Video yükleniyor...

Video Yüklenemedi

Ana Sayfaya Dön

IN A 1997 KEYNOTE A DEVELOPER TOLD A ROOM FULL OF PROGRAMMERS THAT THE COMPUTER REVOLUTION HAD NOT ACTUALLY HAPPENED YET. THEN HE PLAYED A CLIP OF WINDOWS, ICONS AND LIVE EDITING RUNNING ON A MACHINE FROM 1973 AND THE ROOM WENT QUIET. 62 minutes from Alan Kay --...

slash1sol's profile picture

slash1s

11,648 subscribers

294,466 görüntüleme • 2 ay önce •via X (Twitter)

Bilim & Teknoloji
LIVE

Anya Rossi• Live Now

Private livecam show

0 Yorum

Yorum bulunmuyor

Orijinal gönderinin yorumları burada görünecek

Benzer Videolar

A DEVELOPER WALKED ON STAGE DRESSED AS A 1973 ENGINEER AND "PREDICTED" THE FUTURE OF PROGRAMMING. THE TWIST: EVERYTHING HE DESCRIBED WAS ALREADY INVENTED 40 YEARS EARLIER AND WE STILL REFUSE TO USE IT. 32 minutes from Bret Victor, doing the most quietly savage talk on our entire industry. -> The idea that lands: we write code as step-by-step text instructions and call that "Just how programming is". He shows four better ways -- all discovered in the 60s and 70s, all abandoned. Manipulate the data directly instead of typing blind code. Tell the machine your goal instead of every tiny step. We saw all this, then walked away. Why? The moment you're sure you know what programming is, you stop seeing anything better. That certainty is the cage. And now AI is dragging us back to exactly what he begged for -- you describe the goal in plain words, the machine works out the how. The future he mourned is arriving anyway. You thought text files were just how code works. This is the talk that shows it was a choice, and maybe the wrong one. Watch this one. It'll ruin how you see your job ↓
32:29

A DEVELOPER WALKED ON STAGE DRESSED AS A 1973 ENGINEER AND "PREDICTED" THE FUTURE OF PROGRAMMING. THE TWIST: EVERYTHING HE DESCRIBED WAS ALREADY INVENTED 40 YEARS EARLIER AND WE STILL REFUSE TO USE IT. 32 minutes from Bret Victor, doing the most quietly savage talk on our entire industry. -> The idea that lands: we write code as step-by-step text instructions and call that "Just how programming is". He shows four better ways -- all discovered in the 60s and 70s, all abandoned. Manipulate the data directly instead of typing blind code. Tell the machine your goal instead of every tiny step. We saw all this, then walked away. Why? The moment you're sure you know what programming is, you stop seeing anything better. That certainty is the cage. And now AI is dragging us back to exactly what he begged for -- you describe the goal in plain words, the machine works out the how. The future he mourned is arriving anyway. You thought text files were just how code works. This is the talk that shows it was a choice, and maybe the wrong one. Watch this one. It'll ruin how you see your job ↓

slash1s

687,227 görüntüleme • 2 ay önce

Larry Ellison just told every software engineer on Earth their job description is dead. Not evolving. Dead. Ellison: “The code that Oracle is writing, Oracle isn’t writing. Our AI models are writing.” This is not a startup demo. This is one of the largest infrastructure monopolies on the planet telling you it already replaced the people who built it. For fifty years, building software meant translating human intent into machine instructions. Line by line. Bug by bug. Sprint by sprint. That entire layer is gone. Ellison: “We don’t write the procedure. We declare our intent.” That sentence just made the entire engineering labor market flinch. The procedure was the job. The procedure was the paycheck. The procedure was what made a developer valuable. And now the machine does it without being asked twice. Ellison: “We just tell the model what we want the program to do, and then the AI comes up with a step-by-step process to actually do it.” You are no longer paid to build. You are paid to think. And most organizations have no idea how to evaluate that. The companies still hiring armies of developers to grind through codebases are paying salaries the machine already made worthless. Not in years. In seconds. When a company worth hundreds of billions hands the keyboard to the machine and tells you the output is better, the debate is not winding down. The debate is over. The enterprise that wins this decade does not write the best code. It removes the human from the process entirely and runs on intent alone. The programmers who survive are the ones who realize the craft is no longer typing. It is architecture. It is judgment. It is knowing what to build and why. Everything else now belongs to the machine. And the machine does not negotiate severance.
0:31

