I have no specific knowledge, but another approach would be to integrate more unusual very-long-instruction-word micro-instructions, like large scale matrix functions, algorithm encode/decode functions, and very long vector operations.
As I recall, Transmeta's CPU could accept x86 instructions because the software translator, called Code Morphing Software (like Rosetta), would decompose the x86 instruction into a set of steps over a very-long-instruction-word. VLIW's design is such that all of the instructions went into separate, parallel pipelines. Each pipeline had specific set of abilities. Think, the first three pipelines might be able to do integer arithmetic, but 3 and 4 can do floats. Also, the CPU implemented a commit/rollback concept which allowed it cause "faults," like branch miss-predictions, interrupts, and instruction faults. This allowed the Transmeta CPU to emulate the x86 beyond just JIT compilations. In theory, it could emulate any other CPU. They tried going after Intel (and failed); but, I think they would have been better off trying go after any one trying to jump start a new architecture.
Part of the reason why CPUs aren't good at GPU activities is because the instructions are expected to have pretty small, definite set of inputs and outputs (registers), use a reasonable number of CPU cycles, and must devote logic to ensure a fault can be unwound (CPU doesn't crash). FPGs are cool because you can essentially have wholly independent units with their own internal state. The little units can be wired any way desired. The problem with FPGs is all that interconnect means a lot of capacitance in the lines, so much slower clock speeds.
So, maybe they are trying to strike a balance. They have targeted instructions are more FPG-like, like "perform algorithm." The instruction receives a set of flags that defines which algorithms to use and in what order (use vector as 8-bit integers, mask with 0x80, compute 16bit checksum) and a vector register. You can loading vectors and running them then finally "read perform algorithm result" with flag "get compute 16bit checksum." FPG-like and registers aren't "polluted" with intermediate state.
Transmeta's whole elevator pitch was a power efficient CPU that through translation software, happened to run x86 instructions so there's no porting nonsense necessary. Only issue was that they made it 1/x efficient, at 1/x the speed.
Interesting fact is that the guy who architected Transmeta's CPUs also worked on Itanium and Russia's Elbrus CPUs. The Elbrus is sort of a spiritual successor to Transmeta's efforts at this translation thing, but it is very much aimed as a hardware root of trust solution to sandboxing software rather than a genuine effort at competing in foreign markets.
> It is not clear what the FBI was seeking when numerous agents entered Coplan's apartment at around 6am, or if Coplan and/or Polymarket are the targets of an investigation.
We have no information about why they are there, so you conclude it must be political retribution and they must be protected. THIS is why Trump won. So many people have zero critical thinking skills. When you see something that for which you have no information, you can say "I wonder what is going on." Then, you stop. Things that could be:
* Using collected data to facility spear phishing campaigns.
* Running a child pornography/sex trafficking ring.
* Participating in dogfighting.
* Been a back channel for selling trade secrets.
* Had some people killed.
* Routing all the information collected to foreign groups, like Russia.
* or.. has the other half of messages to someone under investigation whose phone locked.
But, given I have zero evidence to support any of this, let's stick with "let's see what they say."
Each of these are _completely_ invented and then dishonestly presented as valid:
- Using collected data to facility spear phishing campaigns.
- Running a child pornography/sex trafficking ring.
- Participating in dogfighting.
- Been a back channel for selling trade secrets.
- Had some people killed.
- Routing all the information collected to foreign groups, like Russia.
- or.. has the other half of messages to someone under investigation whose phone locked.
A real-world example of "zero evidence". Let's stick with "no lying". Also, in late 2024, giving the monstrously corrupt FBI the dishonesty-based benefit-of-the-doubt is beyond naive and comfortably in the realm of dishonest.
It has been days since I have seen such an example of "zero critical thinking skills"
Having looked at your project, what would you say is difference in ability or philosophy compared to Open Web UI or FlowiseAI? Or, is this "I want to build this because I want to?" To which there is nothing wrong with that.
Being an old, grey beard, it's been interesting to see language change in my lifetime. Things I learned:
* Third-person singular indefinite ("he or she") can be replaced with third-person plural ("they"). Of course, a lot of changes around recognizing gender.
