Circa 2014, my economics mentor, who also mentored me in reading/trading free markets recommended reading Sowell.
We discussed Sowell at length, and my primary take away was that Sowell’s world view was that the individual is much better at improving their own lives than any intervening external factors. All in all, an ardent believer in individual capitalism. That is a high level assessment.
A more nuanced assessment is Sowell (like his mentor, Milton Friedman), is a true to earth anti-Keynesian. Fun fact, he considered himself a Marxist in his 20’s IIRC.
There are lots of anti-Keynesian economists. Though I think what sets Sowell apart is the way he uses widely accessible data to justify every single view on public policy he has, and to make it easy to digest for someone without an economics background (no easy task).
You can find a nice collection of his ideas online [1].
I see this quoted a lot whenever there is discussion of wealth. However, as with all verses, the context is important as well as the follow up verses. This is not in defense of.
17 “Why do you ask me about what is good?” Jesus replied. “There is only One who is good. If you want to enter life, keep the commandments.” “Which ones?” he inquired. Jesus replied, “‘You shall not murder, you shall not commit adultery, you shall not steal, you shall not give false testimony, 19 honor your father and mother,’ and ‘love your neighbor as yourself.’” “All these I have kept,” the young man said. “What do I still lack?” Jesus answered, “If you want to be perfect, go, sell your possessions and give to the poor, and you will have treasure in heaven. Then come, follow me.” When the young man heard this, he went away sad, because he had great wealth. Then Jesus said to his disciples, “Truly I tell you, it is hard for someone who is rich to enter the kingdom of heaven. 24 Again I tell you, it is easier for a camel to go through the eye of a needle than for someone who is rich to enter the kingdom of God.” When the disciples heard this, they were greatly astonished and asked, “Who then can be saved?” Jesus looked at them and said, “With man this is impossible, but with God all things are possible.”
Matthew 19:17-26 - https://www.biblegateway.com/passage?search=Matthew%2019:17-...
Would CTRL+X + CTRL+p/l/f be something akin to this? I use these frequently and have been quite content with their ability to provide in context completion.
I’ve been slowly coming around to this. Also there is no reason why something like salt cannot be adopted into the k8s world, it would bring better base image management capabilities by forcing larger organizations into a common image. A common base image would be easier to patch, upgrade, and maintain. Larger k8s deployments tend to not be so great at image management, which is a cost paid in operations dollars that were supposed to be saved by k8s.
What it comes down to is tooling which separates the application enough from the platform where I can move between metal, virtual, and containers without much effort. If this goal is achieved, moving between providers is achieved in tandem.
IPC microbenchmarks do not properly reflect the complex workloads running on post Zen2 microarchitecture. Zen2 upends microarchitecture schematics enough to warrant a different metric.
IPC MB’s, in my experience, tend to benchmark best case scenarios and that is probably the exception rather than the rule for application workloads in modern MA’s. Case in point, microbenchmarks showed significant improvements in IPC for Zen2 in lieu of Skylake yet for the application workload (CPU data bound), Skylake held up neck and neck.
The more appropriate benchmarking metric for post-Zen2 processors is CPI [0].
Not sure if you were hinting at it already, just in case, you may be interested in the ongoing work with bpfilter [0] which uses ebpf underneath existing xfilter rule interfaces.
You may want to consider building Streamlit into a standalone binary using Static-X or pex. I use pex for standalone binary distribution of a fairly popular python app [1].
The standardized way of defining what a universal quantum computer is through the DiVicenzo criteria [1].
Quantum annealing is a bridge until we have universal QC, it’s a fairly decent one for optimization problems where the solution set is discrete. I personally think D-wave is a good place to start to wrap ones’ mind around QC and superposition states. IBM Q is great, too.
In many ways, I prefer IBM Q if you are getting into QC for the long haul because many QC concepts such as CNOT, Z, X, Hadamard gates, interaction between quantum registers and classic registers are explicit. D-wave’s API hides quite a bit of what QC is all about, and you have to fit your problem (it has to be adiabatic in nature) into their system. I find this to be rather confusing in the long run.
We discussed Sowell at length, and my primary take away was that Sowell’s world view was that the individual is much better at improving their own lives than any intervening external factors. All in all, an ardent believer in individual capitalism. That is a high level assessment.
A more nuanced assessment is Sowell (like his mentor, Milton Friedman), is a true to earth anti-Keynesian. Fun fact, he considered himself a Marxist in his 20’s IIRC.
There are lots of anti-Keynesian economists. Though I think what sets Sowell apart is the way he uses widely accessible data to justify every single view on public policy he has, and to make it easy to digest for someone without an economics background (no easy task).
You can find a nice collection of his ideas online [1].
[1] http://www.tsowell.com/