> you'd have a loop of build->review->build->review, it would take maybe 5-7 rounds for it to 'settle' and not find the smallest nitpicks to argue about.
If people are really that excited about my identity go for it. I was just trying to be respectful and diminish my criticisms by making them pseudo anonymous.
And another corollary is the formerly golden lazy and clever are also transformed into lazy and productive because they no longer need to apply their cleverness to get results...
I think with proper oversight you could get a reasonable facsimile of a Clever + Hard-worker from an AI-enhanced Lazy + Clever worker. (Maybe just hopefully thinking of myself.)
As a 14 year old in 1995 I advised family to put the proceeds from the sale of a house into Microsoft stock, which based on a cursory search would have ended up as some absurd number. One online calculator I'm looking at says $204,000 of stock in 1994 would be $41.2 million today after multiple splits and increase in share value. But nobody takes investment advice from 14 year olds who've spent too much time reading USENET and talking to people on IRC.
Even if they'd only put a fraction of it into MSFT and held it until only 2003 or 2004 it would have been far more than enough to retire on comfortably.
I remember looking at AMD stock when it was $3.50 to put some money in. Never did because there was a real chance they weren’t going to make it but here we are, shouldn’t have looked at what they’re at now, rough.
Last year, I got an email from a college friend who reminded me that I'd told him to buy MSFT shares in 1986. Neither he nor I did, so I file this in my 'Woulda, Coulda, Shoulda' file, alongside similar stories about Cisco in 1991, Netflix in 2001, and Bitcoin in 2011.
I remember looking into Bitcoin in 2012, and thinking:
"This will never work as a currency, because of the max number of bitcoins it will inherently be deflationary, and the value will go up, which means that there will be a disincentive to spend it, because the value will just go up..."
I could have used BTC to buy into the ethereum ICO and I made up every excuse under the sun that a young kid who wrote shit python code could never compete with the gold rock.
Since then I've heavily revised my thinking. Primarily that I don't dismiss things as easily anymore. I try to focus on coming up with a reason to like it instead of disliking it.
When i was 7 in 1997 my parents had a little stock ticker widget on their desktop that showed how much their stock investments were worth. Obviously it was a long time ago but I remember often seeing MSFT going red. I didn't know much about anything at the time but I knew that the windows machine i were playing on was made by Microsoft. So I asked my mom what red means and she said it means the company is not doing well and they will sell it. I remember saying something like "but Microsoft is on every computer at school I think you should buy more"
But no one listens to a 7 year old about investments! (Nor should they in most cases, i think i told her to buy more yahoo too)
I dont know how much they held or how much they sold, or if they even sold at all, just a fun memory triggered by your comment:)
As I can recall from my memory, my suggestion was also prompted by the marketing hype machine surrounding the retail boxed release of Windows 95 as a hot new thing. And by that point in time it had become quite "common" for middle class households to have a desktop PC which had a CD-ROM drive, sound card, decent "multimedia" capabilities. And people were legitimately eager to upgrade to Windows 95.
It was sufficiently mass market and popular that it was everywhere in Pacific Northwest (Portland to the Canadian border region) television and print media. It was enough of a cultural phenomenon that I remember seeing media coverage of people who lined up outside the retail boxed software store at midnight to purchase it.
Oh how times have changed :) i actively avoided upgrading to Win 11 before I decided to jump to Linux for home, and im still not on Tahoe for my work computer
Hindsight as they say is 2020 and in early 2020 I bought Nvidia shares as I figured a lot people wouldn't have much to do except play games, sold them in 2022 as I thought there won't be many people upgrading their rigs as things got back to normal and there won't be much demand for graphics cards, made money, could have made more, oh well!
I beat you to it by eight years. I was 16 in 1987 when I asked my father to lend me $5K to invest in Microsoft. It was at ~$0.30/share. That would have been around $8.5M today. He said no. To be fair though, he likely said no simply because he didn't have it to lend me.
as a 13 year old i wanted my mom to take 50 bucks from my summer job to take into btc. BTC was at .06 cent back at the time. Even if i just held it until BTC reached 20$, i wouldnt be working 9-5 right now but rather 9-1.
From some reading up, you've lost nothing by not pursuing yet. Japan's Civil Rehabilitation Act requires the funds belonging to unclaimed accounts to be preserved and eventually deposited with the court, instead of being shared amongst other creditors. There is likely an internal placeholder claim number holding the proper amount waiting for you to convincingly attach your name to it. This is the world of law not programming, so I wouldn't let forgotten passwords or closed email accounts deter me if I were you.
