If I’m remembering correctly, I had bought a Borland Turbo C++ compiler circa 1994 (for DOS) that came with a demo sheets application you could build and run.
What does one achieve with 25 GB internet? Are speeds actually usefully faster, or is there some other bottleneck that makes the practical speed the same as in the US?
Also any workload I have that is bandwidth heavy would be on clouds machines between data centres and generally very fast. Are there reasons why someone at home would benefit from 25GB internet beyond whatever is available?
Is this a case of over engineered central planning instead of a blow against the free market?
I think you misunderstood the article, or perhaps didn't read it?
So the way the system works is each house has 4 physical fibers into it, that go into a central office without being aggregated up. Inside the central office any ISP can offer any speed vs price option they want, because they just patch you in at layer 1.
So of course, most people wouldn't necessarily need to get 26Gbit. But if you want to offer it as an ISP you can, and it's up to customers to decide if it's worth the price.
One obvious use case would be folks that work with high resolution video. Uncompressed 8K is about 8TiB per hour of footage. Compressed raw like RED cinema et all are more like 1TiB per hour at the high quality settings.
25Gbit vs 1Gbit for moving 1TiB is 5 minutes vs 2 hours.
A quick google says the 25Gbit service from Init7 is $80 bucks a month.
Sounds like an astoundingly good deal vs what's available in the US to me.
Workloads emerge with higher capacity not other way around. Lossless media, to virtual reality applications all scale better with more available bandwidth.
An average AAA game is 100-200GB today. That is not by accident, The best residential internet of 1Gbps dedicated it is still 30 minutes of download, for the average buyer it is still few hours easily.
A 2TB today game is a 5 hour download on 1 Gbps connection and days for median buyer. Game developers can not think of a 2TB game if storage capacity, I/O performance, and bandwidth all do not support it.
Hypothetically If I could ship a 200TB game I would probably pre-render most of the graphics at much higher resolutions/frame-rates than compute it poorly on the GPU on the fly.
More fundamentally, we would lean towards less compute on client and more computed assets driven approach for applications. A good example of that in tech world in the last decade is how we have switched to using docker/container layers from just distributing source files or built packages. the typical docker images in the corporate world exceed 1GB, the source files being actually shipped are probably less than 10Mb of that. We are trading size for better control, Pre built packages instead of source was the same trade-off in 90s.
Depending on what is more scarce you optimize for it. Single threaded and even multi-threaded compute growth has been slowing down. Consumer internet bandwidth has no such physics limit that processors do so it is not a bad idea to optimize for pre-computed assets delivery rather than rely on client side compute.
I'll assume by "game servers" you mean "video game binary and asset distribution servers that support game stores like Steam and Epic and others".
When I paid Comcast for 1.5Gbit/s down, Steam would saturate that downlink with most games. I now pay for service that's no less than 100mbit symmetric, but is almost always something like 300->600mbit. Steam can -obviously- saturate that. Amusingly, the Epic Games Store (EGS) client cannot. Why?
Well, as far as I can tell, the problem is that -unlike the Steam client- the EGS client single-threads its downloads and does a lot of CPU-heavy work as part of those downloads. Back when I was running Windows, EGS game downloads absolutely pegged one of my 32 logical CPUs and left a ton of download bandwidth unused. In contrast, Steam sets like eight or sixteen of my logical CPUs at roughly half utilization and absolutely saturates my download bandwidth. So, yeah... if you're talking about downloads from video games stores it might be that whatever client your video game store uses sucks shit.
OTOH, if you're talking about video game servers where people play games they've already installed with each other, unless those servers are squirting mods and other such custom resources at clients on initial connect, game servers usually need like hundreds of kbps at most. They're also often provisioned to trickle those distributed-on-initial-connect custom resources in an often-misguided attempt to not disturb the gameplay of currently-connected clients.
Game downloads, whether on a console or a PC, come from a CDN. The difference is that Steam has a lot of capacity. They can have millions of players all downloading the same game on the same day at gigabit speeds. Console makers invariably cheap out and cannot reach the same level of service.
Hell, it might be the case that console manufacturers are doing the same stupid shit that EGS is doing. Perhaps they wrote their download code back when 50mbit/s was a dreadfully fast download speed for the average USian to have and they haven't updated it since. (And why would they? What's a consumer's alternative other than "Pay 1k or more for a gaming machine that can run games delivered through Steam" or "Don't play video games"?)
