Also, if you vote, that shows that your demographic (age, gender, region, etc) matters to the process and thus matters for how candidates build their platform and parties choose their candidates.
I wonder if either (a) high frequency trading firms are going to start running their algorithms on iPhones, or (b) Geekbench doesn't accurately reflect the real world performance in some way.
Assuming Geekbench is a good reflection of real world performance (in e.g. games, video encoding, encryption, decompression, compilation, databases, etc), I'm curious to know what AMD and Intel are doing so wrong that a cellphone chip could outpace their desktop chips. I don't think the A20's lithography is vastly better, nor does the chip have more area. Where's the performance difference coming from?
I'd bet (c) the M* variants offer the same generation of CPU in devices like the Mac mini but with more cores, a higher power budget, and less restriction on the code you can run. The A20 Pro just hit Geekbench first, both the A20 Pro and the M6 start shipping this month.
A bit off topic, but I think I'm starting to get model fatigue. These come out 10x faster than new Javascript frameworks were coming out 10 years ago (at least new models are far easier to adopt).
There was a time when every new PC CPU coming out was a giant deal: "Guys have you heard about this new Pentium processor, it's incredible?"
But over time, more and more people got into the chip-making business, and the big players started releasing more and more chips. Now only the die-hard CPU trackers worry about every new CPU and exactly how it's better ... while everyone else just worries about "which CPU will be good enough at this moment".
Same for smartphones. There was a time of unlimited hype and secrery around new iphones. Who remembers the story of an iphone 5 prototype left a bar. Journalists were going crazy, people were signing petitions for Apple to not hunt down but instead forgive the employee that made such a grave mistake. People were offering millions to buy the prototype so they can brag they got the new phone 2 weeks before everyone else did.
Or who remembers the dancing disease of 1518, were people would stop what they are doing and start randomly doing the same dance. The lords? Out of their minds. The priests? Terrified the devil had taken hold of the flock!
I have come to believe that it was probably some tik-tok like hype trend of doing a fortnite dance while waiting in line for bread and communion. And the energy back then, like now, was off the charts.
Hype and memetic trend seeking encoded deep in human psyche.
> Who remembers the story of an iphone 5 prototype left a bar.
That was the iPhone 4 actually which was special for having the first “retina” screen. It was in a case to make it look like a 3GS to be used for field testing. The journalists that got their hands on it and published about it before the announcement could not turn it on past I think the Apple logo and a message saying to return it to Apple (or maybe it was just completely off, my memory is fuzzy), but were able to confirm the pixel density via microscope and I remember it blowing everyone’s minds at the time.
> people were signing petitions for Apple to not hunt down but instead forgive the employee that made such a grave mistake
FWIW I asked about it when I worked at Apple and he was indeed not fired and I think may have even still been working there when I was there around 10 years ago (though don’t quote me on that last part, he may have left already and I’m misremembering).
He was apparently not fired or even really reprimanded since it was a genuine accident and he wasn’t the one that sold it to the press, but that did start a slew of new policies around accounting for work devices.
I had dev fused phones for open carry outside of the office while I worked there but had to register when I got them and when they were returned, which apparently didn’t used to be tracked so tightly until that incident according to my coworkers who had been there longer.
Honestly, you don’t have to pay attention. What you do with models matters way more than the models themselves, and you don’t need frontier for the vast, vast majority of use cases
You might want to follow this proposal, if you aren't already. It's the most recent one, and it's supported by quite a few “core members” of the Go Team. I don't think it'll land in 1.28, but I like the fact that it's still a feature that's being actively discussed.
Having worked a couple of greenfield go shops post generics, it’s still quite rare to find them in first party code. They’re just not that useful outside of library APIs. Proper algebraic data types would be a huge game changer.
Go is extremely easy to pickup. If you know any language you probably know Go already for the most part (channels notwithstanding).
I wouldn't say it is a "beautiful" language however. Though that is in the eye of the beholder, I don't think the Go designers were even really going for beauty.