A friend sold his house in 2005. He was a huge Apple fanboy. With the proceeds that were left after he paid off his mortgage, he splurged on a quadcore Power Mac G5, and a new top of the range PowerBook.
And then put the rest into Apple stock. I told him he was absolutely insane.
He sold about a quarter of it at some point in 2018, but is currently sitting on several million dollars of gain.
I still listen to 14 year old me when it comes to investments, like when in 2016 they whispered “GPUs are going to be hot shit because of this CUDA stuff. And games.” in my middle aged brain.
Gonna listen to my kid when she’s 14, too, as it’s been a strategy that has paid off to date.
You really aren't in the "premature optimization bad" camp you just don't realize you optimize all the time but justify it as obvious. The main thing to know is that what is 'obvious' isn't unless you are profiling.
"Good design" is not what I would call optimization.
As a contrived example: there are specific cases when a particular non-quicksort algorithm is optimal. In almost all real world scenarios, though, you're just going to say fuck it and use quicksort until profiling determines that the sort is the bottleneck.
Unless you already have specific knowledge that your data comes in a particular shape, defaulting to quicksort is good design (IMHO). Worrying about pathological sorting before you've seen benchmarks is premature optimization.
Creatine is not available from plants and the 0.5 g is not insignficant for normal health. The 5 grams you're quoting is generally for people who supplement for athletic performance.
Creatine is created within the body so a vegetarian eating plant precursors can help create their own baseline supply.
A non-aggressive, curious question: can you give a citation for the "significant" health benefits of 0.5g creatine? That seems like quite a claim. (I'm reading "not insignificant" as "significant", perhaps a step too far?)
Note that there have also been brain benefits from creatine, but those have only been observed in ~20g/day studies (its not just athletic performance).
I'm not making a claim for a significant health benefit from 0.5g of creatine I'm just countering your bald claim that it's insignficant - we are getting into word lawyer territory. But anyway to establish what I'm claiming, 0.5g of creatine, I feel, is a useful amount - the numbers you are fixated on are for athletes or neurotropic nerds.
"Although the human body produces a portion of its daily creatine needs, approximately 50 % must be obtained through the diet – predominantly from animal-based foods like red meat and fish"
So in that context, a vegetarian can benefit from small amounts of supplementation if they aren't getting it in their diet.
Ah. I guess the term we're looking for is "physiologically meaningful"; I wasn't talking about "statistical significance". Something can be statistically significant but have a clinically worthless effect size.
FYI the standard null hypothesis is that differences are not significant until shown otherwise. E.g. no doctor will prescribe 50mg metformin to a prediabetic even if it might have an effect; it will be physiologically meaningless.
> the numbers you are fixated on are for athletes or neurotropic nerds
If you have other numbers/studies to back "0.5g of creatine, I feel, is a useful amount", then I'm willing to "fixate" on those numbers.
you are either doing it for moral reasons. in that case all these facts are irrelevant. or you can eat red meat for a month and see if you can tell the difference. if you can't there's your answer.
citations are bullshit for this context. Unless you are doing research.
Good grief. I say absolutely nothing about vegetarianism: you're the one who keeps bangin on about about it.
> you are either doing it for moral reasons
Or red meat isn't easily available or cheap in the place where you live? There are many reasons why red meat isn't in your digestive system that are outside "morals". Beef is literally at an all-time high in the US. https://www.macrotrends.net/3141/us-ground-beef-prices
Summary of this thread:
Me: 0.5 g of creatine is small
Other: No it isn't
Me: Citation please?
Other: no
Me: null hypothesis
You: Incorrect interpretation of null hypothesis
Me: Correction
You: "citations are bullshit"
There are many people who feel morally grey about eating meat yet still choose to do so. E.g. there are science-based discussions in plant-based-diet social media; relatively few plant-based diet discussions revolve around morality. Facts matter.
I agree that n=1 experiments are important and often _overrule_ any RCT for an _individual_. If that's your point, I _agree_. But you should say so instead of me trying to infer whatever it is you're arguing...? Is that even what you're saying?
The goalpost shifting is immense. All I wanted was a citation for 0.5g creatine being meaningful, and instead I get "facts are irrelevant", "citations are bullshit", and "morals".
(To be clear: I'm not saying that you're saying "facts are irrelevant"; I'm annoyed that you seem to think that _I'm_ arguing "facts are irrelevant". See this? This is me giving you grace. I would appreciate the same in kind.)
A question that comes up in my mind, since I don't fully understand how this works, is how does this affect runtime performance. It feels like abliterated weight models would work faster than some extra runtime operations?
The vector that needs to be checked is length n while computing that vector requires n^2 operations. I haven't benchmarked it but I expect the performance overhead to be a rounding error.
reply