It’s not official, but you don’t always need to replace Cat5 cable with Cat6 to support 10Gbps Ethernet. Cat5 might only get you a quarter of the range of Cat6 on a good day, but since the range of Ethernet is 300 feet you would need a really big house to have cables that were too long.
But generally the real question is how often the extra speed would give you a real measurable advantage. If it’s only a few times per month then it’s probably not worth the extra subscription cost.
> I'd need to upgrade my entire lan just to make use of it.
If the concern is cost (rather than recabling the house) Mikrotik sells solid, inexpensive gear. Its management UIs take a bit of getting used to, but are fine once you've figured them out. You can also find two-port Intel 10gbit NICs on the Newegg "Marketplace" for ~40USD [0], and -while most already come with modules (and you will be informed if they don't)- if the X520s you're sold don't permit non-Intel transcievers, the NIC's firmware can usually be easily modified to change that. [1]
I routinely max out my 1Gbps connection downloading large files for work. 25Gbps would cut my waiting substantially. I'm not sure how likely it is that the server would be able to fill that pipe, but if such connections were common, they'd probably make it happen.
If people don't actually use the extra speed then it's effectively free to provide, anyway. If providers could advertise 25Gbps while only needing the same capacity they do for 1Gbps, I imagine they'd do it just to bring in a few more customers. The fact that they don't suggests it would result in more usage suggests it would be useful.
I’ve heard this, I don’t automatically believe it nor do I understand why it would need to be true, I’m still caught on the old fashioned idea that the only “thinking” for autoregressive modes happens during training.
But I assume this has been studied? Can anyone point to papers that show it? I’d particularly like to know what the curves look like, it’s clearly not linear, so if you cut out 75% or tokens what do you expect to lose?
I do imagine there is not a lot of caveman speak in the training data so results may be worse because they don’t fit the same patterns that have been reinforcement learned in.
We’re years into the industry leaning into “chain of thought” and then “thinking models” that are based on this premise, forcing more token usage to avoid premature conclusions and notice contradictions (I sometimes see this leak into final output). You may remember in the early days users themselves would have to say “think deeply” or after a response “now check your work” and it would find its own “one shot” mistakes often.
So it must be studied and at least be proven effective in practice to be so universally used now.
I have seen a paper though I can’t find it right now on asking your prompt and expert language produces better results than layman language. The idea of being that the answers that are actually correct will probably be closer to where people who are expert are speaking about it so the training data will associate those two things closer to each other versus Lyman talking about stuff and getting it wrong.
How is that a low trust signal? It's grounds to sue. Crank the number up to the limit of small claims in whatever jurisdiction you're based in.
If it was legal to say "If I break this oath, you can fucking shoot me" in a contract, I'd suggest that. The entire point of the exercise is "we promise do the right thing, and to keep us honest we have set up a system by which you can destroy us if we violate that promise".
Corporations can't swear on their life, as they have no life to offer. They can swear on their cash, and by such their ongoing existence.
Yeah, I was thinking the same. Surface tension, convection currents? Maybe the author is overthinking it a bit, giving too much weight to small contributors.
But that has presumably always been a pitfall for humans: trying to second guess the physical world and sometimes being "non-intuitively" wrong.
Latitude may affect the eddy currents and resulting convective shear on the film surface imparted by angular momentum from the earth’s spin.
This is what humors me about analytical minded computation focused people vs dumb simple engineer and physics (practical) people. That is imagining all the infinities of what may change a physical result vs knowing by experience or education.
ANOVA: analysis of variance from linear fit parameters will show you in experimental data or simulation the contributing factors. Or you can read a chapter in an undergraduate heat transfer book.
Decay rate of (T(t) - T_inf)/(T(0) - T_inf) is probably dominated by the wind speed in your room. For an 8-12oz cup a sphere or cylinder will get you pretty close.
So yea fair enough for being skeptical. That’s just how I write. I normally don’t do technical blog posts and in my free time I tend to write more in a bookish way. Especially since it’s not my first language. Thanks for checking the post out and this helps me
AI did help me outline. I didn’t use generated text.
I edited because the criticism was fair. After saying it out loud the phrases sounded weird. That’s useful feedback and I’d rather fix it than argue about it.
Write it yourself. This comment is fine, it didn't matter if your English isn't perfect. I got you. LLMisms sour the whole post with a bad tone and I and others won't stomach it. The impression of effort is more important.