* Final punctuation within the quote at the end of sentence (Did you just say "what?") can be placed after the final quote if the quote is for a literal string (ie, The password is "123456".)
* Companies switched from being singular plurals ("Google is deprecating another product.") to plural singulars ("Google are deprecating another product.")
* Moving away from verbed nouns ("Google it") to multipart verbs ("search it up").
* Double infinitives ("to try to eat") getting changed to an infinitive and conjunction ("to try and eat").
One thing I am very said about is just how lack luster both of my kid's hand writing is. My eldest is in high-school and her hand writing is horrible. Partly because she has little use for long-form writing (forget cursive) and because they rely on the spell checker.
Singular "they" has been around for a very long time, and used naturally without anyone noticing it as unusual, until recently when there's been more gender discussion and people suddenly realizing they were already recognizing genderless people without knowing it ;)
You're right - that has been around for a long long time. But I feel like I've seen a general increase in its usage that can make writing more ambiguous to parse. Like we already know the gender of someone being written about in a sentence, but they become referred to as "they" at random - it's a subtle effect. I'm talking about examples unrelated to "gender stuff" but perhaps that's what's made the usage more popular among younger writers.
Maybe young (and/or non-sexist) writers just don't care or aren't obsessed with knowing and explicitly talking about someone's gender, when it has nothing to do with the message.
I just find it annoying that English is almost entirely gender neutral except for pronouns. It feels like a weird and unnecessary special case (I really don't need to be telling everyone what I believe their gender to be every time I address them!), so getting rid of that makes the language more consistent and uniform overall.
I just wish it didn't conflate singular and plural. But the convenience of broadening an existing pattern rather than inventing a completely new one still wins in the end.
German seems even more obsessed with gender than English, and the exceptions (der Junge -vs- das Mädchen) seem to reveal its underlying assumptions and disrespect for reality in the ways it doesn't align with natural or biological gender, like refusing to assign gender to young females while imposing manhood on young boys, and bizarrely insisting on assigning arbitrary gender to inanimate objects.
Gendered pronouns and nouns are just a bunch of useless sexist baggage and linguistic friction that make languages much harder to learn, and uselessly complex, with more trivial arbitrary details to memorize or get wrong.
But all those gender-critical sex-obsessed people who make a big deal out of getting performatively offended and pretending to be confused by neutral pronouns, angrily insisting that every word possible explicitly defines a gender, are just weird.
German has grammatic gender for all nouns, so it is consistent in that regard, at least. I also don't like novel ungendered forms for languages like Spanish ("latinx" etc) for the same reason - they stick out like a sore thumb because they don't fit the overall feel of the language where gender is already a pervasive concept. It's kinda like taking a statically typed language and introducing completely new syntax to omit the type in one very specific case, but not all the others.
But English nouns are already ungendered with very few exceptions. Pronouns are also all ungendered except third person singular, so there's a much stronger case here for eliminating the exception in contexts where it really doesn't contribute anything useful.
As far as getting offended, I think one has to distinguish between the person getting misgendered being offended themselves vs people getting offended "on behalf" of others (who might actually be rather offended at such misrepresentation of what they actually want). E.g. with Spanish it's far more common for native English speakers to be adamant about "-x", while many native Spanish speakers actively dislike it.
Tbf so many instances they don't use "they" but "he or she"...where my thinking is, not only is it more inclusive but it's actually easier to just use "they"?
Yes, you're correct. I think I was trying to find a succinct way to say "everyone was happily using 'they' without concern until gendering became a hot topic and suddenly they noticed their usage of 'they' and didn't like that it was already an acceptable and in-use solution for including genderless people" or something like that :)
> people suddenly realizing they were already recognizing genderless people without knowing it ;)
Not true. It was used in the past to refer to an unknown person. I.e. "When a candidate arrives given them the test." You don't know what sex the candidate is before he arrives and instead of saying "he or she" you say "they".
But nowadays people use it as a superclass of he and she: "I asked my boss for a raise but they refused". It doesn't make any sense. You know very well what sex your boss is, but "they" is used for virtue signaling. It's a way of saying "I know my boss is a man, but I'm going to use they because a woman could do just a good a job and he, sorry, they does."
