The current assumption made by these companies is that AI training is fair use, and is therefore legal regardless of license. There are still many ongoing court cases over this, but one case was already resolved in favor or the fair use position.
Feel the same way. My Camry is a 2013—recent enough to have a simple display and Bluetooth, but old enough to predate the ‘modern’ infotainment systems.
Believe me, I plan to drive this car until the scrapyards run out of part donors.
You’re not idolizing Tyler Durden, are you? Because you shouldn’t idolize Tyler Durden.
What even is federation in the context of a distributed vcs like Git? Does it mean federation of the typical dev ops tools (issues, PRs, etc.)?
I don’t fault your interpretation. There is a reason Vonnegut uses the term “spiritual” throughout the book. At least for me, I would describe my understanding of the book to have required a spiritual/moral shift before I could really understand the image being painted.
I also read God Bless You Mr. Rosewater first of the two, so maybe that colored how I interpreted Player Piano. It is a more direct argument that humans need to be cared for, independent of their economic utility.
So when I read Player Piano, it didn’t strike me as an argument against automation (which, being an engineer myself, I am entirely for), but moreso as a warning that freedom from labor doesn’t alone make a perfect life. Especially in the mid-20th century context Vonnegut was writing in, it’s an argument against the “American” style of automation, wherein you displace people from their jobs and discard them entirely. They serve no further purpose to your economy, and since your society is tightly adjoined to the economy, they serve to purpose to society…
So it’s not really a book about automation, if if I said that in my first post. It’s a book about failings of American culture, which happens to be revealed through automation. It’s about the inconsistency of a society where one’s usefulness to others is determined solely by their labor, and where that labor is constantly sought to be devalued and eliminated, and what the end of that process looks like for humans who want to find meaning in their activities.
Two Vonnegut novels—God Bless you Mr. Rosewater and Player Piano—fundamentally shifted the way I view the world.
The novels primarily discuss the economy, automation, and human wellfare. When I was young I defaulted to a laissez-faire economic mindset, and basically assumed automation and technology would always make our quality of lives improve. I was very much in the Ayn Rand club on economic and moral issues. These books were ultimately what made me reflect and consider the other “spiritual” (in the sense Vonnegut uses the term) aspects of human wellfare. Vonnegut was my introduction to humanist thought, and I owe the vast majority of my personal moral development to the influence of these two books.
Amdahl’s isn’t the only scaling law in the books.
Gustafson’s scaling law looks at how the hypothetical maximum work a computer could perform scales with parallelism—idea being for certain tasks like simulations (or, to your point, even consumer devices to some extent) which can scale to fully utilize, this is a real improvement.
Amdahl’s takes a fixed program, considers what portion is parallelizable, and tells you the speed up from additional parallelism in your hardware.
One tells you how much a processor might do, the only tells you how fast a program might run. Neither is wrong, but both are incomplete picture of the colloquial “performance” of a modern device.
Amdahl’s is the one you find emphasized by a Comp Arch 101 course, because it corrects the intuitive error of assuming you can double the cores and get half the runtime. I only encountered Gustafson’s law in a high performance architecture course, and it really only holds for certain types of workloads.
ABSOLUTELY. I just recently capped off the Diff Eq, Signals, and Controls courses for my undergrad, and truly by the end you feel like a fucking wizard. It’s crazy how much problem-solving/system modeling power there is in such a (relatively) simple, easy to apply, and beautifully elegant mathematical tool.
Also runs a podcast game show called Lateral which is pretty fun to listen to. Last I checked only highlights were uploaded to YouTube, and full episodes are on typical podcast services
It’s only double counted in a situation where you’re actually counting both sides. This is a Canadian study published by a Canadian outlet about the impacts of Canadian policy.
They’re not trying to balance the books, so to speak, they’re evaluating transactions on a single account.