Pretty sure on planes this is more ignorance than malice. It’s self absorbed people that are too selfish to consider someone else might not want to hear what they’re watching, rather than some deliberate anti society thing.
Regardless, no punishment is too harsh, this should be considered the equivalent of lighting up a cigarette on a plane.
I'm not a fan of the tablet as a pacifier approach but it's not my business. What is my business is when the parents do so without providing a way for the child to indulge without annoying everybody else. I consider that to be absolutely unacceptable in that if they can afford a tablet they can afford cheap headphones.
I have a three year old and would still never subject others to tablet noise. Yes they’re the literal worst to fly with but don’t export your misery to others.
That's rather defeatist. Surely you believe there are other options.
We traveled with a single Nexus 7 and one pair of headphones shared by three kids. Having to take turns taught them to be OK with having entertainment, being a spectator, or being bored. And they understood that if we ever heard it, they'd all have to be bored for a while.
I don’t know if anyone remembers the movie Inside Man where at the beginning they are waiting in line at the bank and the woman is having a loud conversation on her phone and the guard comes and tells here to keep it down. It’s this kind of person that I see not using speakers (when the movie was made I don’t think they contemplated humanity could sink that low), at best it’s entitlement, but I still think in most cases it boils down to not thinking about others vs actively trying to annoy them.
I am self-absorbed and devoid of empathy but it is still easy to logically deduce that other people don't want to hear my games, videos, or phone calls.
Usually they have been called out on it a time or two. They are often signaling that if you want to stop them, you'll have to use violence, and look -- no one or almost no one is willing to do that.
There are a couple of us who have actually seen someone call them out that are warning folks here what commonly happens. I saw someone get attacked with a knife, another commenter here had a gun pulled on him when they asked them to stop. It isn't about the loud music itself, it's that they're openly saying they are king shit, that no one is willing to challenge them, and broadcasting their eagerness to deliver violence upon anyone that might.
The other side of this is that they often do it on places you can't easily escape, like a train car with stops only every 5 minutes. This gives them a very long time to go to town on anyone that might challenges them. Something I've seen with my own eyes when they were asked to tone down the music.
> They are often signaling that if you want to stop them, you'll have to use violence
I'm well aware of the types you're talking about, but in my experience this has largely changed. It used to be that these sorts were the most common offenders. But now it's just, well, everyone and anyone. For instance I don't think the little, old lady in front of me on the bus the other day was challenging people to violence.
I think we're talking about two different groups of people. The ones I mean don't look dangerous, just self-absorbed. The ones you mean I don't have much experience of, they're not common around here. And they're certainly not common on airplanes.
I experienced this in real life and this creature was unable to understand the bus driver telling her to stop. It's like they didn't understand English nor social signals. To me it seemed to stem from a lack of intelligence than from intentionally being malicious.
They understand English. They just don't want to stop doing what they want to do. This is a quality that they share with everyone else on the planet by definition, but they think they're more important than other people.
There are angry people playing dominance games on one hand, and on the other people who simply don't care what anybody else wants and will do what they can get away with. There's no difference in intelligence between the two, but only the first type can actually be reasoned with. The second type will only pretend to be reasonable until the person that they're intimidated by leaves the room.
Everybody says "social cues," but as you said, the people who "don't get social cues" also don't seem to "get" direct requests or orders.
A lot of people don’t get a lot of things; you know the adage about stupidity being a more likely cause than malice. Just last week I had to explain to a grown adult why spitting on the sauna floor was disgusting and rude to the other gym members. He was shocked.
Yes, I'm fully aware. And it is emphatically irrelevant. It's kind of ridiculous to suggest the original motivations for the rule somehow render the associated risks on people's safety, lives, and properties permanently ineligible for consideration.
This captures the problem, the sycophancy / preference optimization deludes people into thinking they’re on to something and posting things that don’t contribute to the discussion. It’s the “I drive better when I’m drunk” syndrome, it’s better just to outright ban it than to leave it to people’s judgement.
Does declaring a function as inline do anything for any modern compiler? I understood that this is basically ignored now and is the compiler makes its own decisions based on what is fastest.
This library seems to have the annotation on every function, though, so it's possible the author is just following a convention of always using it for functions defined in header files (it'd be required if the functions weren't declared `static`).
In the former case the compiler is allowed to always inline the function.