> You know very well what sex your boss is, but "they" is used for virtue signaling.
I doubt it's virtue signaling. I'll use they to refer to the position not the person. Sometimes it's deliberate obscuration. Other times it's a form of laziness. I don't have to think about which pronoun to use if I just use the generic one.
In my case, once I got used to seeing people as people first instead of their gender, it's been easy to slip up on the pronoun.
Your sentence is the perfect example for proper use of "they", per the wikipedia article "It typically occurs with an indeterminate antecedent" - "boss" is non-gendered and so "they" is grammatically correct.
There's no virtue signalling, you're reading too much into it.
No, it is used to signal the person's gender doesn't matter. Being angry about other people not fixating on gender by demanding everyone always explicitly define it with every pronoun is used as sexism signaling, which is what you're doing.
You don't know why other people choose to use the words they do, yet you presume the worst and accuse people of being insincere and lacking virtue despite (and because of) their polite behavior, regardless of their true beliefs, when it's actually none of your business to police and judge their grammar.
I'd rather work with someone who purposefully signals they have virtue than someone who purposefully signals they're a sexist asshole, any day.
The person you responded to is right. If you start mixing in "they" you're just confusing the listener, because they will assume you're now talking about some different people. I wouldn't have the patience to listen to somebody who speaks in that matter and deliberately makes their words cryptic.
Sexist assholes who become performatively confused and impatient and pretend they can't understand you and stop listening are just signaling that they are sexist assholes.
I do know what sex my boss is, but why should I be forced to restate it every time I reference them in a conversation? It feels rather less polite to the speaker to impose that need on them.
> Companies switched from being singular plurals ("Google is deprecating another product.") to plural singulars ("Google are deprecating another product.")
I thought this was just a difference between American and British English.
Being an old grey beard you probably know these... but for others:
> * Final punctuation within the quote at the end of sentence (Did you just say "what?") can be placed after the final quote if the quote is for a literal string (ie, The password is "123456".)
Prior to movable type printing presses, the British "logical quotation" system was the norm for English.
This changed, and is credited to american newspapers, because of movable type. I've heard different reasoning (from being less likely to break, or to looking cleaner), but both point to printers. Even the alternate name for this quotation style is "typesetters quotation." <== the period inside the quote to end that sentence!
Being a form of mass media, this meant that a lot of mass produced works now 'promoted' by proxy this typesetters quotation style.
> * Moving away from verbed nouns ("Google it") to multipart verbs ("search it up").
This is purely branding. In the US, if people say "Google it", it creates a synonym between "Google" and "Search", which hurts cases for Google in defending their brand... If it gets too weak, then you or I could make a "Google Booster" company, which focuses on improving search engine rankings in general -- not just Google, and with no direct business relation with Google
> * Companies switched from being singular plurals ("Google is deprecating another product.") to plural singulars ("Google are deprecating another product.")
> * Moving away from verbed nouns ("Google it") to multipart verbs ("search it up").
Resist! Google is trying to get you to stop Googling things, but we don't have to listen to the corporate overlords.
I think organisations (companies, teams) being singular/plural differs depending on what country you're in, so perhaps this is a bleeding across of conventions due to globalisation.
> * Companies switched from being singular plurals ("Google is deprecating another product.") to plural singulars ("Google are deprecating another product.")
I think that's just a grammatical error that people (sometimes) make, and it isn't even specific to English.
Is “search it up” much different from a similar phrase “search for it”? The structure of the original quote is “imperative verb, direct object, adverb” but I wouldn’t call that a change in grammar so much as a change in diction.
Here in Brisbane we get wicked humidity, which means that even 27C can be disgusting. As a child I lived in the Wimmera, which is quite dry, and 35C was nice.
A more notable version of the same idea, which includes more unrhymed lines, is double dactyl (XXXA XXXA). Though this is more for poetry/limerick, and not for mnemonics.
I think way he meant a hashed chain: one where the history is tamper proof. The important part is that the data and logic used to process claim is digitally documented and sealed by hash. You get a copy of the hash in your claims. The hash chain is public or has to be given to an independent third-party. If you get into a kicking contest in court, the company they have to reproduce documentation with the hash. The hashing prevents forging the original documents in the process.
