Unfortunate that JG is the fall guy for Siri. He was very successful at Google (e.g. BERT was published just after he left), but it looks like he wasn't able to save Apple from itself.
Some of the teams that Giannandrea oversaw will move to Sabih Khan and Eddy Cue, such as AI Infrastructure and Search and Knowledge. Khan is Apple's new Chief Operating Officer who took over for Jeff Williams earlier this year ... Apple CEO Tim Cook thanked Giannandrea ...
Seems like Khan is preparing the mothership for when he eventually assumes the CEO role from Cook.
Is anyone willing to explain to me how Google is a monopolist in advertising? There are other online advertising platforms, and publishers can and do sell adds directly to advertisers.
"Monopoly" does not mean "one and only vendor of XYZ good/service that exsits ever"
Monopolies can exist when there is technically still competition. Being a monopoly does *NOT* mean you've destroyed all other competitors or that you are literally the only entity in the entire universe offering a good or service.
Whether an entity represents a monopoly is a subjective measure. It is *NOT* a binary true/false based on trivially observable data. It mostly comes down to how the entity behaves with regard to competitors. Principally, using unfair and uncompetitive pricing and sales strategies, egregious lock-ins, and using your market-dominant position to force competitors and consumers to operate in certain ways.
The fact that other ad markets exist at all does not disqualify google from being a monopoly.
> Courts do not require a literal monopoly before applying rules for single firm conduct; that term is used as shorthand for a firm with significant and durable market power — that is, the long term ability to raise price or exclude competitors. That is how that term is used here: a "monopolist" is a firm with significant and durable market power.
...except that he is definitely wrong about the targeting aspect as well. Almost all of the people hit by the pager explosions were legit military targets. In the videos of the explosions, you can see people unharmed who were standing within meters of the targets. It was one of the most well-targeted anti-terrorist strikes in history.
CUDA is part of our cluster install scripts, we don't manage that with uv or conda. To me, that should be system software that only gets installed once.
Not the OP but does this actually package CUDA and the CUDA toolchain itself or just the libraries around it? Can it work only with PyTorch or "any" other library?
Conda packaging system and the registry is capable of understanding things like ABI and binary compatibility. It can resolve not only Python dependencies but the binary dependencies too. Think more like dnf, yum, apt but OS-agnostic including Windows.
As far as I know, (apart from blindly bundling wheels), neither PyPI nor Python packaging tools have the knowledge of ABIs or purely C/C++/Rust binary dependencies.
With Conda you can even use it to just have OS-agnostic C compiler toolchains, no Python or anything. I actually use Pixi for shipping an OS-agnostic libprotobuf version for my Rust programs. It is better than containers since you can directly interact with the OS like the Windows GUI and device drivers or Linux compositors. Conda binaries are native binaries.
Until PyPI and setuptools understand the binary intricacies, I don't think it will be able to fully replace Conda. This may mean that they need to have an epoch and API break in their packaging format and the registry.
uv, poetry etc. can be very useful when the binary dependencies are shallow and do not deeply integrate or you are simply happy living behind the Linux kernel and a container and distro binaries are fulfilling your needs.
When you need complex hierarchies of package versions where half of them are not compiled with your current version of the base image and you need to bootstrap half a distro (on all OS kernels too!), Conda is a lifesaver. There is nothing like it.
If I find myself reaching a point where I would need to deal with ABIs and binary compatiblity, I pretty much stop there and say "is my workload so important that I need to recompile half the world to support it" and the answer (for me) is always no.
Well handling OS-dependent binary dependency is still unsolved because of the intricate behavior of native libraries and especially how tightly C and C++ compilers integrate with their base operating systems. vcpkg, Conan, containers, Yocto, Nix all target a limited slice of it. So there is not a fully satisfactory solution. Pixi comes very close though.
Conda ecosystem is forced to solve this problem to a point since ML libraries and their binary backends are terrible at keeping their binaries ABI-stable. Moreover different GPUs have different capabilities and support different versions of the GPGPU execution engines like CUDA. There is no easy way out without solving dependency hell.
It is also quite complex and demands huge investment of time to understand its language which isn't so nice to program in it.
The number of cached combinations of various ABI and dependency setting is small with Nix. This means you need source compilation of a considerable number of dependencies. Conda generally contains every library built with the last 3 minor releases of Python.