In the latter case, even when the compiler chooses to inline the function, it also emits code for an independent instance of the function, because the function is public and it may be called from another file.
So "static inline" in the worst case does nothing, but it suggests to the compiler that the function should be inlined everywhere, which it will probably do, unless it decides that the function is too long (or it uses some features forbidden in inlined functions, e.g. variadic arguments, setjmp, alloca, etc.), so the benefits of inlining it may be less than the disadvantages.
When the compiler refuses to follow the suggestion of inlining the function, it can be made to tell the reason, e.g. with "-Winline".
So the compiler does not ignore the suggestion, even if it may choose to not follow it.
>In the latter case, even when the compiler chooses to inline the function, it also emits code for an independent instance of the function, because the function is public and it may be called from another file.
Not in standard C. "inline" function provides implementation for usage iff compiler decides to inline the call. If it does decide not to inline, it will emit call to external symbol that needs to be defined in different TU (otherwise you will get errors at link time).
The meaning of "inline" differs between C and C++.
Quote from the gcc manual:
"GCC implements three different semantics of declaring a function inline. One is available with -std=gnu89 or -fgnu89-inline or when gnu_inline attribute is present on all inline declarations, another when -std=c99, -std=gnu99 or an option for a later C version is used (without -fgnu89-inline), and the third is used when compiling C++."
Nevertheless, "static inline" means the same thing in all 3 standards, unlike "inline" alone.
This can be a reason to always prefer "static inline", because then it does not matter whether the program is compiled as C or as C++.
It is not a benefit if you do not get warnings about unused functions. With any proper library, you would also not get warnings for functions that are part of the API that are not used, but you would get warnings about non-exported functions internal to a translation unite that are accidentally not used. This is a good thing.
In a corrupt and authoritarian country, it is common to have officials busted on "corruption" or "embezzlement" charges. And yet most people know they are actually not jailed for the crimes they got charged for, because there are more than enough people to fill all the prisons for breaking the exact same laws they are accused of breaking. They knew the only reason these people got jailed is because they lost some kind of power struggle within the administration, and corruption is just a convenient lie those who prevailed tell you to keep you comfortable.
You never see the "no politics please thk u" crowd when it is about protests in Iran, Chinese oppression in Hong Kong, Russian aggression on Europe or hell, when people were literally running a political campaign the EU to stop killing games. You only see people flagging political submissions when it is a particular kind of politics - just like you only see corrupt officials jailed when they are a certain kind of officials.
There is always going to be an intersection between tech and politics. This convo is no different than talking about Section 230, H1B visas or using vision models to sexualize people or distort the truth.
Or rather, most people aren’t here to have their preconceived notions challenged by reality.
Politics is a nebulous term for topics that affect a large number of the population. Tech intersects with politics all the time and deserves good faith discussion.
When the computer code many of us are working on is directly shaping that politics I think that we should talk about it and stop hiding behind the bush.
Yeah so find a forum that’s for discussing that and discuss it there. Don’t try and force people who are discussing something else to talk about politics with you. Do you also randomly go onto GitHub issues and start talking politics because the people who are talking about repo bugs are “hiding behind a bush” and should talk about the political things you think are important instead?
I think that forums like this one should discuss politics as affected by computer code seeing as HN is one of the main (for lack of a better word) computer programmers' forums based/located in/with a focus on SV, it's not some random computer forum which specializes in some random computer programming issue.
Hacker News is not lambda-the-ultimate.org, seeing them as similar is part of that hiding behind the bush, people commenting on here actually work at companies like Palantir, Alphabet, Meta and the like, companies whose recent involvement in politics affects us all, at a worldwide level. Also see this recent FT article [1] in connection with how the leaders of those companies have gotten a lot reacher since Trump ascended to power for a second time.
> Tech titans lined up for Trump’s second inauguration. Now they’re even richer
> Silicon Valley bosses who lined up behind the US president for his inauguration have fared well under his administration
Absolutely and it's unfortunate that all essential topics that need discussion, which is the only thing that works to understand and find solutions for problems, is being flagged off the front page. Some of the flagging seems political as well, why isn't that recognized as a problem as well?
There was a time when SV and technology eschewed politics, but that time is long gone. You only have to look at how often all the big tech CEO's end up at random Whitehouse events to see how they are intimately intertwined now.
There has always been politics in SV, this is a weird rewriting of history.