They were going for readability. You can make some impossible to read code with C++ because the programmer was too clever, and the designers of golang wanted to avoid that.
They were, very unfortunately, outsmarted by said too-clever programmers. As such I would like to request my enums and ternaries be returned to me. Trust me, they will not make a dent in the messes people have still managed to create.
This is only a small piece of the story for what people say when they want tagged unions. Without all of the ancillary support in the language, like exhaustive pattern matching, it really doesn't count.
The C++ committee said the same thing, and gave us std::variant. They are painful to work with and do not really deliver most of the benefits people want.
That is a LOT of code (very ugly code, I would add) that could be replaced by `type Float = float32 | float64` in a language with actual support for union types.
Tagged unions are not union types. A union type is a supertype for any arbitrary collection of types, but a tagged union aka sum type is a single type with multiple data constructors, and does not require subtyping to be implemented.
Another pet peeve (which this doesn't solve): Recipes that include "marinate overnight" or some such in the middle (which can be easy to miss), instead of telling you up front that you have to start the day before.
You're supposed to read through the recipe before you start. Also, most modern recipe books and websites put prep/cook/total times at the very top, so if you have to marinate overnight it'll say "total: 13h" or something like that.
And you can take a shower in one minute, but it won't be a good one. Proper onion caramelization takes up to 45 minutes, if you want its deep flavors and aromas. Anything faster means cutting corners, and some chefs will even save time bypassing the caramelization by adding sugar.
Of the sugar you've just added. Onion caramelization is a complex process, a prime example of the Maillard reaction. It involves several chains of chemical transformations, while the added sugar is only a step away from caramel.
> help things along with a little bit of sugar. In science speak, caramelization is the oxidation of sugars. Here, those sugars are the natural sugars in the onions, but the addition of a small amount of white sugar adds an extra caramelization boost.
I don't know about "chefs", but line cooks who haven't been to culinary school are generally trained to call this kind of faux-sweetened sweated onions "caramelized." Because, when a recipe calls for "caramelized onions" (and isn't an all-day background task like making a pot of onion-soup stock... which isn't generally something they'll be tasked with anyway), the onions as shown in the video are precisely what they'll be told to make. (Because it's fast. And because, for many recipes, it kinda-sorta works.)
That being said.
Caramelized onions should be a dark (nearly black) and warm brown color, not a neutral clay-soil brown. (Picture brown-sugar boba pearls.) They should have no water content, and should be visibly syrupy in texture. They should smell buttery + nutty + toasty; and should be extremely sweet, in that complex caramel way, with no trace of the original onion flavor remaining.
The onions in the video are none of those things.
These properties are all corollaries of what caramelization is, when it comes to onions: you're not only breaking down starches inside the onion into sugars, but then also fragmenting some of the resulting sugars into volatiles (diacetyl, furfural, etc), while polymerizing more of the resulting sugars into various caramel compounds.
The onions in the video have merely finished the first step: sweating. The cells of the onion have broken down, releasing simple sugars and water; but despite a few minutes' pan frying after breakdown, they're still wet and gloopy (and have quite a bit more cooking to go before they stop being so), because onions contain rather a lot of water, and rather a lot of sugar, and simple sugars are hygroscopic, i.e. they really want to hold onto nearby water.
The goal of caramelization is the same in an onion as it is in candy-making: you need to heat the sugar up until it melts and begins to react with things around it, both building up (polymerizing) and breaking down (fragmenting.)
Sugar melts well above the boiling point of water. So you can't caramelize anything until all the water is gone.
And that's why caramelizing onions takes around 40 minutes. 10 minutes on high heat to sweat the onions (as in the video); 20 minutes on med-high to drive off all the water; and a final ~10 minutes with careful watch-and-adjust temp control to actually caramelize the sugars, without burning them.
---
In theory, you might be able to make this process happen faster... but not with any random store-bought onion, the day you buy it. You'd need to 1. freeze, and then thaw, the onion (to break down its cells), and then 2. desiccate the onion (i.e. keep it in a bone-dry environment with convective air) to pre-purge the lysed water from it. The result would be a "ready-to-caramelize" onion that would let you skip the first two phases of cooking. (The result would also now be incredibly non-shelf-stable, becoming a pile of mush after a day or two.)
