As a european I see what you mean, but that 'we all' in your sentence probably hasn't included those from Latin America, and large parts of Africa or Asia since long before Trump. The US pulled quite a few less than admirable tricks (to use an euphemism) on non-europeans during the 20th century.
I was a bit worried you are paraphrasing Rob Pike, but no, he actually agrees with that Knuth quote.
I am almost certain that people building bloated software are not willfully misunderstanding this quote; it's likely they never heard about it. Let's not ignore the relevance of this half a century old advice just because many programmers do not care about efficiency or do not understand how computers work. Premature optimization is exactly that, the fact that is premature makes it wrong, regardless if it's about GOTO statements in the 70s or a some modern equivalent where in the name of craft or fun people make their apps a lot more complex than they should be. I wouldn't be surprised if some of the brutally inefficient code you mention was so because people optimized prematurely for web-scale and their app never ever needed those abstractions and extra components. The advice applies both to hackers doing micro-optimizations and architecture astronauts dreaming too big IMHO.
No I've definitely heard plenty of people use this as some kind of inarguable excuse to not care about performance. Especially if they're writing something in Python that should really be not super slow. "It's fine! Premature optimisation and all that. We'll optimise it later."
And then of course later is too late; you can't optimise most Python.
> On the LLM Architecture Gallery, it’s interesting to see the variations between models, but I think the 30,000ft view of this is that in the last seven years since GPT-2 there have been a lot of improvements to LLM architecture but no fundamental innovations in that area.
After years of showing up in papers and toy models, hybrid architectures like Qwen3.5 contain one such fundamental innovation - linear attention variants which replace the core of transformer, the self-attention mechanism. In Qwen3.5 in particular only one of every four layers is a self-attention layer.
MoEs are another fundamental innovation - also from a Google paper.
Thanks for the note about Qwen3.5. I should keep up with this more. If only it were more relevant to my day to day work with LLMs!
I did consider MoEs but decided (pretty arbitrarily) that I wasn’t going to count them as a truly fundamental change. But I agree, they’re pretty important. There’s also RoPE too, perhaps slightly less of a big deal but still a big difference from the earlier models. And of course lots of brilliant inference tricks like speculative decoding that have helped make big models more usable.
It's more likely the other way around, the .ai domain with a fairly generic and maybe future-proof name needed a quick vibecoded project to not be empty when it launches.
One should acknowledge the role genes/luck play in disease, while also admitting that there are a few foods about which there is more or less consensus they are very bad for your health. So you can roll your eyes if someone suggests eating kale sprouts will cure all your problems but don't just keep eating junk food as if the opposite of their take must be good.
This. I'm as exhausted as anyone about the latest macro/micro nutrient diet. But also, when I binge on a bag of potato chips, I assume (correctly) that I'll feel like shit later. Calorie dense food that's easily procured and eaten to excess was not part of our evolutionary path up to now. Every individual person is a cornucopia of variables though too, and one persons perfect diet would kill someone else. So advice is hard to give out, but there are clearly some broad guidelines to eating and health that help you mitigate bad dice rolls.
> one persons perfect diet would kill someone else
Besides allergies, that's not literally true, is it? Or would you say that allergies or severe intolerances are common enough that such dramatic diet fitness differences exist?
I think we're only beginning to appreciate just how sensitive our guts are to the abuse modern high-calorie food can dish out.
Honestly, given the extent to which many people's diets consist primarily of bleached and re-enriched wheat separated from the germ or simply refined corn, I think there are many more people who are slowly poisoned by their diet than realize it.
Yet there's plenty of hyperbole in my statement too. I don't think you could murder someone by making them eat your diet, unless it consisted of bags of broken glass.
Capitalism precisely precludes slavery. One of the most important and foundational of its principles is private property. The first, most natural, and universal instance of private property is the ownership of one's own body. Heck, we even have the phrase "private parts." Slavery requires the most basic violation of bodily autonomy. In other words, to permit slavery is to permit the violation of the most basic property right. I struggle to see how slavery could be compatible with capitalism.
Is this supposed to be ... a gotcha? If slavery is involved, it's not capitalism, by definition. Distance attenuates all signals, so each transaction step may somewhat smear or smudge such a stain. Really not clear at all what you're getting at.
you assume that capitalism implies that everyone gets to participate. but that is not a necessary condition. you can have a capitalist system where not everyone participates. slaves did not participate in capitalism, but their owners did. one might even argue that employees do not participate in capitalism either (i am not familiar enough with the specific definitions to state that with certainty however).
No! The owners were not participating in capitalism either, precisely because their whole business is predicated on violating private property. If you wish, you can express it as a matter of degree. That by having ones bodily autonomy stripped, one is engaged less capitalistically, and the same for those which strip that autonomy. The violation taints both ways.
What part of capitalism precludes violating other peoples rights or property? By your definition much of US business isn't capitalist because of the prevalence of wage theft and rights violations, which is absurd.
You should do a little basic research before commenting. Property rights are part of the very definition of capitalism. Wage theft is illegal, because theft is illegal. If you believe that corporations are stealing wages from their employees and the government is tolerating this, then you should probably conclude that those businesses aren't capitalist; that's straightforward, not absurd. And you could probably break a great news story while you're at it.
You realize wage theft is documented as greater than all other forms of theft combined in the US right? It isn't some fringe theory, it is established fact.
If so, then we can safely call that behavior uncapitalistic. That's how the definition works. FWIW, I knew very little about wage theft, until researching it at your prompting, which I appreciate. Seems like wage theft is rarely actual theft, and most often a violation of contract, but in either case it's a violation of capitalism's seed principles. Sometimes wage theft is neither theft nor contract violation. That's my impression from Wikipedia, at least.
I think you would have more of a point if we were still struggling to achieve a good "capitalist" society, i.e. where property rights are enforced, individual liberty, freedom of contracts.¹ But we've already gotten very far, unlike the many regrettable socialist experiments. If we were still feudal, or still keeping slaves, you might have a point, but in a global sense overall things are better than ever. The Brezhnevian notion fails because all the striving towards socialism tends to lead to suffering, and on the way you don't see incremental improvement. But I'm not a historian so please correct any ignorance of mine if you can.
1:I really want to emphasize these as the definition of capitalism, because capitalism as is often defined is not designed top-down with the attributes identified in it. It mostly organically emerges from basic rights. Take for example the Marxist phrase "private ownership of the means of production." (POMP) One does not set ought to ensure this directly, it arises naturally from property rights and liberalism. One would need to prevent POMP by chipping away at property rights and personal liberties: by seizing things, by getting in the way of consensual agreements.
No, the private ownership of the means of production needs to be created and maintained by a state. There is nothing natural about it; if you see it as natural, it is because you naturalize the society you live in. First of all, like any type of property, it is a social construct that must be upheld by laws and instruments of coercion. And speaking of the means of production, to ensure wage labor, a process or arrangement is needed that guarantees one group of people holds ownership while others do not. In the case of land, for example, this requires enclosure, the destruction of the concept of land as something communal.
things are better, but they are getting worse again. wages are not rising long with inflation. why? because capitalism defines that the wages are set by market value.
as i see it only socialist tendencies are fighting against that. (i don't mean achieving a full socialist system)
what do you mean it does not have a simpler user interface? I found the combo of hx for quick edits/terminal work and Zed with hx bindings for everything else great.
agreed, it wasn't more than a few days/a week. The real annoyance is if you use other coding environments too which do not have hx bindings (VScode, Google Colab) and have to constantly switch between hx and vim keys. Zed has had very good hx keybindings support for a few months now so this became less of an issue.
reply