I recently had the distinct displeasure of being the first to set up a service in Azure on a new tenant at Microsoft.
Of course I first had to faff about adding the company credit card, which took five tries and two days. Then I found I had to create the appropriate resource group, before I could set up a service. Fair enough, it might make sense later to have costs divided up like that. After I got the resource group, I then thought to start simple and spin up a single VM.
This gave me an error message saying that my request exceeded the quota. Which quota? The built-in copilot in Azure chewed on the raw error in its JSONness, and helpfully told me I could find the Azure quota page by searching for it in the Azure portal.
Once I entered the quota page, I was greeted with a message saying that I was now in the new quota experience in public preview mode. After many clicks I found the appropriate line for the desired VM SKU in the desired region, where it said I had used 0 of the quota of 30. So why didn't it work? I tried to request an increased quota, just in case. That process spent five minutes on "please wait", then failed with a generic error message.
At that point I started googling around, and eventually in some forum thread I found the missing piece: my resource group did not yet have a subscription. After more faffing about, I got a subscription associated with my resource group. What is a subscription, you ask, and what is the relation between a tenant, a subscription and a resource group? I haven't the foggiest, but I've clicked enough buttons to make the errors go away. Por ahora.
Of the evidence presented here I am mostly shocked that Peloton is still a thing. The last time I heard about them was that cringeworthy ad in pre-Covid times. I thought they were the Juiceroo of fitness equipment.
Probably mainly because it doesn't seem to exist outside of the US, and I live in Europe. Only hear about products like that when shit's hitting the fan. From reading the wikipedia page, almost kind of impressive they are still trucking on: 70% drop from the IPO price (95% drop from peak) and a number of recalls and accidents including one child dead.
I see. Stock pricing, especially IPO levels, is a poor indicator of almost anything concrete nowadays, unfortunately. I was highly skeptical at first (early years) but it is a quality product and service. Comparing to Juiceroo is inaccurate.
There's enough of a population out there that just either don't care about the price hikes, the fact that your bike gets disabled if it doesn't have internet, or straight up bricks itself if you try to use it with a third party service, that they seem to be able to still be in business.
It's also a consequence of the sheer number of building blocks which are involved in modern science.
In the methods section, it's very common to say "We employ method barfoo [1] as implemented in library libbar [2], with the specific variant widget due to Smith et al. [3] and the gobbledygook renormalization [4,5]. The feoozbar is solved with geometric multigrid [6]. Data is analyzed using the froiznok method [7] from the boolbool library [8]." There goes 8, now you have 2 citations left for the introduction.
Do you still feel the same way if the froiznok method is an ANOVA table of a linear regression, with a log-transformed outcome? Should I reference Fisher, Galton, Newton, the first person to log transform an outcome in a regression analysis, the first person to log transform the particular outcome used in your paper, the R developers, and Gauss and Markov for showing that under certain conditions OLS is the best linear unbiased estimator? And then a couple of references about the importance of quantitative analysis in general? Because that is the level of detail I’m seeing :-)
Yeah, there is an interesting question there (always has been). When do you stop citing the paper for a specific model?
Just to take some examples, is BiCGStab famous enough now that we can stop citing van der Vorst? Is the AdS/CFT correspondence well known enough that we can stop citing Maldacena? Are transformers so ubiquitous that we don't have to cite "Attention is all you need" anymore? I would be closer to yes than no on these, but it's not 100% clear-cut.
One obvious criterion has to be "if you leave out the citation, will it be obvious to the reader what you've done/used"? Another metric is approximately "did the original author get enough credit already"?
Yeah, I didn't want to be contrary just for the sake of it, the heuristics you mention seem like good ones, and if followed would probably already cut down on quite a few superfluous references in most papers.
> Remember when the Turing test was a thing? No one seems to remember it was considered serious in 2020
To be clear, it's only ever been a pop science belief that the Turing test was proposed as a literal benchmark. E.g. Chomsky in 1995 wrote:
The question “Can machines think?” is not a question of fact but one of language, and Turing himself observed that the question is 'too meaningless to deserve discussion'.
The Turing test is a literal benchmark. Its purpose was to replace an ill-posed question (what does it mean to ask if a machine could "think", when we don't know ourselves what this means- and given that the subjective experience of the machine is unknowable in any case) with a question about the product of this process we call "thinking". That is, if a machine can satisfactorily imitate the output of a human brain, then what it does is at least equivalent to thinking.
"I believe that in about fifty years'
time it will be possible, to programme computers, with a storage capacity of about 10^9, to
make them play the imitation game so well that an average interrogator will not have
more than 70 per cent chance of making the right identification after five minutes of
questioning. The original question, "Can machines think?" I believe to be too
meaningless to deserve discussion. Nevertheless I believe that at the end of the century
the use of words and general educated opinion will have altered so much that one will be
able to speak of machines thinking without expecting to be contradicted."
Turing seems to be saying several things. He writes:
>If the meaning of the words "machine" and "think" are to be found by examining how they are commonly used it is difficult to escape the conclusion that the meaning and the answer to the question, "Can machines think?" is to be sought in a
statistical survey such as a Gallup poll. But this is absurd.
This anticipates the very modern social media discussion where someone has nothing substantive to say on the topic but delights in showing off their preferred definition of a word.
For example someone shows up in a discussion of LLMs to say:
"Humans and machines both use tokens".
This would be true as long as you choose a sufficiently broad definition of "token" but tells us nothing substantive about either Humans or LLMs.
If you're in Europe, you can consider Dacia. A lot of their stuff is old Renault parts that they've bought a license to use/manufacture. Get a pre-2023 model with the 1.6 non-turbo non-hybrid petrol engine - it's actually a Nissan HR16DE, which has been in use since 2004. Very reliable and low complexity.
Is it using that Nissan/Renault CVT? That transmission is notorious junk.
I must say that I've been impressed with Dacia. Even the build quality is excellent - on par or beating VW. I've driven on Romanian roads so I can see why they would prioritize such high build quality.
You can get them with a manual transmission, or a dual-clutch automatic, or CVT. AFAIK, the manuals are all decent, although the 6 speed manual on the 4WD models has quite low ratios (no transfer case) so it doesn't have great fuel economy at highway speeds.
Not true unless you equate a normal road (one or two lanes per direction, rarely separated from the other direction) with a highway, which is something else (comtrolled access, separated lanes, safety lane). Top highway speed is 130 kph, express road speed is 110 kph and normal roads it's 90 kph.
At least the last time I was there, 2010, all the intercity highways look like they hadn't been maintained since Ceausescu fell. No matter what the legal limit was, there were very few places where one could drive 90 kph safely. Maybe this has changed - I certainly hope so
Well, it's quite different now after being in the EU for nearly two decades. What you recall is regular roads, that cannot be called highways, but those got fixed as well. The highway infra is still not countinous, but it exists. And Romanian drivers do >90 kph on normal roads as well. Romania and Bulgaria have the highest road fatalities per capita in the EU.
It's not an infrastructure issue, but a cultural one that took off because of lacking infra. Those roads were designed for doing a maximum of 90 kph on them. Drivers were out of options, needlessly wasing time on thd road, so they started driving recklessly.
where (x_hat,y_hat) are your basis vectors in the plane, z_l is the local z coordinate (subtract the terrain modifier used to move tiles up/down) , and z_h is the height of a flower.
Or if you want to be more advanced, generate some curl noise and use it as a prefactor instead of x,y inside the sin(). And include the corresponding up-down motion as the stalks are constant length.
reply