nighthawk454

7 ms·

1.
by nighthawk454 13d ago
Anyone remember Universal Transformers paper (Dehghani et al) from back in 2018? Recurrent transformers have a history as long as transformers themselves. Somewhat unclear how particularly novel this is vs a way to save compute.
2.
by nighthawk454 2mo ago
Ah good point, no udp. I was looking at webtorrent but it does share the same limitation, unless you’re on the nodejs (non-browser) version. Looking forward to trying bitbang! Seems super neat
3.
by nighthawk454 2mo ago
> it still needs to bootstrap the connection via central server. I think that always might be a limitation of P2P I think Iroh has a way of doing it using either DNS or BitTorrent DHT. Not perfect but fairly decentralized
4.
by nighthawk454 2mo ago
You can add a library view! Checkout this Bookshelf plugin: https://github.com/AndyHazz/bookshelf.koplugin
5.
by nighthawk454 2mo ago
This tracks with what I’ve heard around as well. What changed in the financial instruments? My understanding is a lot of the loans have gone PIK or otherwise essentially aren’t serviceable at current prices. Do you think that’s resolvable s
6.
by nighthawk454 3mo ago
Some potentially related stuff on the topic: Anisotropy in word embeddings dates back to at least 2017 with word2vec - where there were zero layers. The cone-shaped anisotropy in transformers is known since at least Gao et al. 2019. That li
7.
by nighthawk454 3mo ago
> Greenbacks … a form of fiat money https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Greenback_(1860s_money)
8.
by nighthawk454 3mo ago
Ah, I hadn’t thought about the generational aspect that’s interesting. The aesthetic totally makes sense to me when the music is intended for it / designed with it in mind, which I guess quite a lot of music is. I particularly dislike
9.
by nighthawk454 3mo ago
> 1 … they will often chose the more compressed/louder one I’ve always been curious - but presumably that’s true even after volume matching? > 3 Compressed sound works better in noisy environments and as background music I’ve hea
10.
by nighthawk454 3mo ago
ReplayGain is nice - but note it doesn’t ’fix the compression’. Compression and dynamic range is about loud/quiet _within_ the track. ReplayGain just turns the volume up and down for the entire track, the point being so all your tracks
11.
by nighthawk454 3mo ago
It really does on some records, if you’re interested check out some comparisons on YouTube. Many times it’s subtle eq tweaks, granted, and that won’t much matter. But a lot of older rock and pop records for example go from being super dynam
12.
by nighthawk454 3mo ago
It’s completely true, when the vinyl has a different mastering. It can be a completely different version. It’s not because it’s vinyl
13.
by nighthawk454 3mo ago
Short answer, no not really. It won’t ever be as good as a proper uncompressed mastering
14.
by nighthawk454 3mo ago
And also all the days you don’t, so, by itself not very meaningful. Especially since you can’t tell which one is right in advance. In some sense, so does a calendar
15.
by nighthawk454 4mo ago
I’m running MultiScrobbler to scrobble from multiple sources (Spotify/PlexAmp) to multiple sinks (Last.fm/ListenBrainz/Maloja). Looks like they already support writing to Rocksky! https://github.com/FoxxMD&#x2
16.
by nighthawk454 6mo ago
They are, but SpaceX is trying to get rules changed. They want the index to buy at a multiple of the float, so they release say 5% but get bought as if they had released 15% float. They also normally wouldn't be eligible for index incl
17.
by nighthawk454 6mo ago
It has plenty of useful control plane features out of the box. Nothing much you _couldn’t_ do yourself but you don’t have to. Or with Headscale as the self-hosted open-source version
18.
by nighthawk454 6mo ago
Great system! I wonder what the overall usage distribution is like - presumably some kind of power law shape.
19.
by nighthawk454 6mo ago
Yeah, that’s the idea. The loans get bundled up and resold to insurance companies, pension funds, and retail bond investors. Funds are plenty willing to lend other peoples money to get guaranteed dividends and fee payments and not be left h
20.
by nighthawk454 6mo ago
Ah, I re-read my original comment with that in mind, and I see how it can go a few directions depending on the context - thanks!
21.
by nighthawk454 6mo ago
QQQ is not in isolation. It’s just a bundle of stocks. Rebalancing that will affect the prices of its constituent stocks, which include some of the highest market cap stocks. Those same stocks are also in many of those other popular market-
22.
by nighthawk454 6mo ago
I don’t see that in the article. The only thing I see is about S&P is where they mention that the S&P 500’s rules would prevent this manipulation if SpaceX were added to that index. But that’s not being proposed.
23.
by nighthawk454 6mo ago
What?! This absolutely affects more than Nasdaq 100 / QQQ. The index is just a function of the stocks. It only moves if the underlying stocks move. Rebalancing Nasdaq will cause selling in the 100 companies that aren’t SpaceX. And thos
24.
by nighthawk454 6mo ago
It's worse than that, because S&P500 and Nasdaq100 share stocks. Like all of the MAG7 stocks. So if mag7 stocks dip because they're being structurally sold to buy SpaceX, then the S&P500 goes down too. Arguably even worse
25.
by nighthawk454 6mo ago
Yeah, but the S&P500 is hugely concentrated in MAG7, which are all Nasdaq listed. So when they all get sold to buy SpaceX, you can bet your butt something's gonna happen to a S&P500 ETF.
26.
by nighthawk454 6mo ago
There's trillions of dollars sitting in indexes that are quite literally 'passively' invested. Virtually everything holds this bundle in one way or another. Passive indexing has both outperformed and overtaken active investin
27.
by nighthawk454 6mo ago
Most indexes will be affected. Two of the most common indices - the S&P500 and DJIA - are cross-exchange and include Nasdaq stocks. The biggest market cap companies on the market (MAG7) are all on the Nasdaq exchange and comprise about
28.
by nighthawk454 6mo ago
Index funds divvy up money into stocks, in this case weighted by market cap. More market cap = bigger slice of the pie. SpaceX wants to instantly jump near the top of the pie - capturing tons of the money in index funds for itself, and also
29.
by nighthawk454 6mo ago
I think the point was that directionally, on average, we might need to swing the pendulum the other way. Incidentally, this reply.
30.
by nighthawk454 7mo ago
Ironically, no

More ›