The difference between software engineering at large corporations and small ones will increase. Start-ups adopting practices of Google will look even sillier than before, because they can now build so much faster and with so much less constraints.
Gay men tend to rack up many more sexual partners than straight men. On the other side, lesbians tend to have fewer partners than straight women, despite the fact that lesbians don't have to worry about accidental pregnancies.
the largest tech companies (at the top 1%) aren't using fewer tokens, they're just being cost conscious and moving to cheaper, still very capable open models running vs SOTA model usage
All those things you can easily measure in isolation, and you can also optimize for them quite locally. But these local optimizations do not produce global optimums, and the fewer of us are looking at the output, the less it matters.
While it was routine for companies going public in the 1980s to be profitable (>80% were), less that a quarter of the companies that have gone public in the last decade have been profitable.
This is very important because in the abstract, I think everyone says, "Yay, productivity. That's good." What did you think, this was all just vibes? No. Productivity means fewer people to do the same number or the same job. Now, the amount of job you want done may increase, and therefore you get more people, but it also may not.
Uh and this means that they're going to be far more useful when they're operating fully autonomously. And as a result, this requires us to develop physical AI systems that make far fewer mistakes than the machine learning systems that have been deployed thus far.
if you are using these systems right you can just grow more quickly you can build more things you can take on more stuff so you know I would be surprised actually if we ended up with like net fewer
likely this will be one of the largest industries in the world and um, uh, it'll take longer than a couple two, three years. It'll take less than 10. And so this will this will be our next $100 billion business.
but I mean in reality when you look at the data on sleep loss and dementia risk The cut off is really around 6 hours. So if you're consistently sleeping fewer than 6 hours, that's where risk starts to increase.
But as a general rule, uh compared to 5 or 10 years ago, I I would believe we have fewer specialists and more people who are generalists or adaptable in multiple directions.
But they just by virtue of having less people to coordinate they can often move faster and make um better decisions a little bit less design by committee.
It's an interesting trade-off where like engineer like the engineer in me hates that because it's like there's an issue. Like fix it. But the business value makes no difference. Like there there has been practically zero outages. I have less outages than LeetCode and I'm like like a couple people doing it.
Like every single time there's just like the big innovation like cloud computing, like higher level programming languages, for whatever reason things do not like it doesn't lead to fewer programmers. And I would have expected it would have.
Um we are seeing a lot fewer sort of pure AI solutions now where um they are just one shots the problem. Um so so there was there was a month where that happened and and that has stopped.
But if you know anything about my obsession with selection bias, you can predict the outcome: when you expand access from a population that excludes more students to one that excludes fewer, you’re very likely to see declining performance.
But but that's actually a very weak criterion, right? People thought I was saying like we won't need 90% of the software engineers. Those things are worlds apart, right?
Scrutiny applied to AI is way below other technologies that - even if you totally ignore the doomers - could put far fewer lives at risk than AI in a single incident.
It had the best opening sentence of any nonfiction book I read this year: "In 2012, 146 million children were born. That was more than in any prior year. It was also more than in any year since. Millions fewer will be born this year. The year 2012 may well turn out to be the year in which the most humans were ever born—ever as in ever for as long as humanity exists." Such a simple and obvious fact but I had not known it before. I had to keep reading.
and we'll gradually layer all this stuff everywhere and there will be fewer and fewer people who understand it and that there will be a sort of this like scenario of a gradual loss of control and understanding of what's happening that to me seems most likely outcome of how all this stuff will go down.
I don’t see population collapse or lack of workers as the central policy problem: the central policy problem is human happiness, human flourishing, and the freedom to live life well.
Although the cross-sectional relationship between national income and fertility is negative, the longitudinal relationship between national income and fertility is positive: economic booms create baby booms, economic busts create baby busts.
