My anecdote is that most of my coworkers across multiple jobs didn't like to explain anything. I think most engineers don't enjoy being interrupted for questions and I would have appreciated a way to get answers without bothering them.
At the same time, there's a type of person who loves to explain things. They give presentations and are extra helpful when engaged. I'm pretty sure you can still ask them questions.
They send a message asking to see you when you have a moment. In office settings I ask people things when I see them getting coffee and am likewise asked things myself.
Problem is that the type of person that leans towards collaboration and likes to explain things may be getting burned out right now or may be among the first to be replaced.
OTOH, it's great for the type of person like me, who likes answering questions but is rarely asking them. Like, I don't want to interrupt my colleagues for something I can figure out on my own in comparable amount of time/effort. AI is now scaling this to questions previously way too difficult to answer on my own.
Anecdata: I am that person, loves explaining things, love seeing my colleagues learn things and grow. Needless to say, I no longer hold a job in the industry.
I maybe liked to explain things, but never liked to ask other people, always liked to figure things by myself. Maybe it was the experience from school and university with a lot of teachers that didn't know what they were talking about, which made me not trust other people.
I'm the same as you. I hate asking other people, unless it's for a reference or material to learn. I like to grind to understand myself, and then answer questions and explain things via presentations or a drawing board. I never wonder why I'm like that, tho
That said, hardly anyone asks for explanations now. In my team people default to a chatbot for work questions almost exclusively, and in private life for hobbies I share with other people, they increasingly go for chatbots too.
Turns out, not everyone seems to want a human connection.
Oh, we do want a human connection. But we also want good information, and want to actually know this (i.e. hobby is something to do, not merely a pretext to socialize). The overlap between the two is low.
> At the same time, there's a type of person who loves to explain things.
I like to explain things, and put them in an e-mail or Slack thread, so that I don't have to be bothered a second time about it.
Just yesterday I fixed an OpenLDAP issue we were having as a syadmin team: it was close enough to previous issues I had that I was able to circle to correct area, and was able to fix it, but I explained the context to everyone so I didn't have to be the one to deal with it if it ever rose again.
I tried a little experiment on this page. I first tried to type D/F manually and couldn't get the guess rate below 61%.
Then I went to random.org and generated 100 integers. I went through the list one by one and pressed "D" for even and "F" for odd. I got only a 48% correct guess rate!
This will be one of the most interesting hacking races in gaming history. There will be legions of people competing to be first. I wonder how long it will take!
What do you think the monetization model will be? Honest question. Some of the earlier examples of getting paid for FOSS involved selling customization services and support. But AI can now do the customization and a good deal of the support too.
I think a convenience tax model is all that is left.
Everything we do at Caution is FOSS right down to our website and frontend.
People pay us because we maintain an obsessively strict security model of code review, code signing, full source bootstrapping, and trusting no single human or machine. For any of our customers to hold those standards they would need to hire a minimum of 3 experienced systems/security engineers, and paying a subscription to us is a way cheaper option.
If you want people to pay you, even for open source, you need to provide support and value no AI can match.
Wr the streaming, totally agree. People already complain about the latency from wireless keyboards and the "low" 60fps at 4K. Streaming can't match local quality/latency, especially over wifi which is what almost everybody has.
If you work at OpenAI, congrats on getting people to subscribe in the first place. The marketing is working, OpenAI customers think they're safe from ads!
To the best of my recollection, the GeForce 256 was the first one that was marketed as a “GPU” and began to popularize that term in the industry.
Specifically because it did transformation and lighting calcs in (non-programmable until GeForce 3) hardware, instead of in software on the main CPU.
Yes, NVIDIA made 3D accelerators before the GeForce line. I have many of them in my collection. But (IIRC) it did not market them as “GPUs”. That term wasn’t really used yet.
Funnily enough, I already “found” that term in my brain and then decided to write “non-programmable” instead, in the hopes of being a bit clearer to readers who don’t know this space and its specialized terms already.
Got it. Well, to be honest the marketing distinction isn't terribly interesting. But it would still be cool to see how the early GPUs (even if not called that) evolved.
Doing all those calculations in hardware (the distinction the marketing was based on) seemed like a pretty big deal at the time, at least within the context of consumer PC graphics cards. (It had long existed in the high-end workstation space, SGI etc. but the workstation and consumer PC ecosystems were more separated than they are these days.)
There were many periods in the 80s and 90s where console graphics hardware was kinda ahead of (even high-end/enthusiast) PC graphics hardware in certain ways that mattered for games of the time. Hasn't really been the case for a couple decades now, I guess.
I was gonna say hey that isn't true, the PS3 had hardware that was ahead of PC graphics hardware, and then I realized that was a couple decades ago. Oof.
Yeah, Cell was a disaster, and it showed Sony leadership at the time was actually clueless about big reasons the PSX and PS2 were so successful (it's the developers dummies!)
Really the PS3's only saving grace was it was a great deal for a Blu-ray player.
The big feature of the GeForce 256 was hardware offloading of transform and lighting calculations. While it was fixed function it was programmable. This offloaded a pretty significant amount of work from the CPU and lightened the IO load single the math was done on geometry living in the VRAM.
The NV1 and other cards before the GF256 did accelerated drawing and geometry raster but lighting and transformations were done on the CPU in main memory then transferred to VRAM and rasterized.
Even if the GF256 had say the same texel output performance as a TNT2, the T&L running on the GPU would allow for more complex scenes at higher frame rates than a TNT2 doing T&L on the CPU. The GF256 also had better raster performance so for many games it was just a "free" performance upgrade over a TNT2.
When I open a general article and it starts with things like:
In a cold autumn in 1967, a barely awake scientist in the now defunct Institute of XYZ thought he'd go through his lab notes as he has done for the past 3 years since leaving the serene setting of the University of...
reply