Does uv handle CUDA versioning? This is the big reason I'm still on conda -- I can save a whole environment with `conda list --explicit`, including CUDA stuff, and I can set up a new machine with the same environment just from that file.
16 years later, I'm still disappointed about this decision. The justification for it is just awful:
"6.001 had been conceived to teach engineers how to take small parts that they understood entirely and use simple techniques to compose them into larger things that do what you want.
But programming now isn’t so much like that, said Sussman. Nowadays you muck around with incomprehensible or nonexistent man pages for software you don’t know who wrote."
This is just false. Engineering is still about taking small parts you understand entirely and using simple techniques to compose them into larger things you want. Sussman's justification is an abject surrender to shitty complexity. Engineers need to develop a taste for simplicity and elegance, especially at the beginning of their education.
Incidentally, an overlooked advantage of teaching in Scheme is that it levels the playing field, as pre-undergrad programming classes almost never use functional languages.
His top students were capable of entirely understanding Scheme within a day or so (but not capable of entirely understanding all of Python and all of PyPI). He wanted students to be even better than that. He wanted them to lead productive and resilient collaborations even when they didn't or couldn't entirely understand the small parts.
Given a day, top students can understand enough of Python to write enough code to get the point about how programs rely on abstraction and composition.
(Of course, the latter part of the course, describing the implementation of the runtime, would need considerable rethinking.)
> Engineering is still about taking small parts you understand entirely and using simple techniques to compose them into larger things you want.
Engineering fundamentally is still about that. But what people seem to do with computers nowadays mainly involves composing already-large parts that they absolutely do not understand. Often with disastrous results.
Israel wants nothing more than for Iran to be free of the IRGC.
Unlike Israel's Arab neighbors, Iran didn't attempt to destroy Israel (and kill all the Jews) in 1948. Before the IRGC took over, Iran and Israel had no problems.
The IRGC has made it clear that destroying Israel is one of their primary foreign policy objectives. They have said this, and it's why they funded Hamas, Hezbollah, and the Houthis.
Israel wants a regime change, that is clear. However it’s absurd to suggest the Israeli government has benevolent intentions toward the Iranian people considering that it is bombing people living in residential areas (never mind the Israeli defense minister’s comments that the Tehran residents will pay for Iran’s counterattack on Israel).
Don't get me wrong, Katz is a douchebag, but this was specifically a threat to retaliate in-kind of Iran continued to target arbitrary Israeli population centers.
I haven't seen any evidence of Israel targeting civilians (nuclear scientists aside), despite having complete air supremacy over Tehran. Air supremacy means Israel could carpet bomb the city if they wanted, but they don't want this. Not only would it be a horrible thing to do and of no military value, they simply don't blame the people of Iran for the IRGC's actions.
> Today, Iran is once again under heavy bombardment with Israeli air strikes targeting residential areas, civilian buildings, hospitals, media offices and military sites.
“Flattening” implies damage more widespread than I have described. My statement, sourced from numerous credible news organizations, which I have linked, is that Israel has attacked residential areas. As for Israel’s air superiority over Tehran (also an established fact as far as I can tell) I have no idea how you think that is supposed to be a rebuttal of anything I’ve said.
I think you could reasonably say that there is credible information that Israel has attacked targets that are near or in residential areas (at the very least they seem to have done targeted assinations of high level military officials in their homes).
However that's different than saying they are targeting residential areas themselves. That's the part that i think the other poster is objecting to. Air supperiority matters here because it means Israel has the ability to target basically anything they want (so you could assume things not targeted are by choice and not lack of ability).
If total wounded (not even killed, just wounded) of both millitary and civilians is ~1200, that kind of suggests that Israel is not targeting residential buildings in general, since just a few apartment building would likely have more casualties than that.
Not to say this is iron clad reasoning. Maybe Iran is downplaying casualties for propaganda purposes (otoh i think they would be splashing photos of destroyed residential buildings everywhere if Israel was destroying them in general, as that makes for great PR). I don't really know, but there is enough doubt here that I don't think its confirmed Israel is targeting residential areas in general.
Israel government justified its genocide of Gaza with its supposedly targeted strikes of Hamas. This narrative has lost all credibility. And we have seen with Gaza what effect “PR” has on stopping the atrocities committed there - none.
