Words do mean something, and you could have taken 5 minutes of research to make a reasonable counterclaim

Tesla has an insane PE ratio because it’s a casino stock (~350x). As a comparison, NVIDIA IS 40x. SpaceX Is projected to be 300-500x. These are fantasy, completely unrealizable valuations. Similar to Enron, and Enron was over 70x. Enron wasn’t some surprise either.

Typically when PE gets out of whack, market analyzers dig into what is happening because it’s usually chicanery. No longer. Everyone is along for the ride.

PE has literally nothing to do with what Enron did which was accounting fraud + cashflow problems because they actually didnt make any money, in fact they lost tons of money and used future earnings in current reporting

Having a high pe is not fraud. There are even companies that are losing money, and they're still worth something.

When people say something is like enron, they dont mean it has a high PE. Its like saying someone is like Hitler and meaning they are a failed art student

On point #2, they are trying to do that right now. If spacex is fast tracked into the indices, passive investors via index funds will be forced into buying.

100% this, it's fucking insane

Somehow he's flipping $1T SpaceX + $250B xAI (which is now apparently a pile of trash, according to Elon) into a $1.75T IPO because all of the insider investors think they can get away with it, and they are probably right

> And that the result will be Iran becoming a democracy that fully joins the global community.

You can hope that (and I can hope that), but the powers that are driving this military action completely do not care about this outcome. Which makes it exceedingly difficult for me to think this will happen.

I know the US proxies keep blabbering about 'regime change', but there's zero intentionality behind the political work to do that. My guess is balkanization, which won't really go how the US/Israel wants it to go

What do you like to use instead? I’ve used the aider leaderboard a couple times, but it didn’t really stick with me

swe-REbench is interesting. The "RE" stands for re-testing after the models were launched. They periodically gather new issues from live repos on github, and have a slider where you can see the scores for all issues in a given interval. So if you wait ~2 months you can see how the models perform on new (to them) real-world issues.

It's still not as accurate as benchmarks on your own workflows, but it's better than the original benchmark. Or any other public benchmarks.

Terminal Bench 2.0

I know enough people at Apple who are at the mercy of the overlord design teams, and it sounds exactly like what you described

I've met some great designers as well. They usually come from more modest backgrounds.

It's kinda the rule for programmes too.

The ones that went to a small liberal arts school you've never heard of programming as their second career are usually more effective to work with then the Stanford/MIT crowd.

The problems start I think, when you have an expectation that your collaborators are somehow either superhuman or subhuman and not peers.

Humility and mutual respect gets things done.

Apple designers used to build interactive demos in Macromedia Director, so I'm assuming they knew a bit about scripting. That probably helped them think in a way that really clicks with software development.

I've worked with some younger designers who couldn't even put together a consistent click-dummy once the client wanted to see flows outside the happy path. To be fair, all they really had to go on was their education and Figma's panels.

This is a pretty discriminatory comment that I’ve honestly seen zero hint of in reality. And this is coming from someone who didn't go to a particularly prestigious school. I honestly rarely even find out what school my colleagues went to school. But the ones I know who did go to those prestigious schools are beyond humble.

Not really. That's bad faith. I've worked at lots of places, probably hired about 200 engineers over my career so far and have noticed this pattern.

I stopped looking at the educational background years ago in a fear that it would influence my bias either way. We shouldn't base someone's suitability at 40 upon what opportunities they were afforded at 17.

I do have a somewhat prestigious pedigree btw. I removed it from my resume around 2010 and never looked back

I’m being earnest: what is an appropriate level of computer architecture knowledge? SIMD is 50 years old.

From the resource intro: > Expected background: We’re going to assume you have a basic understanding of LLMs and the Transformer architecture but not necessarily how they operate at scale.

I suppose this doesn’t require any knowledge about how computers work, but core CPU functionality seems…reasonable?

SIMD is quite old but the changes Nvidia made to call it SIMT and that they used as an excuse to call their vector lanes "cores" are quite a bit newer.

As a real time rendering engineer, this is how it’s always been. NV obfuscates much of the info to prevent competitors from understanding changes between generations. Other vendors aren’t great at this either.

In games, you can get NDA disclosures about architectural details that are closer to those docs. But I’ve never really seen any vendor (besides Intel) disclose this stuff publicly

They “learned” this trick from their consumer days. Devs always had to reverse-engineer the hypothetical scaling from their fantasy numbers