Presumably there’s so much pushback now because people are quite uncomfortable having to confront the fact that they may be the bad guys (even though they were probably the bad guys years ago as well).
> There has always been politics in SV, this is a weird rewriting of history.
Not rewriting at all.
Nien-hê Hsieh, a professor of business ethics at Harvard University says that in the 1990s, “there was a real reluctance or reticence to engage in Washington” from the leading tech companies of the day.
...
The early 2010s saw huge growth in lobbying spending by tech companies. A plateau in the late Obama years was followed by another steep increase once Trump took office. But in recent years some major players have slowed or even decreased their spending, suggesting that major corporations are becoming more sophisticated in their approach to wielding power on Capitol Hill.
It gets down to the definition of political which is basically anything that might have a human cost, including to the people here. I have many coworkers having to upend their lives, some can’t currently leave the country. This is not worthy of discussion, but an esoteric library update is. Paul Graham posts are not political topics for some reason, but H1B people is.
Technology, technology leaders, and technology companies are literally driving politics, buying elections, driving the whole US economy.
Saying what “political” topics are IS political - and it’s decidedly a right wing position. Only those with the powers protecting them get to avoid politics.
Well said. Even people with a lot in common can and should disagree often. In non-authoritarian systems, politics is supposed to be about managing this disagreement in civil ways. Politics seems unsavory to some, often because they find a lot of political manifestations to be vile or insipid. [1] I get that, but in a way this revulsion is backwards. The alternatives to the sausage-making of politics is usually worse: pretending there is no disagreement, coercion, violence, gaslighting. So when someone says "I don't like politics" I like to say "disagreement is to be expected".
The "hide" link is right next to the "flag" link. Using flag instead of hide puts more strain on the mods, and is not the right thing to do for "this topic doesn't apply to my interests."
If your problem is that you have no means to control what other people find important enough to talk about on a public forum, in their spare time, or that the means at your disposal to do so are insufficient to make other people saying things that make you uncomfortable go away... That isn't a problem that can or should should be fixed. Hell, the desire you've expressed could be uncharitably interpreted being contributory to part of the problem that has people around you discussing politics in the first place.
FWIW I agree with you and recognize that to be one of the reasons it frequently isn’t allowed.
I also think there’s very few places with the power to meaningfully dialog with and among people who build stuff in Silicon Valley. I have dozens of friends, coworkers, etc who are in FAANG or the newer big tech companies, and all of them are extremely well paid, and most will insist they work for positive reasons. I believe in that most of them believe in other people, and don’t want to build a surveillance society or one that concentrates all wealth and power in a few.
For this reason, I think that some conversations on here are important to have - the impact technology is having on people who are outside the tech sphere, the effect of leaders of our companies on the economy, geopolitics, and power generally. Mark Facebook is a powerful player on the world stage. So is Paul Graham, and Sundar Pichai. Davos just took place - leaders from major economies are seeking guidance from these people who many people here work for. Let nobody say they aren’t participating in politics. Where you work matters, what you build matters. It’s not tinkering around in people’s garages anymore - they’re building the infinity gauntlet and someone is gathering all the gems. The Death Star plans are on AWS.
To pretend otherwise is to deny one’s responsibility - in the short term frequently profitable. In the long term, the pendulum tends to swing back..
But it is the right thing to do for "this topic violates HN guidelines both in letter and in spirit, as well as predictably causing low-quality discussion threads".
> Please don't use Hacker News for political or ideological battle. It tramples curiosity.
To the latter point, hundreds of comments in, and nobody has even brought up the intellectual curiosity angle of this (what limits are in place to the Federal government using data from Federal programs for law enforcement purposes? and does it matter if the program is administered by individual states?).
Instead it's just political rage bait, including citing the Rev Niemöller poem as if we're talking about Nazis.
(It used to be part of Internet culture that the moment you compared something mundane to the Nazis, you automatically lost the argument and were mocked mercilessly. We should bring that back.)
You're past the time of saying that and not being seen as an enabler my friend. This isn't normal politics anymore. They are killing people in the streets. If you don't think that your tech toys have a lot to do with that, then you should grow up. This pathetic point does not apply anymore.
There are no interesting apolitical topics. Food tastes good sometimes, weather is doing weather stuff, yawn. I feel like we sometimes try to seek conflict out of boredom
Does anyone remember this, I can’t find it now.
reply