Worked as a chemical systems technician for a bit. Can confirm, lots of the chemicals we used (most, some of which were pharma grade but we weren't pharma), had to come from either China or Germany. And we really did try to source as much in the US as possible. So it wasn't even a question of cost, it was simply no one here wanted to make what we needed.
Now granted, I'm not naive enough to think we should be able to be self-sufficient and manufacture everything ourselves. I think it is fine to import stuff. My bigger concern is, for some things, there just isn't a lot of options. I think its fine to buy some of the raw materials from Germany and China, but I'd also like to see a few more countries that they could be bought from.
It depends. People can always say, "zoom out," but that only works if you plan to be long term invested. Really it's more of a, what is your investment horizon/window. If you were planning to reap what you sowed in the stock market right now, you'd maybe be screwed. But like myself, the money I put in (personal account), Im not looking to touch for at least 10 years. Although right now/near term, it's not clear if we will be going up anytime soon. We were already stalling for the better part of the last 6-7 months on growth. Now we are going down with potential macro events that may keep it going down or stall growth for a bit. But as I said, if you're putting in money today planning not to touch it in 10-20 years, don't sweat it. Until the recent events in the Middle East, my international ETF was out performing the S&P500 by quite a bit.
Also consider there was a period it took the NASDAQ something like 15 years to recover from a crash after ATH. If your 20 and don't plan to touch it till your 60, whatever. But if you were 55 and looking to capitalize on it at 65, well, zoom out doesn't mean much to you.
I mean I am planning to still be adding to my investments and not selling any of it for more than 20 years. If you are caring about the short term returns then you wouldn't or shouldn't be invested so heavily in stocks, you should be shifting to more stable investments as you approach retirement or the time in which you plan to start selling some of your investments.
Not only does a pull back not really matter in the long term, but it even provides an opportunity to buy more at a lower cost now too!
I think that is a little bit unfair. I think plenty of developers, myself included wouldn't mind or would like to do native applications. Every time someone does those, a mountain of people ask "why" and "this shoulda/coulda been a web app." And some of that is somewhat reasonable. It's easier to achieve decent-ish cross platform. But also tons of consumers also just don't wanna download and install applications unless it comes from an App Store. And even then, it's iffy. Or most often the case, it's a requirement of the founders/upper management/c-suite. And lets be honest, when tons of jobs ask for reactive experience or vue.js, what motivates developers to learn GTK or Qt or Winforms or WinUI3?
Yep. I graduated in 2017 and jobs were already mostly web. I’d love to work on native applications but nobody is hiring for that and of course because nobody is hiring for that I don’t have a job like that and the Qt I learnt in university is not gonna get any more relevant over time but I don’t have a good reason to keep that skill up to date and if I have to solve a problem I might as well write a TUI or CLI application because that’s easier than Qt or whatever…
I agree with your sentiment, but I also don't know if CD Projekt is a great example because its not their original IP. I am sure the games saw a boast in sales from awareness given by the TV show. But I am assuming Andrzej Sapkowski is probably the one who gets most of the money from licensing from Netflix. Although I will say, I don't 100% know all the details for the Netflix deals. And due to lawsuits and what not, exactly what Andrzej has the ability to sell rights to isn't very easy to find out with quick searches.
Edit: Ah, maybe CD Projekt does own the rights completely? They may have bought the right completely from Andrzej? So Andrzej may not have been the primary party selling the rights? Or maybe not? Andrzej may have retained film/tv rights and not sold those to CD Projekt.
If you are a large game, they will not provide you an appreciable portion of your sales as keys. Sales made this way also likely hurt your organic distribution.
Re: value propositions: Steam's 30% reduces to 25% after $10M made, and 20% after $50M.
And lets not forget Tim Sweeney's dishonest representation. Sure, Steam can take a 30% cut, but they also offer a lot of avenues to avoid that. With Steam, a publisher can get a ton of activation codes and sell those activation codes on their site and not get hit with the 30% cut. No fee on in-game transactions, and as you build a user base for your games, Steam also lowers the 30%.
As much as I love steam, some of this isn't even a high bar. I've always had issues with stuff loading slow or odd behavior on the steam store tab in the application. My understanding is it's because the store tab in the steam application is essentially a web browser, and it sorta works like ass.
Deterministic doesn't mean correct. Compilers can have bugs. What deterministic means, given the same input you get the same output every time. So long as given the same code it generates the same wrong thing every time, its still deterministic.
I really hate the trying to make LLM coding sound like it's just moving up the stack and is no different from a compiler. A compiler is deterministic and has a set of rules that can be understood. I can look at the output and see patterns and know exactly what the compiler is doing and why it does and where it does it. And it will be deterministic in doing it.
I commented elsewhere, but that doesn't mean it's not deterministic. Deterministic means given the same input it gives the same output. Compilers can still have bugs and generate the wrong code. But so long as given the same input it generates the same wrong output, it is still deterministic.
Compilers can generate wrong output in many different ways. And they're all analogous to the same ways that a sophisticated LLM can generate wrong outputs.
The compiler relies on:
* Careful use of the ENV vars and CLI options
* The host system, or the compilation of the target executable (for cross-compiling)
* It relies on the source code specifically
How is this really different from careful prompt engineering, and an extensive proposal/review/refine process?
They are both narrowing the scopes and establishing the guardrails for what the solution and final artifact will be.
> proposal/review/refine process
This is essentially what a sophisticated compiler, or query optimizer (Postgres) does anyway. We're just doing it manually via prompts.
And none of that means it isn't non-deterministic. Compilers still satisfy the, given the exact same environment and input, you get the same output. It doesn't matter the number of inputs. So long as f(3, 2) always gives 5, it's deterministic. Doesn't matter what f(x,y) does so long as it always gives the same output per input. LLM generation does not do this. If given f(3,2), sometimes it says 5, sometimes 6, sometimes 1001, sometimes 2.
And we are talking compilers, not query optimizers, so I don't really care what they do.
It seems that the person you’re replying to is also deterministic. No matter how many times you explain what “deterministic” means, they fail to understand it.
You can't guarantee that an LLM will yield the same answer twice, given the same input, by design. You can with compilers. That's the point being made here.
It is deterministic, unless GCC is now including a random statistical process inside its compiler to generate machine code. You've copied this same comment repeatedly, it doesn't become more correct the more you spam it.
Having bugs is not the same as being non-deterministic.
I get the point that the compiler is not some pure, perfect transformation of the high-level code to the low level code, but it is a deterministic one, no?
Now granted, I'm not naive enough to think we should be able to be self-sufficient and manufacture everything ourselves. I think it is fine to import stuff. My bigger concern is, for some things, there just isn't a lot of options. I think its fine to buy some of the raw materials from Germany and China, but I'd also like to see a few more countries that they could be bought from.
reply