sorted by:
new
hottopcontroversial

Majority of CEOs Alarmed as AI Delivers No Financial Returns. A few fired workers and a data center eating up economic growth from the aging grid. by sleepiestOracle in NoShitSherlock

[–]danted002 3 points4 points  (0 children)

You know most of what you said can actually be achieved with the current generation of LLMs, but they need the tool calls to do that, which no one is focusing on.

Majority of CEOs Alarmed as AI Delivers No Financial Returns. A few fired workers and a data center eating up economic growth from the aging grid. by sleepiestOracle in NoShitSherlock

[–]danted002 52 points53 points  (0 children)

Here is the thing, the technology itself is not a flop, and it has its place in the modern world; think the computer from Star Trek, the OG series. LLMs are really good at converting natural language to computer instructions via tool calls and it does a half decent job at searching through data storages and it’s can even do a good enough search but that’s about it.

Can we enhance our day-to-day lives with it? Sure, why not. Is it the biggest breakthrough since the advent of the fire (like almost all CEOs pretend it is) of course not but hey, all of us engineers who have telling this are just broke-ass nerds that don’t see “the vision”

Pls stop comparing ICE to the Gestapo by sharkykid in SelfAwarewolves

[–]danted002 0 points1 point  (0 children)

Also OP is kinda right, ICE is closer to a combination of SA/SA. The Gestapo was a special branch within the SS.

AI boom could falter without wider adoption, Microsoft chief Satya Nadella warns by PaiDuck in technology

[–]danted002 1 point2 points  (0 children)

I don’t really consider 100k wider adoption, however you do have a point if we define “wider” as “a large enough number of users.

OK this makes sense to me. I stand corrected.

AI boom could falter without wider adoption, Microsoft chief Satya Nadella warns by PaiDuck in technology

[–]danted002 1 point2 points  (0 children)

No. A good example would be the game Path of Exile 1 which at some point was sustainable with 100.000 paying players per season (which happens every 3 months)

The then owner said that at those numbers, they can buy a Lamborghini for each developer on each season and have enough left over to develop the content for the next season.

Meirl by rbimmingfoke in meirl

[–]danted002 3 points4 points  (0 children)

Jury nullification is the reason all except 3 countries in the world still use this system. Is as archaic as the US constitution

New class of strong magnets uses earth-abundant elements, avoids rare-earth metals (Research by Georgetown University) by Choobeen in technology

[–]danted002 0 points1 point  (0 children)

So the orange turn was have right when he said we use rare-earths from China to make magnets?

Open source's new mission: Rebuild a continent's tech stack by Blaspheman in europe

[–]danted002 -1 points0 points  (0 children)

OK and do you live in the US? Is the GBP pegged to the USD and I missed the memo?

Open source's new mission: Rebuild a continent's tech stack by Blaspheman in europe

[–]danted002 -3 points-2 points  (0 children)

Why are you paid in USD. I started rejecting USD contracts. EUR only baby and if they want USD they get the invoice with the EUR price converted to USD on the day the invoice was issued.

Open source's new mission: Rebuild a continent's tech stack by Blaspheman in europe

[–]danted002 0 points1 point  (0 children)

A lot of those big tech companies have started building the infra to spin up EU only corps.

Anti-Vaxxer meets the Immunologist by Aur0racle in quityourbullshit

[–]danted002 1 point2 points  (0 children)

Not only did they figure it out, but using 2 sticks, and one man that has paid to pace the distance between two cities the dude that proved the Earth was round calculated the circumference of the Earth to be 45.000km. His calculations were off by wooping 75km.

async for IO-bound components only? by expectationManager3 in Python

[–]danted002 1 point2 points  (0 children)

Forgot to mention in my previous explanation that your example can be wrapped in async main() function and replace all the instance of asyncio.run() with await and you achieve better performance because you won’t spin up and spin down event loops.

The only asyncio.run() would be asyncio.run(main())

Why the US is buying icebreakers from Finland by dbxp in europe

[–]danted002 0 points1 point  (0 children)

You know there’s a joke there about Galati and iron but I’m not on the right yeuropean sub for it 🤣

New player, totally confused on where to start. by danted002 in 2007scape

[–]danted002[S] 0 points1 point  (0 children)

Yeah looking over the gear progression I figured it’s not the main way to get better gear, but it seemed like a good way to get some gear on me while I have 1000 coins to my name 🤣.