Here’s a list of great investing books that somehow have fewer than 50 reviews! Being Right or Making Money by Ned Davis The Art of the Market by Bob Tamarkin and Les Krantz Triumph of the Optimists: 101 Years of Global Investment Returns by Elroy Dimson, Paul Marsh, and Mike Staunton 2020 Vision: Investment wisdom for tomorrow by Harry Liem The Silver Bears by Paul Emil Erdman
Here’s a list of great investing books that somehow have fewer than 50 reviews! Being Right or Making Money by Ned Davis The Art of the Market by Bob Tamarkin and Les Krantz Triumph of the Optimists: 101 Years of Global Investment Returns by Elroy Dimson, Paul Marsh, and Mike Staunton 2020 Vision: Investment wisdom for tomorrow by Harry Liem The Silver Bears by Paul Emil Erdman
Here’s a list of great investing books that somehow have fewer than 50 reviews! Being Right or Making Money by Ned Davis The Art of the Market by Bob Tamarkin and Les Krantz Triumph of the Optimists: 101 Years of Global Investment Returns by Elroy Dimson, Paul Marsh, and Mike Staunton 2020 Vision: Investment wisdom for tomorrow by Harry Liem The Silver Bears by Paul Emil Erdman
Here’s a list of great investing books that somehow have fewer than 50 reviews! Being Right or Making Money by Ned Davis The Art of the Market by Bob Tamarkin and Les Krantz Triumph of the Optimists: 101 Years of Global Investment Returns by Elroy Dimson, Paul Marsh, and Mike Staunton 2020 Vision: Investment wisdom for tomorrow by Harry Liem The Silver Bears by Paul Emil Erdman
Here’s a list of great investing books that somehow have fewer than 50 reviews! Being Right or Making Money by Ned Davis The Art of the Market by Bob Tamarkin and Les Krantz Triumph of the Optimists: 101 Years of Global Investment Returns by Elroy Dimson, Paul Marsh, and Mike Staunton 2020 Vision: Investment wisdom for tomorrow by Harry Liem The Silver Bears by Paul Emil Erdman
Whereas, there’s also another point, which is having large armies is actually inherently impractical and inefficient, because the larger the army, the more people you’ve got to feed, the more barracks you’ve got to have, the more space you’ve got to have for training, the more people you’re taking out of your workforce to produce tanks and shells, and all the rest of it, because they’re tramping around with rifles.
From the 1960s, US fertility fell primarily due to fewer births among couples. In that context, baby bonuses might raise fertility. But today, the major contributing factor is the decline of coupling.
But as fab costs increased, it became more and more burdensome for manufacturers to operate cutting edge manufacturing facilities due to the high costs, and fewer manufacturers had the production volume to spread those costs over.
If you think about how we teach quantum mechanics to our students, the Copenhagen interpretation, it’s a God-awful mess. No one’s going to accuse that of being very beautiful. I’m a fan of the many-worlds interpretation of quantum mechanics, and that is very beautiful in the sense that fewer ingredients, just one equation, and it could cover everything in the world.
But everything I have ever experienced leads me to believe that a fewer number of larger teams, each helmed by an experienced engineering manager, should way outperform this gaggle of tiny groups.
According to my numbers, in the United States there will be a net of 3.24 million new low-skill jobs, but there will also be 4.7 million fewer people in the labor force.
We believe technology is a lever on the world – the way to make more with less. Economists measure technological progress as productivity growth: How much more we can produce each year with fewer inputs, fewer raw materials. Productivity growth, powered by technology, is the main driver of economic growth, wage growth, and the creation of new industries and new jobs, as people and capital are continuously freed to do more important, valuable things than in the past.
So it's like, is that problematic? I don't think so because fundamentally you're not causing harm in that world. So I think that part of the question that I think we need to figure out is what are the ways where things could have been harmful in the physical world that we'll now be freed from that? And therefore there should be fewer restrictions in the digital world.
A korrent is a belief a person has stated in their own words: one
sentence stating the claim, backed by a quote and a source, kept at
korrents.com.
Under a name here, the quoted block is what they actually said.
The korrent beneath it is the claim those words support, in
korrents' wording — tap it to see the record, its source, and who
else holds it.
Nobody here wrote their own korrents. They are compiled from public
statements, and a person can change their mind, which is recorded too.
About the English under a post
Some people here publish in a language other than English. Where they
do, this site shows a machine translation beneath the post, in
this typeface — the site's own, not theirs.
The post itself is never changed, moved or hidden: what is set in the
serif above is exactly what the person published, and it is what to
quote them on. A translation can be wrong in ways that matter,
especially about tone.
Only the post's own words are translated. A quoted post, a linked
article and a belief on korrents.com
are left in their original language.