Great resource, definitely a good place to take the next step. As I looked into detail, the natural question came (based on software developing experience), how do I evaluate the correctness of output produced by LLM given the inputs. Clearly, unit test with fixed in/out pairs won't help so learning methods to evaluate as we develop iteratively will be very useful.
While I agree with you in principle give Claude 4 a try on something like: https://open.kattis.com/problems/low .
I would expect this to have been included in the training material as well as solutions found on Github. I've tried providing the problem description and asking Claude Sonnet 4 to solve it and so far it hasn't been successful.
Just remembered some more details. The speaker covers the difference in applying something akin to the scientific method vs jumping to conclusions based on previous encounters of the same/similar issues.
The example here is basically an 8-fold memory saving going from `long[]` from `byte[]` - while still retaining polymorphism (whereas in Java the two are unrelated types).
Hard to say exactly how much performance one would get, as that depends on access patterns.
The reason that a byte array is in reality layed out as a (mostly empty) long array in Java, is actually for performance.
Computers tend to have their memory aligned at 8 byte intervals and accessing such an address is faster than accessing an address that's at an offset of an 8 byte interval.
Of course it depends on your use case, in some cases a compact byte array performs better anyway, for instance because now you're able to fit it in your CPU cache.
> a byte array is in reality layed out as a (mostly empty) long array in Java
Are you saying each byte takes up a word? That is the case in the `char array` in OCaml, but not Java's `byte[]`. AFAIK The size of a byte array is rounded up to words. Byte arrays of length 1-8 all have the same size in a 64-bit machine, then length 7-16 take up one more word.
Lamport's website has his collected works. The paper to start with is "Time, clocks, and the ordering of events in a distributed system." Read it closely all the way to the end. Everyone seems to miss the last couple sections for some reason.
8th grade was when all this stuff became mainstream for me. That was the iPhone 3GS release year. Social life went to crap very quickly for everyone. Should be "wait until 18th."
I was of similar age then, before that it was nokias and Bluetooth, Facebook was where you could upload stupid shit and not go viral and people's walls were just rage and 9gag memes. With tiktok I think teenage social media and addiction and the self esteem stuff is a different beast.
Many people talk about screen time and age limitations, if a parent doesn't want to go that far there should to be algorithmic limits like block celebrities/gaming/onlyfans type of content
It's definitely different (and worse) today, but even back then I felt like it was robbing everyone of their childhoods. Kids spent an enormous amount of time there, they were on phones in school or in social settings, and the "bathroom wall" gossip thing was big.
A.) There is significant overlap between Brexiteers and those with enough extra wealth to afford vacation / second homes in Spain. Is there any way to quantify this? I would have thought that those with a nationalistic bent wouldn't be keen to own homes in foreign lands. Plus I had the impression that the Remainers were more towards the urban, wealthy, citizen-of-the-world types who would at first blush seem more likely to buy houses elsewhere.
B.) The Brexiteers were hoping that the Remainers would all move away, so they don't have to deal with them anymore?
C.) The Brexiteers want to colonize Spain?
D.) Brexiteers wish they would have thought of the idea punitive taxes on foreigners first?
There is a notable amount of "expats" who permanently moved to Spain under freedom of movement, then voted for Brexit and then were angry that Spain/EU started to treat them as foreigners.
How many hundred that are I don't know, but they made "fun" news stories during those times.
>How many hundred that are I don't know, but they made "fun" news stories during those times.
Seems like every human story then. The few-and-far-between exceptions get magnified by 100-1000 times their actual significance by people on the other side.