The Israeli government views non combatants affected as expendable targets with zero value. This is what we are seeing with the strikes on residential areas. It’s not that they are “flattening” Tehran in the initial stages of war, but that Israel military policy so disregards the lives of non combatants that attacks on residential areas are justified in its view.
Thus, the notion that the Iranian people are supposed to unite with the Israeli government to overthrow the “common enemy” (the Iranian government) is absurd; the Israeli war machine should be viewed as having zero regard for the Iranian people; they are expendable as long as Israeli military objectives are furthered; that is an established pattern now and that is what is evidenced by the strikes against residential areas considered against the backdrop of the atrocities in Gaza.
> This is what we are seeing with the strikes on residential areas. It’s not that they are “flattening” Tehran in the initial stages of war, but that Israel military policy so disregards the lives of non combatants that attacks on residential areas are justified in its view.
The death toll in Iran is not really consistent with that. (At least based on what has been reported so far. Admittedly there is much uncertainty)
The narrative that there is a genocide in gaza has lost all credibility. The gazan population has grown since the war started, its completely ludicrous to claim a genocide while the population is literally growing. People have been making claims of genocide since Israel took over in '67, it never made any sense then and it makes even less sense today. People who make such claims should be seen for what they are: charlatans and liars looking to discredit zionists and jews everywhere.
You are replying to the alleged false narrative with a rather thin Zionist talking point of your own. The legal definition of genocide does not require total population numbers to go down. The deliberate systemic slaughter and use of starvation are enough on their own.
GHF has ramped up to distributing about 3 million meals per day now. Reportedly 58 Gazans have starved during the conflict [1], implying an FMR of something like 0.0005. Any starvation is awful, but it's nothing compared to global averages. There are actual famines (with FMR over 2) in other parts of the world, but few people seem interested in those.
There's certainly more work to be done to fix food insecurity in Gaza, but aid distribution challenges are hardly evidence of genocidal intent.
The aid distribution “challenges” are because Israel is blocking all aid except that which comes from the GHF itself. Israel has created the conditions for starvation by destroying agriculture and blocking all aid except for four GHF aid stations. The GHF aid stations weaponize starvation by concentrating Gazans near the Egyptian border and providing a token nod to humanitarian concerns (Israel’s policy throughout this genocide) - never mind the regular shootings that take place at these stations. Prior to October 2023 there were 400 aid stations in Gaza requiring 500 truckloads of aid [1]. Today there are four GHF stations run by military contractors.
The insufficiency of these aid points is also evidenced by the people dying of starvation in this hell hole. Low numbers of people dying from starvation indicates its early stages. It takes a while for people to starve to death. Typically a population suffers malnutrition for some period before the death toll rapidly balloons. The famine deaths, far from pointing to the absence of famine, indicate we are in the early stages of mass starvation brought on by Israel’s policy.
Do not forget that the Israel government created this famine and is blocking all aid except for the aid to can weaponize. And starvation is just one of the many weapons it is using to ethnically cleanse Gaza.
Starvation shows every sign of worsening under this system. Rather than aiming to resolve mass starvation (manufactured by Israel’s policies in the first place), it should be seen for what it is, part of Israel government’s very consistent policy of paying humanitarian lip service and offering token humanitarian gestures while intensifying genocide.
The latest IPC snapshot from May 12 starts that while the entire population is facing acute food insecurity, 470,000 are facing catastrophic levels using the IPC classification. It alerted that under current conditions of military action and blockade a full blown famine under its classification would
be occurring now, during the current period (May 11-September) [1].
At the end of May the four GHF stations were opened. However the amount of food supplied could only conceivably feed half of Gaza’s population if distributed equally [2]. Many people are already starving and need much more than 1.5 meals a day; besides, logistically this kind of food distribution is impossible for many reasons not the least of which is the mass destruction of Gaza’s infrastructure by Israel’s military.
As of the IPC report, starvation was worst in northern Gaza and in Rafah (in the south). The GHF aid stations are located in the south; in Rafah the military operations have only worsened food scarcity there.
It is quite telling that people every day attend these stations despite the horrible killings of civilians by the military contractors running them. That in itself shows the degree of starvation the Gaza people are experiencing.
3 million meals a day doesn't seem like a token gesture. It may not be enough, but GHF has been operating for less than a month and is still ramping up. You can criticize their implementation, but I don't see how you can deny that it's a serious effort to address food insecurity.
