Call it what you want, but a new life stage begins when we have serious responsibility for another human.
For some this comes early, like a "child" looking after a sick parent. For others (like me) this comes with having children.
My wife and I look back on the years we thought we were adults, because we lived on our own, had jobs and a cat, and chuckle to ourselves at how grown up we thought we were. This type of pretending to be an adult we call "adulting".
They use ARM cores designed by the Arm company, but the complete chips are designed by AWS/Microsoft.
Ampere had previously used cores designed by Arm, but their latest CPUs (which do not impress much) use a custom core, like the Apple and Qualcomm CPUs.
I know, but I can't buy a Cobalt or Graviton workstation. Ampere has been the only way I could lay my hands on a nice workstation-grade ARM chip (unless you count Apple, but they also don't sell chips)
Something people often don't consider is the limited resources for doing science - time, money, etc.
The positive side to "bias" is intuition. This is where a bias ("I'm pretty sure it'll turn out to work like XYZ, so I'll do this experiment next, rather than getting bogged down in some other area.") massively shortcuts the amount of resources required to come to a scientific conclusion.
During my PhD, I made many such shortcuts, following my nose. If I didn't, and tried to do everything objectively, I'd still be optimising buffers, and other such things.
The current state of terms and conditions is a clear failure of modern law.
No one is reading them, and it would be practically impossible to do so. Signing something you cannot practically read and understand clearly does not mean you actually accept them.
How can we wake people up to this absurdity? The law should exist to help society. When it is not helping, reform it.
What gets enshrined into law is a function of what powerful people in the society want enshrined. And these companies, their executives, and their beneficiaries are infinitely more powerful than individual users. In many ways the legal system is a compromise that companies tacitly agree to in order for legal/police protection in exchange for not hiring mercenaries and rebelling, as they do in some countries. The legal system has to serve their interests, or else powerful people would revolt. When they do revolt either violently or nonviolently, the laws shift and a new compromise is achieved. Or they just choose not to follow the laws and the state doesn't call them on their bluff, or if they do, it is only an entry-point to negotiation. Thus the current state of laws are a continuum of compromises between power players.
This is what I find interesting - the response from most companies is "we will need fewer engineers because of AI", not "we can build more things because of AI".
What is driving companies to want to get rid of people, rather than do more? Is it just short-term investor-driven thinking?
I think it's an excuse to do needed lay offs without saying as much. So yes, preserving signals, essentially. I've never met a tech company that didn't love expanding work to fill capacity, even if the work is of little value.
How much more productive are we supposed to be in engineering? Are we 10x'ing our testing capability at the same time? QA is already a massive bottleneck at my $DAYJOB. I'm not sure what benefits the company at-large derives from having the typing machine type faster.
Perhaps this is one of the understanding gaps that crop up around AI development? At my current company and most others I've worked at, testing capability is part of the same bucket because engineers do their own QA.
For some this comes early, like a "child" looking after a sick parent. For others (like me) this comes with having children.
My wife and I look back on the years we thought we were adults, because we lived on our own, had jobs and a cat, and chuckle to ourselves at how grown up we thought we were. This type of pretending to be an adult we call "adulting".
reply