The Barbican is not a typical brutalist construction. The term brutalist refers to béton brut, which means raw concrete. I.e. you can see the shape of the wooden slats used as a cast. The concrete in the Barbican was finished by drilling to create a dappled pattern, which obliterated the shape of the slats.
There are also lots of post modern elements. For example, the columns of the girl’s school have pyramids at the top to resemble pencils.
The south bank has more buildings that are a purer expression of brutalism.
I was big fan of Scala a decade ago. The idea of a “scalable language” where DSLs could be built within the type system seemed super powerful. I lost my enthusiasm when the community decided they wanted to use it as Haskell on the JVM.
I’m hoping more recent developments, like WASM or Graal, provide a route for more flexibility when selecting languages. It’s nice to see Rust slowly become a serious choice for web development. Most of the time JS is fine, but it’s good to have the option to pull out a stricter low-level language when needed.
The first pension was put in place by Bismark as a way to "steal the clothes of the socialists whilst they were bathing". It was seen as the cheapest social benefit because life expectancies were so low. A popular policy delivered at low cost to the state.
That people are living longer is why the system is failing. It's an interesting thought experiment to consider whether any country would introduce a state pension now knowing how much they cost.
People are odd in terms of what they will tolerate. I prefer having a 15 mins stroll to pick up my coffee or food, for others it’s deal breaking.
The time argument is also weird. I find that I have a maximum of 6 hours highly productive work in me a day, perhaps an additional few hours of less productive work. A stroll or cooking recharges my mind. I envy all the people here who are working a productive 12 hour day.
I remember attending ACL one year, where the conference organisers ran an experiment to test the effectiveness of double blind reviews. They asked reviewers to identify the institution that submitted the anonymised paper. Roughly 50% of reviewers were able to correctly identify the institutions. I think there was a double digit percentage of being able to predict authors.
The organisers then made the argument that double blind was working because 50% of papers were not identified correctly! I was amazed that even with strong evidence that double blind was not working, the organisers were still able to convince themselves to continue with business as usual.
I have a PhD from one of the best universities in the world in Machine Translation, I was training feed forward networks in 2014, built models in TensorFlow in 2016, founded a generative AI startup in 2019 and signed deals with huge consumer goods companies, debugged distributed training jobs on a cluster with thousands of A100s, and wrote PyTorch training pipelines for a financial ML trading signal that made money.
Yet, I am unqualified to join an AI startup because I’ve never made an API request to OpenAI
My girlfriend is an Orthopaedic Surgeon. Great when I've got a broken arm, or need shelves putting up. I wouldn't let her anywhere near my heart or brain. Medicine is super specialised.
I hear you on geography though. Luckily the human body doesn't change too much between locations.
This seems to be a characteristic of many high functioning people, especially successful engineers. There is a "correct" way of living your life, conducting your business, using your text editor, etc. It's helpful in that it ensures consistency and focus. The downside is that people become desensitised to nuance.
In this particular example, the word cargo in cargo cult is redundant. All cults have ridiculous ceremonies for cult members to engage in. These ceremonies come from human nature, our inability to distinguish correlation from causation. We're told to conduct a ceremony, get a good outcome, then believe it's the ceremonies that caused the outcome. Just call them ceremonies, because that's what they are.
However, when Feynman wrote his speech he must have thought that a cargo cult is a much more graphic metaphor than a dry lecture about stats and human biases.
My statement did not imply zero sum thinking. The pie can get bigger and the bigger slices can get disproportionately bigger.
As an analogy, economies can increase their GDP and inequality can also increase. Just because something is getting bigger doesn't mean it's getting fairer.
The value of content creators on YouTube will follow a power law distribution. There will be a very small number of hugely profitable creators and a vast sea of people who do ok. This power law distribution makes YouTube very different to setting up a physical retail store in London. Even if I do well with my shop, I won't outperform my neighbour 1000x.
If anything Mr Beast is an argument for not using YouTube. Alphabet is incentivised to keep him happy so that he doesn't move to X. I'm sure they consider his needs before they change their algorithm, at the expense of almost all other creators on YouTube.
I wonder if the homogeneity has come from gentrification and high property prices. NYC might have been a crime-ridden dump in the 60s, but it was cheap enough that Andy Warhol could afford to rent a massive studio. And a modern day Leonard Cohen wouldn't be welcome in the Chelsea Hotel.
Now you have to be a lawyer or work in finance to hope to even get a modest sized apartment in NYC.
I feel like a lot of these debates boil down dealing with discomfort. We seem to be creating a society where everyone feels they have the right to not feeling stressed and uncomfortable. The danger to never feeling challenged is that you don't grow. You get stuck in a rut and everyone passes you by.
Part of dealing with discomfort is learning what your limits are. No one should put themselves in a situation with you have a breakdown. I find that a small amount of stress in my life is good and results in growth. But a huge amount is overwhelming which leads to burnout.
I was diagnosed with dyslexia in my 40s. It's helped me understand why I struggle with certain tasks. Overall having a label has been a net positive.
I'm hesitant to share my diagnosis with colleagues. I've been able to develop coping mechanisms and I feel like it doesn't impact my day-to-day. I don't want to cause disruption for those around me. I do have a friend with much more severe dyslexia and she does get the help she needs to be productive.
I wish we could discuss these labels at work without baggage. It's all about consideration. Forcing everyone around you to change their behaviour around you to make yourself feel more comfortable is not being considerate. On the flip side enforcing strict working policies that prevent people from participating in the workplace is also not considerate.
To reinforce your argument, in the linked article GFS claim that they weren't responsible for the tax avoidance. The recruitment companies they subcontracted out came up with this wheeze.
Complex corporate structures enable plausible deniability. The CEO of GFS probably didn't know what was happening, but also probably didn't want to know whilst enjoying the low fees charged from the recruiters.
It seems obvious to me that LLMs wouldn't be able to find examples of every single problem posed to them in training data. There wouldn't be enough examples for the factual look up needed in an information retrieval style search. I can believe that they're doing some form of extrapolation to create novel solutions to posed problems.
It's interesting that this paper doesn't contradict the conclusions of the Apple LLM paper[0], where prompts were corrupted to force the LLM into making errors. I can also believe that LLMs can only make small deviations from existing example solutions in creation of these novel solutions.
I hate that we're using the term "reasoning" for this solution generation process. It's a term coined by LLM companies to evoke an almost emotional response on how we talk about this technology. However, it does appear that we are capable of instructing machines to follow a series of steps using natural language, with some degree of ambiguity. That in of itself is a huge stride forward.
Your analogy is a little biased in that most professional basketball players careers are over by the time they hit their mid-thirties. If they want to go pro then they need to be playing at a high standard in their teens.
Whereas someone talented at math would be productive much longer than that.
“If you feel safe in the area you’re working in, you’re not working in the right area. Always go a little further into the water than you feel you’re capable of being in. Go a little bit out of your depth. And when you don’t feel that your feet are quite touching the bottom, you’re just about in the right place to do something exciting.”
There are also lots of post modern elements. For example, the columns of the girl’s school have pyramids at the top to resemble pencils.
The south bank has more buildings that are a purer expression of brutalism.