Somehow he's flipping $1T SpaceX + $250B xAI (which is now apparently a pile of trash, according to Elon) into a $1.75T IPO because all of the insider investors think they can get away with it, and they are probably right
> And that the result will be Iran becoming a democracy that fully joins the global community.
You can hope that (and I can hope that), but the powers that are driving this military action completely do not care about this outcome. Which makes it exceedingly difficult for me to think this will happen.
I know the US proxies keep blabbering about 'regime change', but there's zero intentionality behind the political work to do that. My guess is balkanization, which won't really go how the US/Israel wants it to go
swe-REbench is interesting. The "RE" stands for re-testing after the models were launched. They periodically gather new issues from live repos on github, and have a slider where you can see the scores for all issues in a given interval. So if you wait ~2 months you can see how the models perform on new (to them) real-world issues.
It's still not as accurate as benchmarks on your own workflows, but it's better than the original benchmark. Or any other public benchmarks.
I've met some great designers as well. They usually come from more modest backgrounds.
It's kinda the rule for programmes too.
The ones that went to a small liberal arts school you've never heard of programming as their second career are usually more effective to work with then the Stanford/MIT crowd.
The problems start I think, when you have an expectation that your collaborators are somehow either superhuman or subhuman and not peers.
Apple designers used to build interactive demos in Macromedia Director, so I'm assuming they knew a bit about scripting. That probably helped them think in a way that really clicks with software development.
I've worked with some younger designers who couldn't even put together a consistent click-dummy once the client wanted to see flows outside the happy path. To be fair, all they really had to go on was their education and Figma's panels.
This is a pretty discriminatory comment that I’ve honestly seen zero hint of in reality. And this is coming from someone who didn't go to a particularly prestigious school. I honestly rarely even find out what school my colleagues went to school. But the ones I know who did go to those prestigious schools are beyond humble.
Not really. That's bad faith. I've worked at lots of places, probably hired about 200 engineers over my career so far and have noticed this pattern.
I stopped looking at the educational background years ago in a fear that it would influence my bias either way. We shouldn't base someone's suitability at 40 upon what opportunities they were afforded at 17.
I do have a somewhat prestigious pedigree btw. I removed it from my resume around 2010 and never looked back
I’m being earnest: what is an appropriate level of computer architecture knowledge? SIMD is 50 years old.
From the resource intro:
> Expected background: We’re going to assume you have a basic understanding of LLMs and the Transformer architecture but not necessarily how they operate at scale.
I suppose this doesn’t require any knowledge about how computers work, but core CPU functionality seems…reasonable?
SIMD is quite old but the changes Nvidia made to call it SIMT and that they used as an excuse to call their vector lanes "cores" are quite a bit newer.
As a real time rendering engineer, this is how it’s always been. NV obfuscates much of the info to prevent competitors from understanding changes between generations. Other vendors aren’t great at this either.
In games, you can get NDA disclosures about architectural details that are closer to those docs. But I’ve never really seen any vendor (besides Intel) disclose this stuff publicly
(New to comment thread)
The article is about setting up all the core infrastructure to start bringing content into the engine, validated by the triangle.
Even tho the Vulkan tutorial might seem like work, it’s not actually preparing you to build anything significant on top of it. This just an overview of the API, not much of a building block.
I think both sides have a point, it's just a matter of perspective. One person's "drawing a black triangle" can be another's "black triangle moment". It's turtles all the way down.
From the perspective of an experienced Vulkan programmer, it's only a basic tutorial on creating an empty stub project, which is useless in itself as the real work of creating a powerful 3D engine has yet to start. But from the perspective of a new graphics programmer without any prior Vulkan knowledge, creating a stub project capable of drawing a triangle is already an accomplishment in itself. In OpenGL, the same thing is possible in 50 lines of code, compared to a stub Vulkan project that explicitly defines every component using thousands lines of code. Upon finishing it, one would finally have an understanding of how every part comes together, which enables further development. It would be then possible to draw many different kinds of object on top of this stub framework. In this sense, it fits the definition of:
> accomplishments that take a lot of effort to achieve, but upon completion you don’t have much to show for it only that more work can now proceed.
reply