|
Its a basic skill any tom dick and harry should have these days...or from long back...
Caveat Emptor.
"Progress doesn't come from early risers – progress is made by lazy men looking for easier ways to do things." Lazarus Long
|
|
|
|
|
I would like to join in on that.
But then: Geek&Poke: SQL[^]
I never understood why SQL was developed, and then everything froze to ice (with regard to database languages). For solving other kinds of tasks, we have a handful of new languages and concepts and frameworks every year, and several widespread languages come in 'revisions' with no resemblance to previous versions (there is no reason to mention Fortran in this context). But SQL is sacred, untouchable, and should never be challenged, only embraced (e.g. LINQ).
Elementary database handling certainly is a basic skill. But I feel ashamed telling students that in 50 years, the best tool we have come up for solving database tasks is SQL. It does not make me proud of my profession's achievements.
Religious freedom is the freedom to say that two plus two make five.
|
|
|
|
|
with the advent of the role of data analyst , data scientist ..considering if you need humans to do this they need some way to come out with clean data.now if you train ai to do this work..and cover most use cases and teach it sql .... the new way is Conversational Finance Demo - YouTube
Caveat Emptor.
"Progress doesn't come from early risers – progress is made by lazy men looking for easier ways to do things." Lazarus Long
|
|
|
|
|
The large language models that power today’s chatbots like ChatGPT, Gemini, and Claude are immensely powerful generative AI systems, and immensely power-hungry ones to boot. {Insert photo of person with light bulb lighting up above their head{
|
|
|
|
|
Quote: research out of University of California, Santa Cruz has shown that modern LLMs running billions of parameters can operate on just 13 watts of power without a loss in performance. That’s roughly the draw of a 100W light bulb,
Huh? 
"the debugger doesn't tell me anything because this code compiles just fine" - random QA comment
"Facebook is where you tell lies to your friends. Twitter is where you tell the truth to strangers." - chriselst
"I don't drink any more... then again, I don't drink any less." - Mike Mullikins uncle
|
|
|
|
|
I think the author is referring to a 100 watt equivalent LED bulb.
The difficult we do right away...
...the impossible takes slightly longer.
|
|
|
|
|
Richard Andrew x64 wrote: equivalent LED
The devil's in the details.
"the debugger doesn't tell me anything because this code compiles just fine" - random QA comment
"Facebook is where you tell lies to your friends. Twitter is where you tell the truth to strangers." - chriselst
"I don't drink any more... then again, I don't drink any less." - Mike Mullikins uncle
|
|
|
|
|
But that's not what the author said. Simple mistakes like this legitimately make you question the entire article.
|
|
|
|
|
Counterpoint... if I go to amazon and type "100W bulb" everything I see is LED equivalents.
|
|
|
|
|
"Our AI is the dimmest bulb in the rack!"
|
|
|
|
|
The company is being paid $843 million to a build a rocket to "deorbit" the space station. They're going to use the Tesla self-driving code?
|
|
|
|
|
Kent Sharkey wrote: They're going to use the Tesla self-driving code?
Then NASA had better put an emergency vehicle running it's lights on a barge at the target point. 
Actually, deorbiting the ISS is a perfect use case for the cargo variant of Starship. Starship is big enough that once disassembled, each module could fit in Starship's cargo area. Let's bring it down and study the long-term effects on the various materials.
|
|
|
|
|
Pretty smart... I'm behind though. Why are we wanting to deorbit a space station? Can't we do something with it?
|
|
|
|
|
jochance wrote: Why are we wanting to deorbit a space station?
It probably is too big for Wall-E
M.D.V. 
If something has a solution... Why do we have to worry about?. If it has no solution... For what reason do we have to worry about?
Help me to understand what I'm saying, and I'll explain it better to you
Rating helpful answers is nice, but saying thanks can be even nicer.
|
|
|
|
|
Kent Sharkey wrote: They're going to use the Tesla self-driving code?
I hope not... if they do, instead of landing in the ocean it would hit a big city
M.D.V.
If something has a solution... Why do we have to worry about?. If it has no solution... For what reason do we have to worry about?
Help me to understand what I'm saying, and I'll explain it better to you
Rating helpful answers is nice, but saying thanks can be even nicer.
|
|
|
|
|
We're doomed! Again... Plan for the future. The far future.
|
|
|
|
|
That was five minutes I'll never get back.
|
|
|
|
|
Kent Sharkey wrote: Plan for the future. The far future.
what for? IF we are still around, we will be controlled by our Robot Overlords
Maybe that's the last chance to get free, when they get bugged around
M.D.V.