"Any sufficiently advanced technology is indistinguishable from magic." -- Arthur C. Clarke
I thought the same thing when using PAR files. They're still useful today if you save things on media that can be damaged (CD, DVD, Blue-Ray) or across multiple multiple media.
Eventually, I decided to dig into the math behind it. It is a surprisingly simple principle:
Given polynomial of a degree X and an array of data points of size X, there is one and only one solution to the polynomial's coefficients such that it will pass through those data points.
So, stripe the data into bands of arrays, compute the polynomial, and compute additional data points of the curve, and save it with the original data. If you have at least the array's size of data points ( original array and/or parity values) and know the place in the list for each data point (thus which data is missing), there is one and only one solution to the polynomial equation. Once you solve the polynomial again, you can compute any point, including the missing ones. Again, because there is one and only one solution for the curve.
The devil is the math necessary solve the polynomials, which is why it is so computationally intensive.
There is already one in place. It's called.. librarians. They do a lot more than just stand around a look pretty. There are degrees you can earn which includes things like how to manage tracking books and operate exchanges, managing catalog systems, training in computer use and learning, and... judging appropriate book content for readers. Librarians are much more than just someone who will help you with a book, if you ask.
While that's true, I think GP's idea isn't necessarily a bad one. You could argue the same thing about game store clerks negating the need for ESRB ratings.
My wife likes astrology. I just put it as one of those quirks in people. This is especially curious because of just how intelligent she is. She has several degrees, including a PHD. Then, she pointed out something to me: something doesn't necessarily have to be true to have value.
She uses astrology not in any predictive manor but as a qualitative evaluation. All of the signs have descriptions and ways to think about the character. For instance, Cancers tend to keep people out because the only thing that protects them from their soft, emotional insides is their shell. This makes them also tend to avoid direct conflict, which makes them move in sideways directions. However, if they interact, they don't have much more than claws, so they may pinch without knowing it. They also tend to find their place to bury and if kept happy will tend to stay where they are. If not, they tend to move on without creating a huge issue out it.
I'm not going to suggest in any shape or form that A) all people born Cancers behave this way or B) planets have anything to do with causing this. What I am saying is: if you see someone acting with these traits, you can decide that maybe the reason why is because they're concerned about being hurt. I've learned to have a bit less judgement and a bit more grace in people now. Maybe people just have a difference view of priorities and not all motivations are spoken:
* Aries - Brash, bold, and like taking the lead in situations. Also tend to be naïve and more morally black-and-white.
* Taurus - Stubborn but reliable. Tend to value only what they find for themselves, ie "you can't lead a horse to water..".
* Gemini - Appear as twins, because something is definitely _the best way_ until the next thing is _best way_. They're not flighty, just not that concerned with opportunity costs.
* Cancer - Emotional and nurturing, doesn't want to be crushed. Tend stay where they are unless moved by discomfort, but won't tell you.
* Leo - Confident, charismatic, and is concerned about accomplishments and family. Very loud more than anything else and can be pacified by stroking their mane.
* Virgo - Detail-oriented and practical. Often perfectionists because they are comfortable with repeated process. Get uncomfortable unknowns, which makes them not want to complete projects.
* Libra - Diplomatic and charming, value balance and harmony, but judge everything even if inappropriate.
* Scorpio - Intense, passionate, but reserved. Often so reserved that people wonder if they are going to get stabbed when all the Scorpio is doing is being quiet on their rock in the sun and ignoring everyone.
* Sagittarius - Adventurous and optimistic, they love exploring and new ideas. Shares stores and thoughts, often without considering if it is appropriate or not.
* Capricorn - Ambitious and disciplined, focused on long-term goals, even if it is at the cost of ramming something through. Doesn't mean to be mean, but a challenge is hard to resist.
* Aquarius - Independent and innovative, they march to the beat of their own drum. Big things can tank because "it seemed like a good idea at the time."
* Pisces - Compassionate and dreamy, enjoys the ideas. Can be frustratingly non-concrete, but also have have spontaneously amazing insights. The one who points out "you know you could just..?"
This is now stuff I think about before assigning malice to someone's actions or just brushing someone off who isn't thinking like me.