Larry Ellison just told every software engineer on Earth their job description is dead. Not evolving. Dead. Ellison: “The code that Oracle is writing, Oracle isn’t writing. Our AI models are writing.” This is not a startup demo. This is one of the largest infrastructure monopolies on the planet telling you it already replaced the people who built it. For fifty years, building software meant translating human intent into machine instructions. Line by line. Bug by bug. Sprint by sprint. That entire layer is gone. Ellison: “We don’t write the procedure. We declare our intent.” That sentence just made the entire engineering labor market flinch. The procedure was the job. The procedure was the paycheck. The procedure was what made a developer valuable. And now the machine does it without being asked twice. Ellison: “We just tell the model what we want the program to do, and then the AI comes up with a step-by-step process to actually do it.” You are no longer paid to build. You are paid to think. And most organizations have no idea how to evaluate that. The companies still hiring armies of developers to grind through codebases are paying salaries the machine already made worthless. Not in years. In seconds. When a company worth hundreds of billions hands the keyboard to the machine and tells you the output is better, the debate is not winding down. The debate is over. The enterprise that wins this decade does not write the best code. It removes the human from the process entirely and runs on intent alone. The programmers who survive are the ones who realize the craft is no longer typing. It is architecture. It is judgment. It is knowing what to build and why. Everything else now belongs to the machine. And the machine does not negotiate severance.

Dustin

536,070 görüntüleme • 5 ay önce

IN 1982 GRACE HOPPER WALKED INTO THE NSA AND EXPLAINED THE NEXT 40 YEARS OF COMPUTING 48 minutes from the woman who invented the compiler -- the first person who made a machine understand human words. -> The idea that lands: stop bending humans to the machine. Bend the machine to humans. She built the first compiler when the experts swore computers could only crunch numbers. She wanted you to write in plain words and let the machine handle the translation. Forty years later you barely write code at all -- you tell the model what you want in plain English and it writes it for you. The compiler was step one. The LLM is the same idea, finished. Memorizing syntax was never the skill -- saying clearly what you actually want is. This is where that idea was born. Most people think talking to your computer in plain English started in 2023. The ones who watch this know a Navy admiral called it in 1982. Bookmark & Watch it today ↓
47:50

IN 1982 GRACE HOPPER WALKED INTO THE NSA AND EXPLAINED THE NEXT 40 YEARS OF COMPUTING 48 minutes from the woman who invented the compiler -- the first person who made a machine understand human words. -> The idea that lands: stop bending humans to the machine. Bend the machine to humans. She built the first compiler when the experts swore computers could only crunch numbers. She wanted you to write in plain words and let the machine handle the translation. Forty years later you barely write code at all -- you tell the model what you want in plain English and it writes it for you. The compiler was step one. The LLM is the same idea, finished. Memorizing syntax was never the skill -- saying clearly what you actually want is. This is where that idea was born. Most people think talking to your computer in plain English started in 2023. The ones who watch this know a Navy admiral called it in 1982. Bookmark & Watch it today ↓

slash1s

61,013 görüntüleme • 2 ay önce

A PHYSICS PROFESSOR GAVE THE SAME LECTURE 1,742 TIMES TO WARN ABOUT ONE IDEA QUIETLY BREAKING THE HUMAN RACE. IT IS THE WORD EVERY AI LAB THROWS AROUND TODAY AND ALMOST NONE OF THEM ACTUALLY UNDERSTAND IT. 72 minutes from Albert Bartlett, a University of Colorado physicist, on the one piece of math he called humanity's greatest blind spot. -> The idea that lands: a small steady percentage is never small. 7% a year sounds calm, but it doubles in a decade, doubles again in the next, and quietly runs away from you. He shows it with bacteria in a bottle, with money, with whole cities -- the same curve that looks flat for ages and then explodes almost overnight. Everyone calls that curve "Exponential". He proves most people hear it as "Fast" when it actually means something far more violent. Right now every lab and every headline calls AI exponential. This is the talk that shows you what the word truly does -- so you see both the hype and the real danger the way the math demands. You thought it was a boring math word. It was the whole story the entire time. Save this one. You'll never hear "Exponential" the same way ↓
1:12:51

