I watched this just the other day (as a joke Christmas film) after having not seen it for about 10-12 years. It's waaaay better than I remember and I thoroughly enjoyed it. Definitely hits a bit different after Epstein.
Is there any benchmarks for these chips doing like regular 'data-sciency' CPU grunt work? Dataframe-wrangling, inverting matrices, doing large matrix, factorisations, fitting decision tree's, etc?
I'm very keen on one of these, but I simply have no idea how good they are at my day to day tasks in R or Python.
It depends. If you're using Python with numpy>=2.0.0 (and macOS>=14) then you should benefit greatly from Apple's Accelerate implementation of BLAS/LAPACK routines which are behind most linear algebra operations. I'm not aware of any serious public benchmarks, though.
Yes. I've seen lots of twitter/X posts lately about how Gravity is not actually a force. But how can that be true if there is a force carrying "gravity" particle? Or is the word 'force' being used loosely here?
> Yes. I've seen lots of twitter/X posts lately about how Gravity is not actually a force.
That is true. Classically, gravity is a fictitious force, merely a result of inertia from moving in a curved space-time.
> But how can that be true if there is a force carrying "gravity" particle? Or is the word 'force' being used loosely here?
Because we _suspect_ that the classical view is not correct. And there's a quantum description that may or may not involve curved space-time.
It's not impossible that the spacetime curvature is a mathematical artifact of a deeper theory. Merely a kinematic explanation, just like epicycles.
It's also possible that the space-time _is_ really curved, and gravitons simply cause the curvature by somehow coupling with it. And then other matter experiences this, in the manner described above.
You can make a lot of pseudo particles in semiconductors which definitely exist, but also aren't "real" - i.e. semiconductor electron holes are capably modelled as positive particles which can move freely with momentum/position within a semiconductor.
> if there is a force carrying "gravity" particle?
There is not. Or maybe there is not. At least so far there is not. We have never observed one. "Graviton" particle is just a hypothesis. Outside of some people theorizing that graviton could exist, there is no observations that it exists.
"In theories of quantum gravity, the graviton is the hypothetical quantum of gravity"
In a sim, it would fall into the "configurable parameter" category and dynamically altered parameter whos laws depended on locations are function lookups. And to execute performant, it would be a constant factor field only updated onAlteration with fun(x)
So you have a thing, that gets interpolated updated with various functions, that overlap, and those functions only get updated at lightspeed, cause caching.
Cachesize limit should show as farway gravity sources getting bundled into lower density information functions.
the _role_ of radiologists isn’t going away, but as with software engineers, better tools means there are fewer needed to serve the same patient population. So it’s highly likely that there is going to be displacement within that industry as well.
What part about the genuine statistical arguments made in the article would make you believe it is satire?
I've found the reaction to this article can be pretty intense. We read this in a journal club many years ago and one of the mathematicians who was kind of new to the idea that research papers (in other fields) didn't more or less represent 'truth' said this article was _dangerous_.
It's ironic that the paper has a correction. The title and abstract sound highly editorial, especially given that "false" is never defined. They talk about pre study odds being an enhancement but I didn't see them include those in their own paper. The fact that a study is small or the impact is minor doesn't make the results false, especially when these limitations are called out and further research is requested. You could even have a case study n=1 be valid if the conclusion is properly defined. The main problem is people generalizing from things that don't have that level of support.
Definitely made me respect the bloggers I read even more.