Drama if I had to pick the symptom most visible from the outside.
A lot of talent left OpenAI around that time, most notably in this regard would be Ilya in May '24. Remember that time Ilya and the board ousted Sam only to reverse it almost immediately?
Performance for python3.14t alpha 1 is more like 3.11 in what I've tested. Not good enough if Python doesn't meet your needs, but this comes after 3.12 and 3.13 have both performed worse for me.
3.13t doesn't seem to have been meant for any serious use. Bugs in gc and so on are reported, and not all fixes will be backported apparently. And 3.14t still has unavoidable crashes. Just too early.
> 3.13t doesn't seem to have been meant for any serious use.
I don't think anyone would suggest using it in production. The point was to put something usable out into the world so package maintainers could kick the tires and start working on building compatible versions. Now is exactly the time for weird bug reports! It's a thirty year old runtime and one of its oldest constraints is being removed!
What services are people using to run continuous integration for ARM? I see Travis CI has an alpha. Azure Pipelines doesn't host ARM instances I think.
With Rust you need to be explicit about everything's lifetime. You cannot allocate some chunk of memory and freely borrow it; when borrowing you need a certificate (i.e. compiler check) that the borrowed reference has a shorter lifetime than that of the referenced memory. It is tremendously different from the absence of such guarantees (like C) or the GC-based weak guarantees (like Java and Go, which does not solve the logical memory leaks anyway [1]).
[1] Not that Rust completely solves the logical memory leaks, but it makes the leaks explicit.
c++ smart pointers under the hood? its actually cool.. to bake some of this directly in the language.. can prevent some memory copying by playing with raw pointers indirections under the hood in the lang runtime, etc..
But you already has to think like this when you use smart pointers in C++.. "who owns this reference?" etc..
But in C++ this is a library.. not a syntax.. point to rust for this
You already have to think like this when you use smart pointers in C++! But C++ compilers don't help you with that! The Rust compiler does. Using Rust, you get surprised how often you get ownership wrong, because the compiler tells you every time. The same analogous code in C++ will still be wrong, but you wouldn't know, since the compiler tells you zilch.
(There are quite a few of us in this thread, fwiw: brson and pcwalton are Mozilla employees working on Rust and Servo; sanxiyn, bjz_, steveklabnik and I are volunteers, just from the handles I recognise.)
sanxiyn is actually a Samsung employee, and on their behalf has contributed to Rust in the past. IIRC he's not currently employed to work on Rust, though he's still an active community member.
Does anyone know how much it costs to produce desktop-sized displays compared to phone-sized? I'm wondering why Dell would still make the 24" UltraSharp just 1920x1080.
They are dependent on the panel manufacturers. Quite many (if not all) of the new 32" 4K seem to be using the panel from Sharp. It could be that nobody is making high res 24" panels right now.
DKIM is not a feedback loop. A feedback loop is when someone hits spam on one of your emails, the provider lets you know what message caused the user to hit spam. If you have a unique message id or something else in the email encoded in you can tell who it was and not send them any more emails.
Using an image algorithm to process audio reminds me of Jeff Hawkins' arguments in On Intelligence, specifically in arguing that the brain processes all types of input in the same way of recognizing a pattern of activation within a sequence. Very interesting book.
The way non-biological (i.e. mathematical, engineering) analyses are conducted has a substantial degree of unification as well. A typical engineering text focused on signal processing will develop an analysis method and then show example applications to audio, to images, to bridge resonance, to electronic circuits, etc. Things do get more specific as you dig further into domain-specific features and heuristics, but there's a large common foundation.
The usefulness of the kinds of experiments in this post, imo, is to investigate whether some things developed as domain-specific features actually belong more in the common foundation part. Sometimes something will be developed initially in computer-music or computer-vision not because it's really music or vision specific, but just due to where a particular person happened to be working. Or where research funding was allocated, for that matter. A funding trick computer-music people like doing lately is to apply their algorithms to bioinformatics as a way of funding research in their real domain of interest.
The next step, of course, would be to try to determine if these image-processing techniques already do exist in audio processing, just under a different name, or in some kind of variant.
Yeah, I was thinking about this algorithm because I realized how much my brain uses the visual system to solve non visual problems. Maybe I am more of a visual thinker than others but I often visualize abstract concepts naturally.
I find it amazing that the brain can accept and process large amounts of information if it is just presented in a coherent visual way. Imagine looking at an image vs a printout of the pixel values. Same data but one is designed to be processed by humans.
Recruiting the visual areas of the brain to process information is actually not a strong support for the argument that information processing in other regions of the brain is organized similarly--if it were, processing could be recruited elsewhere and you would not perceive it as "visual".
> Recruiting the visual areas of the brain to process information is actually not a strong support for the argument that information processing in other regions of the brain is organized similarly
Good point. I guess I was trying to say that non-visual information processing in the brain is more than just organized similarly to visual processing, in some cases the brain actually uses the visual system to process non-visual information.
Interesting. I wonder about maintainability if the writer's "obvious" version is only there to be refactored out. Can you still read the intent when he's done?