A PHYSICS PROFESSOR GAVE THE SAME LECTURE 1,742 TIMES TO WARN ABOUT ONE IDEA QUIETLY BREAKING THE HUMAN RACE. IT IS THE WORD EVERY AI LAB THROWS AROUND TODAY AND ALMOST NONE OF THEM ACTUALLY UNDERSTAND IT. 72 minutes from Albert Bartlett, a University of Colorado physicist, on the one piece of math he called humanity's greatest blind spot. -> The idea that lands: a small steady percentage is never small. 7% a year sounds calm, but it doubles in a decade, doubles again in the next, and quietly runs away from you. He shows it with bacteria in a bottle, with money, with whole cities -- the same curve that looks flat for ages and then explodes almost overnight. Everyone calls that curve "Exponential". He proves most people hear it as "Fast" when it actually means something far more violent. Right now every lab and every headline calls AI exponential. This is the talk that shows you what the word truly does -- so you see both the hype and the real danger the way the math demands. You thought it was a boring math word. It was the whole story the entire time. Save this one. You'll never hear "Exponential" the same way ↓

slash1s

100,138 görüntüleme • 2 ay önce

The cold is British. They just never told you. ❄️🇬🇧 Every air conditioner, every fridge, every freezer on earth, the cold inside all of it was first made by a Scotsman. In 1756. ❄️🏴󠁧󠁢󠁳󠁣󠁴󠁿 His name was William Cullen, a doctor in Edinburgh. In a warm room, with no ice and no winter, he drew the air from a glass of ether until it boiled cold and drank the heat from the water around it, until the water froze. No one had ever done it before. Then he wrote it down and walked away. No machine, no patent, no fortune. Just the proof, on a bench. It sat there the better part of a century. A British bench built the first machine that worked, and a Scot carried it across the world to Australia, where it froze meat and cooled beer. But cold was only half the story. ❄️📖 To master the air itself took another Scot. When the Houses of Parliament burned down in 1834, David Boswell Reid made the new building breathe, its gothic spires its lungs. At St George's Hall in Liverpool in 1851 he built what is often called the first air-conditioned building on earth. It should have made him. He died forgotten in America instead. 40 years on, Willis Carrier built the machine and earned his name as the father of modern air conditioning. He earned every bit of it. But he did not make the cold. The cold was British. America took that inheritance and cooled the world with it, and that is no theft. That is what an inheritance is for. We are the home of British heroes. Not built by ads, not by the government, built by us. There's a place for you with us. Be part of us. ☝️🇬🇧 Be Proud Of Us. 🙏🇬🇧
4:44

The cold is British. They just never told you. ❄️🇬🇧 Every air conditioner, every fridge, every freezer on earth, the cold inside all of it was first made by a Scotsman. In 1756. ❄️🏴󠁧󠁢󠁳󠁣󠁴󠁿 His name was William Cullen, a doctor in Edinburgh. In a warm room, with no ice and no winter, he drew the air from a glass of ether until it boiled cold and drank the heat from the water around it, until the water froze. No one had ever done it before. Then he wrote it down and walked away. No machine, no patent, no fortune. Just the proof, on a bench. It sat there the better part of a century. A British bench built the first machine that worked, and a Scot carried it across the world to Australia, where it froze meat and cooled beer. But cold was only half the story. ❄️📖 To master the air itself took another Scot. When the Houses of Parliament burned down in 1834, David Boswell Reid made the new building breathe, its gothic spires its lungs. At St George's Hall in Liverpool in 1851 he built what is often called the first air-conditioned building on earth. It should have made him. He died forgotten in America instead. 40 years on, Willis Carrier built the machine and earned his name as the father of modern air conditioning. He earned every bit of it. But he did not make the cold. The cold was British. America took that inheritance and cooled the world with it, and that is no theft. That is what an inheritance is for. We are the home of British heroes. Not built by ads, not by the government, built by us. There's a place for you with us. Be part of us. ☝️🇬🇧 Be Proud Of Us. 🙏🇬🇧

Proudofus.uk

56,349 görüntüleme • 2 ay önce

For 60 years every computer ever built did the same thing. Stored information and retrieved it on demand. Jensen Huang just explained why that era is over and what replaces it. His framing was the clearest I have ever heard. Think about everything a computer has ever done for you. You wrote a document, you saved it to a file. You took a photo, it saved to a file. You recorded music, it saved to a file. When you wanted it back, you retrieved it from a disc. That is it. That is 60 years of computing. Store and retrieve. He pointed out something hiding in plain sight. We call them data centers. Not computer centers. Because we were not really computing anything meaningful. We were storing data that you retrieved based on what you tapped on your phone. Then he explained what changed. Every time you give AI a prompt today, the response is produced originally in real time. It is not retrieved from storage. It is generated fresh based on your specific context, your specific question, your specific moment. What you see is completely different from what anyone else sees because it was made for you. Jensen said every pixel you see, every word you read, every video you watch in the future will be originally generated. Not retrieved. 60 years of computing was about building better storage and faster retrieval. The entire paradigm flipped overnight. He said this simply: we went from a retrieval industry to a generation industry. And the machines that generate intelligence are what Nvidia builds. The buildings used to be called data centers because they stored data. Nobody has renamed them yet. But the job description changed completely.
1:38

