Anyone who would be on this site is the kind of person who should do themselves a favor and read his short story collection Axiomatic. His other collections are excellent as well, I have read them all. For novels, Diaspora is my favorite so far, but I am still working through them.
I strongly second the recommendation for Diaspora. The story begins about 1000 years in the future, with characters that are trans-human, or post-human. Starting from that baseline of normalcy, then it gets weird.
But it's not weird for the sake of weirdness. The story is grounded in logic and built around rational exploration of deeply philosophical ideas. The book can be challenging at times, but only because the concepts it explores are so deep. The writing, IMHO, is very lucid. Egan wants to bring you into these ideas, not drive you away through inscrutable prose.
It's fantastic, and also my favorite. And for those who might not know, he was the one who really mainstreamed Data-oriented design and ECS architecture in my eyes.
He previously was also leading the charge on Unity DOTS, though unfortunately it seems Unity is having a tailspin at the moment. The work on DOTS is solid, if incomplete.
A theory I heard that I like, is that if you are getting attacked from the right, and suffer damage to the right side of your head, you probably want your right arm to work more than your left for the highest chance of fighting off the attack.
If your brain is hurt to that degree on either side, you are unlikely to be able to continue to fight. Evolution doesn’t usually work to offset unusual events like this. It is more about optimizing operations on a daily basis.
But maybe you get a few more seconds, one more swing, and take out your opponent. Your tribe kills the lion or wins the war. If the initial mutation wasn't detrimental so wasn't tested right away on an individual basis, but allowed to reproduced to form a population, it would be the group test that gets passed. Just a thought.
it should? natural selection progresses through the reproducers that survive. the ones that could attack on their right side for right side attack survived?
Survived with severe brain damage. Are they going to be able to survive for much longer to reproduce? It sounds that feature is only useful in a very specific circumstance. Evolution is usually happy with good enough. It seldom does micro optimisations like that
This is a very popular but false 'take the gist of it as true' misunderstanding.
Yes, banks do "create" money.
No, it is not out of thin air. It absolutely does come from deposits.
An example of how banks "create" money, is person A has $100. A deposits it. The bank lends that $100 to B. Now B has $100, but A also still thinks they have $100, even though they just have a number on a piece of paper.
They system goes from acting as if $100 exists, to acting as if $200 exists, but really there is only $100, and an IOU for $100.
That is what bank money "creation" is. It is not from thin air.
People get confused because "money", as in fiat currency, is also a Government IOU. But the above principle is true for gold, bitcoin, or any asset, and they wouldn't get mixed up the same way thinking banks create gold out of thin air.
It is a starkly different thing than how the Government creates money.
There is not a dependency on deposits in order create loans. This is false. Banks can make loans to the extend of demand for loans at the banks terms. Deposits have nothing to do with it in terms of funding. The bank must be in compliance with capital requirements and reserve requirement in order to be in the federal reserve system . As Mosler says (founder of MMT) The loan guy does not call the deposit guy at the bank before making a loan.
But then my eyes glazed over and I remembered that I am not proficient in this language. Presumably the following requirements do place some limits on how much money they can have created?
> A common equity tier 1 capital ratio of 4.5 percent.
The loan guy absolutely does need to make sure the bank has the cash to make the loan. You can't loan more money than you have. What happens when B goes to withdraw it from the bank to buy a car or house if it isn't there?
If banks can loan more than they have by say borrowing the money at a lower rate than they lend it, that invalidates your basic premise of banks creating money. They wouldn't have created it, they would have borrowed it.
There are many problems with your understanding, but the simplest total failure of your model is that if the bank did just get the money from somewhere else to lend, it is not creating it.
You are not describing the bank "creating" money, which they actually do as per how I described. You are describing the bank borrowing money.
I disagree . And language can get tricky here. You don't need deposit amounts in order to make loans. There is a bunch of gymnastics under the hood of the transaction I described but none of it requires consumer deposits.
You start a bank, I come to take out a loan and I want it in cash since I am buying a used car this afternoon. You have no cash since you said you don't need it, are just going to create it. Where does the cash come from? If you get it somewhere else, like the FED, you clearly aren't creating it, the FED is, right?
If you need to involve the FED (which you don't as per how I described) then the FED creates the money, not the banks. This invalidates your entire premise.
It is (was) a thing, the idea works exactly the same way. Person A deposits $100, bank lends $90 to B, $10 goes to reserve (if 10% reserve rate). System thinks there is $190 instead of $100, so money is "created".
If the model in question has a token embedding length of 1024, even if it was a 1 bit quantization, each token has 2^1024 possible values.
If the context length is 32,000 tokens, there are 32,000^2^1024 possible inputs.