We've been hearing "risk of famine" almost since the start of the conflict, when the reality is 58 deaths linked to malnutrition during the conflict. Nigera has had over a million starvations in the same period, and even that isn't a famine. There's a real food insecurity problem, but we shouldn't call it something it's not.
Now you’re dismissing all food scarcity concerns, including ignoring the recent intensification of food scarcity under the blockade, because supposedly a subset of humanitarian concerns expressed earlier in the genocide were overstated. But we have strong reason to believe famine is occurring today, thanks to the IPC reports, our most thorough picture of the food scarcity situation in Gaza, which show a consistently worsening picture, now tipping into famine thanks to the blockade.
To properly evaluate the GHF system we must note:
1) Israeli policy is to provide humanitarian gestures while perpetuating genocide.
2) Israeli policy manufactured this famine in the first place.
3) The GHF system is widely seen as inadequate and inhumane among humanitarian organizations. The inadequacy is corroborated by the IPC reports as I described in my last reply to you, providing token aid in the south that does not address the mass starvation in the north or Rafah.
4) Israeli military are continuing to block all aid except for the GHF stations under the control of the war machine.
5) GHF aid stations are the sites of frequent killings of starving civilians.
6) Mass starvation is occurring (again, we know this from our most thorough picture, the IPC reports).
Thus the purpose of the four GHF stations cannot be to significantly address starvation.
You claim that the stations will ramp up enough to stop the famine that Israel policy has created. However if we soberly assess the situation we must conclude that that scenario would be utterly inconsistent with the facts we have available.
I'm not dismissing food scarcity concerns, just asking that we use accurate language to describe them. You seem to maintain that a famine is occurring or probably occurring. I pointed out that starvations would need to be something like 4,000x higher for that to be true. Is your position that starvations are under-reported by some massive factor like 4,000x? Or that we should drastically relax the threshold of what we consider a famine in order to make the Gaza situation fit?
I was using famine colloquially to mean mass starvation in a wide area. But your comment prompted me to educate myself more about the IPC classification system which depends on 1) 20% of the population face catastrophic food insecurity) 2) more than 30% of children face acute malnutrition and 3) 2 deaths per 10,000 per day (or 4 child deaths per 10,000 children per day) due starvation or malnutrition & disease.
The first two criteria are very likely met. The question is the third piece. Your position is that death rates reported from starvation are low so we have not met the third criteria.
There are a few issues with this argument.
1. it is excess mortality which constitutes famine, not deaths from starvation directly. Admittedly this metric is impossible to accurately determine in the current conditions in Gaza.
2. The starvation numbers we have are from a month ago, already out of date. Deaths in famine balloon, so we are not able to conclude that there is not famine today by IPC criteria. We do know that famine was imminent as of that report so this is a valid concern.
3. Excess mortality due to starvation numbers is what counts, and excess mortality is underreported. Reasons include such factors as poplulation displacements, or the fact that severe malnutrition comprises the immune system and as such deaths can be attributed to proximate causes (disease) rather than the distal cause of malnourishment.
4. The IPC report stated May 12 that famine is “imminent”.
An argument that IPC-defined famine may not be occurring is that the projections were for this period (May 11-September), and that imminent risk of famine may refer to any point during this period.
With all that in mind you are right at least that I should modulate my language. Mass starvation is occurring. We don’t know whether the third IPC criterion for famine is currently met. A better statement on my part would be that famine is imminent as of May 11 with a beginning expected some time between May 11-September, the famine may already be occurring, but we don’t know that the ballooning death rate has yet been triggered in this timeframe. Besides that, becoming aware of the famine (whether it has begun yet or not) won’t happen immediately considering the difficulties of gathering reliable excess mortality numbers in Gaza.
Politifact is hardly an impartial source. If I have to explain why, there's no reason to even continue this conversation.
Additionally, bringing in the "50 beheaded babies" story and calling it the most infamous hoax very clearly shows where you get your news from... and it's not trustworthy sources. That was a strawman hoax that only circulated as a debunked hoax on Jew-hating media, it started as a intentional misunderstanding of a reporter's claim. There never was a claim of 50 beheaded babies.