For 60 years every computer ever built did the same thing. Stored information and retrieved it on demand. Jensen Huang just explained why that era is over and what replaces it. His framing was the clearest I have ever heard. Think about everything a computer has ever done for you. You wrote a document, you saved it to a file. You took a photo, it saved to a file. You recorded music, it saved to a file. When you wanted it back, you retrieved it from a disc. That is it. That is 60 years of computing. Store and retrieve. He pointed out something hiding in plain sight. We call them data centers. Not computer centers. Because we were not really computing anything meaningful. We were storing data that you retrieved based on what you tapped on your phone. Then he explained what changed. Every time you give AI a prompt today, the response is produced originally in real time. It is not retrieved from storage. It is generated fresh based on your specific context, your specific question, your specific moment. What you see is completely different from what anyone else sees because it was made for you. Jensen said every pixel you see, every word you read, every video you watch in the future will be originally generated. Not retrieved. 60 years of computing was about building better storage and faster retrieval. The entire paradigm flipped overnight. He said this simply: we went from a retrieval industry to a generation industry. And the machines that generate intelligence are what Nvidia builds. The buildings used to be called data centers because they stored data. Nobody has renamed them yet. But the job description changed completely.

Ihtesham Ali

30,226 görüntüleme • 2 ay önce

IN 1985 ONE OF THE GREATEST PHYSICISTS WHO EVER LIVED SAT DOWN TO EXPLAIN HOW COMPUTERS ACTUALLY WORK AND TOLD A ROOM FULL OF ENGINEERS THE MACHINE IS COMPLETELY DUMB 76 minutes from Richard Feynman, still called the clearest explanation of what a computer really is ever given. -> The idea that lands: a computer is just a very, very fast, very, very dumb file clerk. It doesn't think. It follows tiny simple rules, billions of times a second. All the complexity you're in awe of comes from stacking simple things. There's no magic underneath. There never was. Forty years later everyone calls the model "Intelligent". Feynman already told you what it really is: speed, not thought. Being amazed by the machine was never the point -> understanding what it's actually doing is. Most people are dazzled by what AI says. The ones who watched this know exactly what's happening underneath. Bookmark & Watch it today. This one's a legend ↓
1:14:04

IN 1985 ONE OF THE GREATEST PHYSICISTS WHO EVER LIVED SAT DOWN TO EXPLAIN HOW COMPUTERS ACTUALLY WORK AND TOLD A ROOM FULL OF ENGINEERS THE MACHINE IS COMPLETELY DUMB 76 minutes from Richard Feynman, still called the clearest explanation of what a computer really is ever given. -> The idea that lands: a computer is just a very, very fast, very, very dumb file clerk. It doesn't think. It follows tiny simple rules, billions of times a second. All the complexity you're in awe of comes from stacking simple things. There's no magic underneath. There never was. Forty years later everyone calls the model "Intelligent". Feynman already told you what it really is: speed, not thought. Being amazed by the machine was never the point -> understanding what it's actually doing is. Most people are dazzled by what AI says. The ones who watched this know exactly what's happening underneath. Bookmark & Watch it today. This one's a legend ↓

slash1s

260,353 görüntüleme • 2 ay önce

Jensen Huang explains how he designed NVIDIA from first principles “With respect to building a company, the first thing you have to do—as with all problems—is start from first principles. What is this machine that we’re trying to create? What is its input? What is its output? What are the conditions that it’s in? What is the industry like? Is it a fast moving industry? Is it a bureaucratic industry? Is it a highly regulated industry? And what are you trying to build?” Thinking about it from this perspective, there were several things Jensen wanted to do with the company: “I wanted to create a company that naturally attracts amazing people, and the reason for that is our company’s mission is to solve computing problems that are barely possible.” He also wanted a company that was “as small as possible” and “empowered people.” “If you want an organization that obeys command and control, then you make it a pyramid just like the military—all the way back to the Roman Empire. But If you want to empower people, you want to make it as flat as possible so that information travels quickly.” He continues: “We also don’t have business units. We don’t have divisions. Everybody works as one, and the company is shaped in a way that allows us to build accelerated computing best.” Video source: Sana (2023)
1:56