Some people throughout history (who perhaps originated the idea of being able to caramelize an onion in 10 minutes) may have done both of these steps purely by accident! In fact, insofar as onions are storage vegetables often kept in a root cellar for months before consumption, and insofar as some root cellars can both get to below freezing and be very dry inside, I could see most historical people cooking onions for winter recipes having gotten this "speed hack" for free without even trying.
But an onion you buy at the store will have gone through neither of those steps. Caramelizing an onion the day you buy it will take 40 minutes, full-stop.
Not sure if you watched all the way to the end of the video. At about 2:16, he shows the result along with the stopwatch from his phone set to 10 minutes.
In the comments from the original article, which you can find on the Internet Archive, he says that these these are not exactly the same as 45 minute onions and he would only use them a certain recipes.
And again, he's not the only one. There are lots of videos and articles about it.
I mean, I wouldn't have been able to precisely describe the result as it appears in the video if I hadn't watched it, could I?
And my point—I'll state it again—is that while these 10-minute onions might be useful, they are not "caramelized onions" in any sense, because no actual caramelization has occurred. And so saying that "this is a way to make 'caramelized onions' in 10 minutes" is false.
These are, certainly, a 10-minute substitute for caramelized onions; but they can no more be used as an argument that "you can make caramelized onions in 10 minutes, actually" (as the GGP poster says) than the existence of rice pilaf is an argument that you can make risotto in 10 minutes. They're different things!
Yup, I wish they'd just be honest and say 'sautee onions for 10 minutes to a dark drown' or whatever. But if they were, I guess they'd sound less fancy?
I messed up a recent DIY construction project because I didn’t read it all the way to the end first. My chef wife comes in with “you always read the recipe to the end before starting”…
> Steps that don't repeat the quantities, making me scroll back and forth between the step and the quantity list.
Julia Child's cookbook has the recipe in two columns, one for ingredients and the other for directions. As soon as I saw it I wondered why every cookbook doesn't do something similar.
Julia Child would also be in favor of doing mise en place--measuring out your ingredients before you start doing anything.
Personally, and I say this as someone who has been trained to do recipe editing, I find this tabular system to be not entirely clear. Consider the first example--the instruction to mix is applied to several ingredients at least twice. The instruction to 'fold in' seems to apply to all the ingredients at once, which makes no sense. Normally, you'd mix the dry ingredients together first. Also, in this case, you'd probably want to whisk the eggs and sugar together first so the sugar starts to dissolve. It also doesn't give you a clue as to what 'done' means.
We occasionally (maybe once a year) use a meal service for a couple of weeks, especially if it's a busy week.
The recipes sheets they provide drive me absolutely nuts working from them, to the point where I feel like I have to re-write them just to get them into a logical order. They're done entirely differently from any recipe book I've ever worked from. For example I constantly find I'm missing steps from how they're mushed together under photos, so I get later through the recipe and it talks about using something I supposedly did something with earlier and.. crap, I have to go back up through the recipe sheet trying to find what I missed the first time through. I've never experienced this with any other recipe book I've read.
This has some lessons that apply much more broadly than to just airports (e.g. apps that make you jump through hoops and expect you to know what 2fa or SSO mean)
Or just anyone involved in communication at all. For example my condo management team has names for every part of the building that they just assume that everyone understands. They don't seem to understand that most of the people living here don't spend most of their time reading the building floor plan.
> Most generative AI tools, however, are trained on copyrighted and licensed content, and their output can include content that infringes those copyrights and licenses
To some extent, it feels like the genie is out of the bottle on this. There's so much LLM-generated code out there, and I'm sure plenty of it could be argued to infringe a copyright or license (though I think the legal bar for counting as infringement is set too low), that there's no way to go back and undo it.
That said, OpenJDK might be afraid that someone will decide to make an example of them because they are a high-profile target.
reply