"sound bites pop radio" of 1999 has made a comeback, But worse.

Thanks for the reference. I knew this product in the article sounded familiar:

“Literally a piece of e-waste in waiting, Lollipop Stars are suckers with an integrated battery and tiny speaker that, when placed in one's mouth, transmit sound through jaw vibrations, delivering what the brand calls ‘music you can taste.’”

One of the stated disadvantages was “the difficulty of designing adaptable action selection through highly distributed system of inhibition and suppression”

I can’t help but wonder how well a token-based AI could iteratively tune (or develop) a subsumption-based AI.

For some more depth into the "bloat" of bazel, I like this reference: https://fzakaria.com/2024/02/27/hermetic-but-at-what-cost

Curious if this bloat is present in a Build Without Bytes scenario?

> Intel's first 32-bit microprocessor was the iAPX 432, which was introduced in 1981, but was not a commercial success. It had an advanced capability-based object-oriented architecture, but poor performance compared to contemporary architectures such as Intel's own 80286 (introduced 1982), which was almost four times as fast on typical benchmark tests.

I know that there was OO hype, but 1981 seems kind of early. I also know that OO means many, many things. What does it mean here, if anything?

Wikipedia has a basic overview [0]. Basically, they tried to do what Java did - there is no raw pointers in instruction set, but only special "access descriptors" that always point to a valid object. Microcode handles the rest, like garbage collection, and type checking.

> Each system object has a type field which is checked by microcode, such that a Port Object cannot be used where a Carrier Object is needed. User programs can define new object types...

If there are no microcode bugs, this should theoretically mean full safety and lack of unexpected behavior. But unlike Java with JIT, they were always checking every access - no wonder it turned out to be so slow...

[0] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Intel_iAPX_432#Object-oriented...

Are the 50 for loops truly necessary in the manual C code example of a Kalman filter? At least introduce a few functions (that could be inlined and loop-fused) for some matrix operations?

Another way to make the same point is to observe that every single society has language.

But only some groups have the ability to systematically encode language as writing.

Writing is a technological marvel.

Does anyone have a reference to the original thread or issue about sleep(1)?

The bug being "perturbation confusion"?

The specific bug in sicm is discussed on pages 19-21

(Sorry, it's been a while, but iirc the code comments call it the amazing bug, with credit to Radul)

This is the first time I see "SGD" to mean "standard gradient descent" and not "stochastic gradient descent".

Presumably that's just a mistake. The author calls it "stochastic gradient descent" correctly elsewhere in the article

haha oops yeah the other comment is correct- that was just a mistake

I originally wrote "vanilla" there but didn't want to repeat that word twice in a row so swapped it for "standard" without realizing it now looked like the SGD acronym

just fixed that to avoid confusion- thanks for pointing it out!

Please share your understanding!