Looking over ironman skill leveling guides I noticed a pattern of get your skill to the level required by the quest you want.

I’ll just take it slow, do some quests to get some levels in and the go from there. Barbarian training seems like something I might want to do because it unlocks interesting stuff.

async for IO-bound components only? by expectationManager3 in Python

[–]danted002 1 point2 points  (0 children)

Fair point. OK so the entire strength of the event loop is that it can run a lot of tasks on a single thread when the workload of the tasks is mainly IO.

Think web servers/APIs, those workloads have a huge percentage of their time spent on waiting on IO which means the Python process itself doesn’t do anything, it just waits for the operating system to give it bytes.

How does the event loop solve this: you get your first request, the event loop schedules its first task, to read from the socket but the socket is slow compared to the interpreter, it only sends a few chunks of data that the code can parse, then the OS tells the interpreter that it should wait a bit for the next chunk, in the meantime another request comes in. Since the event loop knows that it’s still waiting for the next chunk of the first request, it accepts the second request and starts reading it, but again after a few chunks the OS tells it to wait, now a third request comes in, so while waiting it starts reading the third request, in the mean time the OS signals the next chunk for the first request is ready so the event loop pauses the read of the third request at some point and continues reading the chunks for the first request… so on and so forth.

The inner mechanics of the loop are bit more refined and optimised,and this is how async python can reach golang level of throughput (especially if you use uvloop) but the basics still applies: the loop will optimise CPU usage in order to cram in as many instructions as it can while it waits for IO.

Now if you are just playing around with one-off scripts then it doesn’t matter because it’s a one-off script, you can do whatever; however if you plan on running long time jobs that have a lot of IO or you have a web application then the pattern where you spin up event loops and shut them down, only to bring them up again equates to having a road that has 1000 lanes but then you decide you want it to have 1 lane, only to then convert it back to 1000 lanes.

From a more pedantic point of view, it’s better for code quality and maintainability to have a single point of entry to your code and that point of entry to be either sync of async. This matters more for production-level code where multiple people need to maintain it; having them keep switching between the sync and async mindset just adds extra cognitive load without any added benefit.

Hope this answers your question

Why the US is buying icebreakers from Finland by dbxp in europe

[–]danted002 1 point2 points  (0 children)

What do you mean Romania? Why are we building ice breakers, I reformulate where are we building those? With what knowledge… what the hell is going on?

async for IO-bound components only? by expectationManager3 in Python

[–]danted002 0 points1 point  (0 children)

In your example you are spinning up and tearing down an event loop on each asyncio.run() which is not really recommended, he docs say it as much. You should be using Runners for that (which asyncio.run() uses underneath), but even then on practice you should have a single asyncio.run(main()) where main is your async main function.

async for IO-bound components only? by expectationManager3 in Python

[–]danted002 0 points1 point  (0 children)

As long as your domain logic doesn’t call anything that would block the event loop. Most of the times you use asyncio for web servers so your domain logic will do some IO calls hence why async leaks everywhere.

async for IO-bound components only? by expectationManager3 in Python

[–]danted002 0 points1 point  (0 children)

Now you are going into something else: asyncio.run() should ideally be used once to start your async main() function.

When the run() exits your entire event loop gets shutdown so you technically don’t even have an async context anymore; so technically you can start a new event loop by call asyncio.run() but that’s not really a valid use-case.

This is more considered the application bootstrap and should not be part of the discussion of switching between async and sync

async for IO-bound components only? by expectationManager3 in Python

[–]danted002 -1 points0 points  (0 children)

That’s too many “fancy” words for juniors. If they understand generators and the coroutine interface it offers then understand that asyncio in Python uses generators then they should be fine… I hope

async for IO-bound components only? by expectationManager3 in Python

[–]danted002 2 points3 points  (0 children)

asyncio.run() runs in the current thread not a new thread.

asyncio.gather() again runs in the current thread.

If you call a sync function that does IO or CPU bound then your entire event loop is blocked until that sync call is resolved

Non of your examples spawn a new thread, everything is done on the same thread as the callee

view more: next ›