Your text is not formatted consistently; Aries to Scorpio is preformatted text while Sagittarius to Pisces is formatted differently.
> something doesn't necessarily have to be true to have value.
I think this is correct. Many things have value even if they are not true.
However, I will give another point. Astrology can be called a form of divination (although, unlike cartomancy or dice, it is not one of the forms of divination that involves random selection). Divination can use artificial magical correspondences to represent things like you describe. Sometimes divination can make you to have some ideas about something, like you can do with cards (or computers) with words to make up an idea, etc. Of course, divination cannot be used to predict things scientifically or anything like that, and you should ensure you are aware of this when you attempt divination, so that you do not misuse it.
Specifically, astrology is a form of divination using astronomy (rather than cards or something else), and using some older conventions which are not used much in astronomy (such as naming the 30 degree arcs of ecliptic longitude after constellations which do not quite match them; this is kind of similar than how every 28-31 days in a year is given a month name; there are other conventions as well which are not used in modern astronomy because they are not useful in modern astronomy, but are commonly used in astrology). Astrology also involves astronomy and mathematics in other ways too; the house systems use geometry to map the horizon and midheaven at a specific location on the Earth, to the ecliptic; and modality/triplicities is like a residue number system (but with magic instead of numbers).
> I'm not going to suggest in any shape or form that A) all people born Cancers behave this way or B) planets have anything to do with causing this.
I mostly agree with you. However, anything can influence anything else, directly or indirectly. This does not mean that planets will cause you to behave this way, but if someone notices the movement of the planets and then writes about it, someone will read it, and writing about and reading about it is indirectly something that causes another; so you are indirectly influenced to write about this, and I am indirectly influenced to write this reply. Sometimes such influences may result in the behaviours described (like self-fulfilling prophecy), but many times it won't.
And, people might have multiple motivations and might sometimes do different things at different times, and of course you can do things independently of what was the ecliptic longitude of the Sun or planets at the time you were born.
Astrology is not bad, but it is often misused (although many things are misused). It is not scientific, but it does not have to be scientific in order to be meaningful. (However, science can also be misused, too.)
It would appear they use the title is a bit misleading:
> Pacific Legal Foundation is primarily funded by donations from individuals, foundations, associations, and small businesses. Except for court-awarded attorney fees for case victories, the organization receives no government funding. The foundation is generally described as supporting libertarian or conservative causes. [1]
It strikes me that they are guns for hire for anyone who thinks the Government is overreaching. I would think a true libertarian would be supportive with having non-competes removed.
As I recall, Transmeta's CPU could accept x86 instructions because the software translator, called Code Morphing Software (like Rosetta), would decompose the x86 instruction into a set of steps over a very-long-instruction-word. VLIW's design is such that all of the instructions went into separate, parallel pipelines. Each pipeline had specific set of abilities. Think, the first three pipelines might be able to do integer arithmetic, but 3 and 4 can do floats. Also, the CPU implemented a commit/rollback concept which allowed it cause "faults," like branch miss-predictions, interrupts, and instruction faults. This allowed the Transmeta CPU to emulate the x86 beyond just JIT compilations. In theory, it could emulate any other CPU. They tried going after Intel (and failed); but, I think they would have been better off trying go after any one trying to jump start a new architecture.
Part of the reason why CPUs aren't good at GPU activities is because the instructions are expected to have pretty small, definite set of inputs and outputs (registers), use a reasonable number of CPU cycles, and must devote logic to ensure a fault can be unwound (CPU doesn't crash). FPGs are cool because you can essentially have wholly independent units with their own internal state. The little units can be wired any way desired. The problem with FPGs is all that interconnect means a lot of capacitance in the lines, so much slower clock speeds.
So, maybe they are trying to strike a balance. They have targeted instructions are more FPG-like, like "perform algorithm." The instruction receives a set of flags that defines which algorithms to use and in what order (use vector as 8-bit integers, mask with 0x80, compute 16bit checksum) and a vector register. You can loading vectors and running them then finally "read perform algorithm result" with flag "get compute 16bit checksum." FPG-like and registers aren't "polluted" with intermediate state.
reply