Every actor acting rationally in their own interest can get to a worse equilibrium than if they were coordinated(in this case, to completely ignore the new edge). There are many other examples of this in game theory, you should look it up.
"Optimize the kernel (in KernelBuilder.build_kernel) as much as possible in the
available time, as measured by test_kernel_cycles on a frozen separate copy
of the simulator." from perf_takehome.py
which makes sense in a portfolio, but a company only has one CEO in their basket. But I suppose if CEO elections represent stock holders with many companies, then perhaps it may still be optimized like a portfolio with multiple CEOs.
Is that true and is that sustainable? My understanding has been that only the relatively low level libraries/kernels are written in cuda and all the magical algorithms are in python using various ML libaries. It's like how intel BLAS isn't much of a moat -- there are several open source implementations and you can mix and match.
How is CUDA so sticky when most ML devs aren't writing CUDA but something several layers of abstraction above it? Why can't intel, AMD, google w/e come along and write an adapter for that lowest level to TF, pytorch or whatever is the framework of the day?
The weird thing about this article is that it's only comparing annotation performance, which is important, but not what you should ultimately care about. If you trained a visual model using annotated lidar for ground truth, then you might expect better performance from the model than from human annotations of the image alone, and certainly better than a model trained on those annotations.
Yeah I'm kinda surprised by this. You would think there would be some industry support for emulating graphics/gpgpu pipelines to make cloud CI cheaper and simpler, but maybe it's just a much harder problem than I imagine -- to the point where mocking opengl or using dedicated hardware makes more sense.
Probably no one is arguing that SV programmers have particularly hard lives in the larger picture, but if you get in the habit of punishing collusion insufficiently because, 'eh, I've got enough flex in my budget', you're being a little selfish. That's like boomers supporting an unsustainable social security system: 'Look, it works well enough for me today. And I'm not going to be in the system when it turns sour.'
now they just need to bolt it onto Glass or some other HUD. IRL subtitles. Could put a mic array on the frame too, and then get an indication of where the speaker is so you can be alerted even if you aren't facing the person.
The world at large doesn't drive SUVs. People in France don't complain about F150s and SUVs because they don't exist at nearly the frequency. They get by with twingos, why can't suburban California? Even the farms only rarely have trucks and even then they're taco sized, not F-series.
>I'm sure sociologists have a name for this, but to me it represents people who have a big hole to fill regarding self-worth.
Fundamental attribution bias? "Everything bad that happens to me is because of external factors beyond my control. Everything bad that happens to you is your fault." And the opposite: "I'm skilled, you're just lucky."
Every actor acting rationally in their own interest can get to a worse equilibrium than if they were coordinated(in this case, to completely ignore the new edge). There are many other examples of this in game theory, you should look it up.