The solution is to learn a world model amenable to A*. Then you can always get from point a to point b. You don't need to follow breadcrumbs generated by random walks, you can just plan your trajectory and go.
Similarly if you can decompose the problem into linear control, then you can always find a control law that takes you to your destination.
You can probably beat the standard if you have a special case to optimize for — for example, if your documents are fixed “chunks” then you don’t need to normalize by length. If you can extract sets of keywords with NLP, then you don’t need to normalize by frequency.
Also you can get some cool behavior out of representing a corpus as a competitive network that reverberates, where a query yields an “impulse response”.
Instead of the efficient allocation of capital we have wealth transfers from producers and consumers to a financial rentier class that produces nothing. This class, which effectively owns the government and plans the economy, is responsible for not only high housing costs but high healthcare costs as well. It is gradually cannibalizing the rest of the economy and turning the population into debt slaves.
This is the real road to serfdom, which Hayek missed.
LLVM is very big, takes ages to compile and compiles code relatively slowly. Also because it was designed to compile C there are occasionally C-isms that make it suboptimal for other languages with different properties. (Although a hobby project is never going to beat its performance even accounting for that.)
Faster compilation speeds, more customized error handling, and convenient cross-compilation. I believe this is a promising direction for the future development of programming languages. Zig has already made significant progress in this area.
Probably the compilation time is better than it would be with LLVM. On the other hand I doubt that codegen and therefore performance is on par with LLVM.
This is an advertisement, and I usually don't put “no LLVM” in the title or use it as a promotional feature.
I posted this project on HackNews a few times, but it quickly sank to the bottom. Maybe “no LLVM” might pique some people's interest in the project, so I added it. Actually, I posted this link a few days ago and had already given up on it, but unexpectedly, it suddenly appeared on the HackNews homepage.
I now need some attention, which will give the Nature project more capital.
Buybacks do not do that any more than dividends do. Buybacks merely allow publicly listed stock owners to precisely time their capital gains tax events.
Surely, there is some amount of income that a business’s owner is allowed to pocket without bad intentions, which may or may not come at the cost of long term investments. Especially in stable/declining businesses.
No, buy packs are pure market manipulation. There is a reason why they were banned prior to 1982. It's a SEC rule that can easily be reversed too but the rich love their ability to manipulate markets for their benefit.
> Buybacks do not do that any more than dividends do.
There's at least a clear relationship if the dividend is reinvested.
If the dividend is spent, though, eg by someone in retirement, then they're different. Under buybacks, the retiree would have to sell some shares to get cash, and would eventually run out. Under dividends, the retiree would be able to continuously pocket money.
Right. In fact, it doesn't usually characterize an entire market, more often it's just certain segments: sometimes you want McDonalds, sometimes you want a Michelin-starred restaurant.
Similarly with the example: lots of guitarists are keen on NAM (Neural Amp Modeler) because it is free and runs on a PC, or one of the cheaper hardware pedals such as the ToneX. The low-end of this market is always chasing the high-end, but these cheaper options are fantastic for the sound quality they can produce and have come a long way from the L6 Pods of years ago.
reply