If something has a solution... Why do we have to worry about?. If it has no solution... For what reason do we have to worry about?
Help me to understand what I'm saying, and I'll explain it better to you
Rating helpful answers is nice, but saying thanks can be even nicer.
|
|
|
|
|
We should delete these posts then and try to wipe the internet of the information. 
|
|
|
|
|
No need to delete everything. Just replace it with cat videos. Then maybe our overlords will be more benevolent.
|
|
|
|
|
If we ever built actual empathy into it, it probably really would replace everyone.
|
|
|
|
|
Looking at the news lately... we would deserve it 
M.D.V.
If something has a solution... Why do we have to worry about?. If it has no solution... For what reason do we have to worry about?
Help me to understand what I'm saying, and I'll explain it better to you
Rating helpful answers is nice, but saying thanks can be even nicer.
|
|
|
|
|
In the scenario described, it is meaningless to introduce a new linear time scale. It must be relativistic, affected by gravitation and acceleration (OK, I know that those two terms are identical in the models!)
A former co-worker of mine was earlier working on GNSS systems. He told that when the first GPS satellites were launched, the programmers were divided into two camps: One claimed that because gravity is weaker out there where the satellites orbits, time runs at a different speed. The other camp said: Bullsh*t! The camps were so evenly divided that two versions of the software was included in the first satellites, with the 'non-relativistic' alternative enabled.
Gradually, errors from the satellites accumulated, making the readings more and more incorrect. The relativistic guys showed their calculations: Look! Exactly as we calculated! So an order was sent to the satellites to switch to the relativistic software, and the GPS positions turned stable as rock.
My primary source is oral, from my co-worker. When I mentioned this to another guy at a social event, he nodded, confirming that he was aware of it. Yet, I do not have any URL to confirm it. Sorry!
In any case: If you plan for a time standard for cosmological time scales, you should most certainly make it aware of acceleration, distances and c. A time stamp will be a lot more than a 64 bit (or 128 bit) count of nanoseconds. And, as the GPS example shows, it may be essential not only in billions of years or lightyears - it may come into plays with something as earthy (?) as GPS satellites.
Side remark: Astronomers do have their own time scale differing from the Christian one: They recognize zero! The Christian church doesn't - year -1 goes directly to year 1, with no year 0 inbetween. So for years before 1 AD, the Christian time and the the astronomical time differs by one year.
Religious freedom is the freedom to say that two plus two make five.
|
|
|
|
|
I believe your tale is apocryphal.
Time dilation had been experimentally verified decades before GPS came to be.
In the mid 1970s a colleague was working on refining software that used the US Navy Transit satellite doppler navigation system, and we had a light hearted discussion around the fact that the relativistic corrections weren't necessary for a system that had a fundamental accuracy on the order of a hundred or more metres.
Transit was a very ingenious system, getting a fix from a 2 minute pass of one satellite.
Software rusts. Simon Stephenson, ca 1994. So does this signature. me, 2012
|
|
|
|
|
Peter_in_2780 wrote: I believe your tale is apocryphal.
Time dilation had been experimentally verified decades before GPS came to be.
Oh, most certainly.
The question is whether programmers, even of GPS software, would think that it would be of importance to their software.
When I see how to which degree of detail I have to explain to even well seasoned programmers how meaningless it is to use a window protocol on an transatlantic optic fiber, I can well believe that even GPS programmers laugh: Time dilation? That has to do with stars and galaxies, not satellites circling earth! I never checked how many orders of magnitude below transatlantic transfer times we are, but we are talking about a few
So I am not at all doubting that quite a few programmers would think that relativistic corrections is just silliness when writing software for (near) earthly things such as a GPS satellite.
If you were to write the driver for a digital clock display in a high speed train, and someone insisted that you have to include corrections for the acceleration and breaking down as the train leaves a station and arrives at the next? Most likely, you would laugh at it. But fact is that the acceleration/de-acceleration would cause the clock display to gradually deviate from the stationary station clocks. Even though theoretical physicists (and even some real ones) has known this to be a fact for a hundred years, you would probably laugh it away, for your clock display.
That's what a significant part of the GPS software team did for their clock.
Religious freedom is the freedom to say that two plus two make five.
|
|
|
|
General 
News 
Suggestion 
Question 
Bug 
Answer 
Joke 
Praise 
Rant 
Admin 
Submit an article or tip
