Gold/M2SL(Billion USD) is currently around 0.12. In 1980, it peaked around 0.45. Monthly average since 1960 is 0.11. In late 2011 it peaked around 0.18.
Gold / Global M2 would be a better metric, but I haven't analyzed that yet.
For those who are actually interested in this field, the proper way to measure this would be with a four point probe. You do need a constant current source and a high-impedence voltage meter, though.
Also, you don't need to solder wires to the sample. But if you want to measure the hall resistance of a thin film of a semiconductor, you can solder a glob of indium on to four corners of a 1 cm x 1 cm wafer, put it in a magnetic field, and then do basically the same measurement as four point probe, except not inline.
You can train that size of a model on ~1 billion tokens in ~3 minutes on a rented 8xH100 80GB node (~$9/hr on Lambda Labs, RunPod io, etc.) using the NanoGPT speed run repo: https://github.com/KellerJordan/modded-nanogpt
For that short of a run, you'll spend more time waiting for the node to come up, downloading the dataset, and compiling the model, though.
> That application was submitted in March 2024 and is on track for approval in December 2026
Huh? Is this something where there's multiple incremental steps in the process, and that date is just the final approval stamp, or does it actually just take more than 1.5 years?
It's not an event camera, so it's very much taking images, which are then being processed by computer vision algorithms.
Event cameras seem more viable than CMOS sensors for autonomous vehicle applications in the absence of LIDAR. CMOS dynamic range and response isn't as good as the human eye. LIDAR+CMOS is considerably better in many ways.
> if you compare Intel's headcount with comparable companies (AMD, Nvidia), you can see Intel is really wasteful
AMD and NVIDIA are fabless. They are not comparable. It takes far more people to R&D a cutting-edge process node and run a dozen fabs 24/7 365.25 than it takes to design cutting edge chips.
I've been using this for a few weeks now, and it's really handy. But I did learn the hard way that it fails if you don't have internet connection, even if you already have the venv cached.
Not the OP, and not at all an expert in this area, but I was curious what the answer was, and from a bit of reading it seems like a potential reason that might not work is because volatile also prevents caching the value in a register. So if you want to keep the computation in a register, but you want to explicitly clear the value to zero before writing to it, it seems like C semantics are insufficient (at least without inline assembly).
The slowdown is in the simulation, not in the internally perceived flow of time. The internally perceived flow of time would of course not change.
The problem is that an exponential slowdown at each level requires discounting the probability of being in a simulation by an exponential amount per level. So instead of being able to say that the weighted odds of being in a simulation are higher than the odds of not being in a simulation, you have to say that, at best, there's a small chance of being in a simulation.
If you think novels, especially good ones, are "stories of made-up people that aren't intended to illustrate any particular idea", then you're missing quite a bit.
This model of physics does make some falsifiable predictions, and there are discussions about how to test them elsewhere.
Unlike string theory, this theory does not have any free variables to adjust. It's either true or it's false.
I, for one, find it to be trivially true. It fits every observation and is the only theory ever posed that doesn't have the "But why those initial conditions?" problem.
I can understand how the "up to an annual contribution limit" part of my comment could be confusing. I added that in an attempt to not be misleading / to circumvent spurious disagreement. I've moved it inside of parenthesis to de-emphasise it.
If you read my comment as a response to the parent, I believe it will make more sense.
---
CU opened the floodgates of anonymous, unlimited political contributions to "independent", but not really independent, organizations which can campaign on behalf of candidates.
The goal was/is to replace our democratic republic with an oligarchy. And we're now in the end game.
False dichotomy. Prior to CU, individuals could contribute to any candidate of their choosing (up to an annual contribution limit). Companies are compased of individuals. CU was twisted logic to reach a preconceived, corrupt outcome.
Oh, the irony.