You've got it totally backwards. Companies push features onto users who do not want them in order to make sales through forced upgrades because the old version is discontinued.
If people could, no one would ever upgrade anything anymore. Look at how hard MS has to work to force anyone to upgrade. I have never heard of anyone who wanted a new version of Windows, Office, Slack, Zoom, etc.
This is also why everything (like Photoshop) is being forced into the cloud. The vast majority of people don't want the new features that are being offered. Including buyers at businesses. So the answer to keep revenue up is to force people to buy regardless of what features are being offered or not.
> You've got it totally backwards. Companies push features onto users who do not want them in order to make sales through forced upgrades because the old version is discontinued.
I think this is more a consumer perspective than a B2B one. I'm thinking about the business case. I.e. businesses purchase software (or has bespoke software developed). Then they pay for fixes/features/improvements. There is often a direct communication between the buyer and the developer (whether it's off-the shelf, inhouse or made to spec). I'm in this business and the dialog is very short "great work adding feature A. We want feature B too now. And oh the users say the software is also a bit slow can you make it go faster? Me: do you want feature B or faster first? Them (always) oh feature B. That saves us man-weeks every month". Then that goes on for feature C, D, E, ...Z.
In this case, I don't know how frustrated the users are, because the customer is not the user - it's the users' managers.
In the consumer space, the user is usually the buyer. That's one huge difference. You can choose the software that frustrates you the least, perhaps the leanest one, and instead have to do a few manual steps (e.g. choose vscode over vs, which means less bloated software but also many fewer features).
Good. Every one of those products makes our lives significantly worse.
Almost all of these products are subpar garbage that would never survive in a competitive world. Almost none of them have done anything different or interesting or new for over a decade.
All these products do is use the search monopoly to take away the opportunity for us to have good versions of them.
All of this is absurdly complicated. Exactly what I would expect from a new student who doesn't know what they're doing and has no one to teach them how do you engineering in a systematic manner. I don't mean this as an insult. I teach this stuff and have seen it hundreds of times.
You should look for "post training static quantization" also called . There are countless ways to quantize. This will quantize both the weights and the activations after training.
You're doing this on hard mode for no reason. This is typical and something I often need to break people out of. Optimizing for performance by doing custom things in Jax when you're a beginner is a terrible path to take.
Performance is not your problem. You're training a trivial network that would have run on a CPU 20 years ago.
There's no clear direction here, just trying complicated stuff in no logical order with no learning or dependencies between steps. You need to treat these problems as scientific experiments. What do I do to learn more about my domain, what do I change depending on the answer I get, etc. Not, now it's time to try something else random like jax.
Worse. You need to learn the key lesson in this space. Credit assignment for problems is extremely hard. If something isn't working why isn't it? Because of a bug? A hopeless problem? Using a crappy optimizer? Etc. That's why you should start in a framework that works and escape it later if you want.
Here's a simple plan to do this:
First forget about quantization. Use pytorch. Implement your trivial network in 5 lines. Train it with Adam. Make sure it works. Make sure your problem is solveable with the data that you have and the network you've chosen and your activation functions and the loss and the optimizer (use Adam, forget about this doing stuff by hand for now).
> Unless I had an expert guide who was absolutely sure it’d be straightforward (email me!), I’d avoid high-level frameworks like TensorFlow and PyTorch and instead implement the quantization-aware training myself.
This is exactly backwards. Unless you have an expert never implement anything yourself. If you don't have one, rely on what already exists. Because you can logically narrow down the options for what works and what's wrong. If you do it yourself you're always lost.
Once you have that working start backing off. Slowly change the working network into what you need. Step by step. At every step write down why you think your change is good and what you would do if it isn't. Then look at the results.
Forget about microflow-rs or whatever. Train with pytorch, export to onnx, generate c code for your onnx for inference.
I kind of see your point, but only in the context of working on time-sensitive task which others rely upon. But if it is hobby/educational project, what is wrong doing things by yourself? And resort to decomposing existing solution if you can't figure out why yours is not working?
There's nothing better for understanding something rather than trying to do that "something" from scratch yourself.
I think the point is that OP is learning things about a wide variety of topics that aren't really relevant to their stated goal, i.e. solving the sensor/state inference problem.
Which, as you say, can be valuable! There's nothing wrong with that. But the more complexity you add the less likely you are to actually solve the problem (all else being equal, some problems are just inherently complex).
It's been about 100 years of congress abdicating their responsibility and delegating rule-making to agencies under the control of the executive, as well as the federal government coalescing power through the commerce clause and various other means. The US Government was never designed to be this top-heavy, and certainly not designed to allow one branch this much control. Natural consequences of a congress asleep at the wheel. More focused on quick public opinion wins through ham-fisted rules without having to actually write and maintain legislation than reducing the influence and power of the federal government and ceding power back to the states as designed.
Congress lawfully delegated some decisions to the executive, in 1934 - https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Reciprocal_Tariff_Act. They can undo that, if they want. I suspect they will, but only when it’s well beyond abundantly clear they need to.
Congress delegated almost all decisions to the Executive.
That’s how the system works given that legislation is high-level, often vague and sometimes riddled with errors. Congress sets the goals and Executive i.e. public sector makes the decisions about how to implement it.
The Republican constituency has begun to elect people on trial or even convicted of rape and pedophilia. It's too late, the well has been poisoned and a third of the population (with disproportionately powerful votes) have completely and totally lost their minds.
The Congress has not challenged the president, and very likely would vote for the tariffs anyway as the majority would support anything the president would say.
All the big corporations & big Money also have not challenged the president.
> very likely would vote for the tariffs anyway as the majority would support anything the president would say.
Very true, however,
1) it does slow the process somewhat and therefore also reduces total throughput, this keeps government more stable and also gives more time to respond. Slow and stable may or may not be the best way to run a company, but the government is not a company.
2) It would put the individual congresspeople on record, and they are somewhat more dependent on/accountable to their local population. If for example all the farmers realized that the tariffs would destroy the farmer's livelihood, we could see Iowa withdrawing suport.
The US goverment was set up the way it is for reasons.
You've got it totally backwards. Companies push features onto users who do not want them in order to make sales through forced upgrades because the old version is discontinued.
If people could, no one would ever upgrade anything anymore. Look at how hard MS has to work to force anyone to upgrade. I have never heard of anyone who wanted a new version of Windows, Office, Slack, Zoom, etc.
This is also why everything (like Photoshop) is being forced into the cloud. The vast majority of people don't want the new features that are being offered. Including buyers at businesses. So the answer to keep revenue up is to force people to buy regardless of what features are being offered or not.