No regular user interacts directly with a JavaScript engine, not in the sense that they interact with a text editor, a video editor, an audio editor, a CAD application, a medical imaging application etc. etc. etc.
I appreciate when a view opens up a different perspective and yours does. Nevertheless, if we lift the surface layer and have a look at the dark economy, do you think we’re find a less nepotistic economy, or one with less ruthless hierarchical structures in which luck is less of a factor?
It is a rationale, but ironically a very socialist one, which I believe would be anathema to the people actually making the decisions and the people who voted for them too.
You allude to it yourself in your example. People, from all over the world, were doing research in the US, because that’s the only place they could really do it. Now that this option is disappearing, the system will have to adjust and find another place. When that happens, US loses. Until it does, we all do.
People have been claiming "this is the end" of the US, for some reason or another, ever since I've been on the internet (since 2005).
This same sentiment was going around in 2016 when Trump was doing those ridiculous "bans" on immigration. Since then I would argue the US has only increased its influence and power over Europe. Europe needs help with the war and the US has already given immeasurable resources. Europe has almost no skin in the game when it comes to AI. Maybe that's a bubble but the point still stands.
Ofc I don't agree with what the current president is doing, but the idea that businesses and research will flock to Europe is amusing. They've certainly introduced enough barriers to ensure that won't happen.
You could argue that, with Windows there is a legitimate place to direct your rage at, but the action of directing your rage does not actually have any effect on improving your experience. With Win and Mac, no one cares, because they already have their customers locked in and tight, they will accept any experience degradation. With Linux, you are not a customer so no customer complaints, but still arguably much better support.
If you come at it like a sinner asking for penance, the englightened may come to guide, but that's not what I'm talking about. If you to rage, these same people will become inquistors. Rage isn't all about solving a problem, it's about catharsis. It's not so much about technical support, it's about emotional support. A bad design decision (like the GNOME desktop redesign) is not a technical problem. It's not a bug, it's a feature.
Agreed. And also, if there's something you don't like or a project going in a direction you don't agree with, there is virtually guaranteed to be other people out there that feel the same that are building something different
The title is obviously the wrong way around, exchanges turn distributed logs into order books. The distributed part is a resilience decision but not essential to the design (technically writing to a disk would give persistence with less ability to recover, or with some potential gaps in the case of failure (remember there is a sequence published on the other end too, the market data feed)). As noted in the article, the sequencer is a single-threaded, not parallelisable process. Distribution is just a configuration of that single threaded path. Parallelisation is feasible to some extent by sharding across order books themselves (dependencies between books may complicate this).
It would not surprise me at all if the sequencing step was done via FPGA processing many network inputs at line rate with a shared monotonic clock. This would give it some amount of parallelism.
good point, sequencing is very minimal, therefore some parallelism is feasible that way, but the pipeline is not that deep, at least ideally. Of course if people are chasing nano-seconds, it may make sense.
These inefficiencies are akin to having some “wrong” weights in a huge model. Corporations also average over their individual contributions, positive or negative. And negative feedback loops may be individually detrimental but collectively optimising.
Human flaws permeate the entire body of a corporation. The scale may average out some of it, but humans are not just randomly flawed - they're also systematically flawed on the top of it, and averaging does little to counter that.
And the "top end" of the corporation doesn't have enough averaging to mitigate even the random flaws. If someone in the C-suite makes the dumbest decisions ever, the entire system may suffer immense damage before it corrects - if it ever does.
There’s got to be a chronological point where older Greek gets much easier, though. Or at least, there was back when Greeks still had to work with katharevousa in school. I learned both Ancient Greek and then, though a year spent in Greece, Modern Greek. When I pick up late Hellenistic literature like Achilles Tatius, I feel like it is activating more the Modern Greek part of my brain than the 5th-century BC Athens part of my brain.
reply