There is no genocide and all your "well supported facts" are either intentionally false statements that aren't facts at all or twisted to support your narrative. The reality is that there has always been more than enough food and water in gaza, war involves death and destruction and doesn't point to genocide which requires both intent and follow through neither of which are present from the Israeli side. Though they are present among anti-zionists and all of Israel's enemies both in their daily rhetoric (from the river to the sea, globalize the intifada, Death to Israel, etc) and in their daily attempts to kill as many jews as possible (missiles and rockets targeting civilian population centers, stabbing attacks, bus bombs, RPGs at school buses, RPGs at homes, shooting civilian cars, etc).
> The water resources of Palestine are de facto fully controlled by Israel […] The airstrikes led to a 95% reduction of water resources […] Gazans were limited to 3 litres per day, litres under the UN emergency limit.
> genocide which require both intent and follow through […] are present among anti-zionists and all of Israel's enemies
Hum, there’s many people that have "anti" zionism or Israel ideas but at the same time don’t want death, destruction let alone a genocide. Let’s say someone is anti trump party or anti USA (for good or bad reasons), they doesn’t necessarily are anti Americans (_the people_) and for sure most don’t want a genocide!!! For sure some of them does, but you can’t blame or reject any ideas because some of their members views. Listening calmly the moderate part is always better that pointing out the extremists.
The politifact page isn’t a news source. It presents a straightforward argument. It deconstructs the most substantial evidence I could find that the Gazan population is growing amid the genocide and quote population measures - basically some outdated population projection. The argument there is admittedly quite paltry, but so is your claim. Do you actually have any substantial arguments or evidence or do you plan to just impugn the source rather than its reasoning?
As for the notion that a reporter mangled the claim about 50 beheaded babies - that just isn’t true. People from IDF spokespeople to Biden have propagated this lie.
Children are dying of famine in Gaza. Photos, reports, statistics all corroborate this story. Israeli forces have destroyed the agriculture and are starving the helpless population. They have cut off aid. They shoot many of the people who come to the remaining four “aid” stations they operate. A fraction of the deaths that have occurred after October 7 are Israeli. Countless innocent Gazas have been murdered, toddlers sniped, families bombed, drones have played the recordings of crying babies to lure victims out of hiding. Groups in Israel have rioted for the right of Israeli soldiers to rape Palestinians. The atrocities committed against an almost completely defenseless population are horrifying. Now the population is utterly defenseless and the murdering does not cease; the goal seems to be total starvation now.
People turn to condemning the genocide after becoming appalled by the facts not out of anti-semitism. Condemning genocide isn’t anti-Semitic if it happens to be Jews doing it. Numerous Jews condemn the genocide including many holocaust survivors. Genocide is a crime against humanity. All people should unite in condemning it.
> As for the notion that a reporter mangled the claim about 50 beheaded babies - that just isn’t true. People from IDF spokespeople to Biden have propagated this lie.
This is plainly false. No other argument is needed with you because you continue to make totally false claims.
> deputy commander of the IDF's unit 71, David Ben Zion…He says: "They cut off heads… of children, of women."
> a spokesperson for Mr Netanyahu's office, said: "Toddlers, babies, I can tell you some of them... yes, heads were cut off. This is what we are hearing from... soldiers on the ground who dealt with the bodies."
> In an interview with Sky's Mark Austin on Tuesday evening, Israeli economy minister Nir Barkat echoed a similar claim: "We've seen just now... we've heard of 40 young boys. Some of them were burned alive. Some were beheaded. Some were shot in the head."
> [Biden] said: "I never really thought that I would see, have confirmed, pictures of terrorists beheading children, I never thought I would ever, anyway..."
What Israel wants is a free hand in the region and to expel or exterminate Palestinians. How many civilians in Gaza were killed in the last week? The victim card is getting real old.
The article you linked is not an example of this happening. Google open-sourced the chip design method, and uses it in production for TPU and other chips.
Yes, I am aware. I didn't find Jeff's argument particularly convincing. Please note: I've worked personally with Jeff before and shared many a coffee with him. He's done great work and messed up a lot of things, too.
Unironically "just trust me bro" is actually fine here. They're objectively right and you'll find they are when you do your painstaking analysis to figure it out.
Seems to be true. 'Published' scientific research, by its sheer social-dynamics (verging on highly toxic), is the academic equivalent of a pouty-girl vis-a-vis Instagram.
(academic-burnout resembles creator-burnout for similar reasons)
reply