hackers too. What they have going on is very impressive wizardry. I want that. But whenever I try, it just does not mesh with my brain and I end up going back to Haskell and its compile-fix-compile-run loop instead.
It was sarcasm. My point was that with AI, anyone has a chance to make their name about this "amazing new tech" just like Rich and contemporaries did in the 2010's. Not AI as the means to an end, but as the end in itself.
I would argue that it's the formerly presumed binary nature of sex/gender that made it a logical split for all sports. While marital arts and weightlifting tend to seperate by weight as well, that is because those particular events are particularly biased toward muscle mass and height/reach by proxy. Most sports are less clearly advantaged by size (soccer, for example). You just can't practically divide entire team sports by gradations of height, because there aren't enough players in a school for more than a few squads.
If you wanted to divide by height or weight in a binary fashion to reduce the number of teams, then obviously you'll just have some sports where everyone in the under-6' team is 5'11.5, which seems not optimal and unfair.
The sports in which I’ve competed — cross country cycling and cross country running — also have handicaps for age. I always liked that type of system because it also gives both the open results and results by category, and there are lots of categories. W20 can thrash an M30, and plenty of M20s too, even if the overall winner is likely to be an M20.
It was simplistic for sure but gender identity was only a proxy for the handicap that impacted performance: the genetic disadvantage of not having been through a natural male puberty. If we can no longer rely on gender identity as the proxy then it makes sense to either drop the handicap system altogether, or refine it to look at the performance enhancing impact of genetics rather than what your pronouns are.
/authentic-writer skill:
No em dashes or emojis. add in a few typos and bad grammmer. Avoid it's not not X but Y. imagine you're a mere human and your pinky finger is very tired so you forget to uppercase sometimes.
reply