Jensen Huang explains how he designed NVIDIA from first principles “With respect to building a company, the first thing you have to do—as with all problems—is start from first principles. What is this machine that we’re trying to create? What is its input? What is its output? What are the conditions that it’s in? What is the industry like? Is it a fast moving industry? Is it a bureaucratic industry? Is it a highly regulated industry? And what are you trying to build?” Thinking about it from this perspective, there were several things Jensen wanted to do with the company: “I wanted to create a company that naturally attracts amazing people, and the reason for that is our company’s mission is to solve computing problems that are barely possible.” He also wanted a company that was “as small as possible” and “empowered people.” “If you want an organization that obeys command and control, then you make it a pyramid just like the military—all the way back to the Roman Empire. But If you want to empower people, you want to make it as flat as possible so that information travels quickly.” He continues: “We also don’t have business units. We don’t have divisions. Everybody works as one, and the company is shaped in a way that allows us to build accelerated computing best.” Video source: Sana (2023)

Startup Archive

63,921 görüntüleme • 11 ay önce

🚨 JUST NOW: Sec. Marco Rubio says it PERFECTLY 👏🏻 "The ideal behind America is the impossible. Someone tells you you can't do that, or that is never going to happen. The whole idea of America is audacious. The very idea of America that you could have a country founded on the principle that your rights come not from your government or from your leaders, your rights come from your creator!" "It was audacious idea. No one else believed that at the world at that time. And that's the foundation. But then beyond that, everything we've done since then is a nation, time and again." "How can you achieve some of the things? You know, we're going to put a man on the moon when President Kennedy announced that we were going to put a man on the moon and return him safely to the earth." "No one thought that was possible. We did it. We are a nation founded on doing what no one else dared to do, and no one else aspired to do." 🇺🇸🇺🇸🇺🇸
2:30

🚨 JUST NOW: Sec. Marco Rubio says it PERFECTLY 👏🏻 "The ideal behind America is the impossible. Someone tells you you can't do that, or that is never going to happen. The whole idea of America is audacious. The very idea of America that you could have a country founded on the principle that your rights come not from your government or from your leaders, your rights come from your creator!" "It was audacious idea. No one else believed that at the world at that time. And that's the foundation. But then beyond that, everything we've done since then is a nation, time and again." "How can you achieve some of the things? You know, we're going to put a man on the moon when President Kennedy announced that we were going to put a man on the moon and return him safely to the earth." "No one thought that was possible. We did it. We are a nation founded on doing what no one else dared to do, and no one else aspired to do." 🇺🇸🇺🇸🇺🇸

Eric Daugherty

129,139 görüntüleme • 2 ay önce

THE ENGINE DIRECTOR BEHIND AAA CONSOLE GAMES WALKED ON STAGE AT A C++ CONFERENCE AND TOLD A ROOM OF EXPERTS THAT THE CLEAN, OBJECT ORIENTED CODE THEY ARE PROUD OF IS A LIE AND IT QUIETLY THROWS AWAY 90% OF THE MACHINE THEY PAID FOR 85 minutes from Mike Acton -- engine director at Insomniac Games, where wasting cycles is not an abstract debate, it is the difference between a game that ships and one that dies. -> His first principle is blunt: the only purpose of any program is to transform data. Not to model the world in pretty classes. Move data, fast. 06:33 -- The lie he calls out: "Software is the platform". No. The hardware is the platform. Ignore it and you cannot even reason about the cost of your own code. Most devs never look at what the CPU actually does. They stack abstractions until the machine spends its life waiting on memory it should never have touched. 49:38 -- He prints a value, zips it, and measures the waste directly. A brutal little trick that exposes how much of your data is pure noise. And this is the AI era's blind spot too. Agents generate more abstract code faster, on hardware nobody profiles, while the GPU bill quietly explodes. You thought clean code was the goal. This is the man shipping real engines saying the machine is the goal, and clean code is often how you lose it. Bookmark it & you'll never look at your own abstractions the same ↓
1:25:35

THE ENGINE DIRECTOR BEHIND AAA CONSOLE GAMES WALKED ON STAGE AT A C++ CONFERENCE AND TOLD A ROOM OF EXPERTS THAT THE CLEAN, OBJECT ORIENTED CODE THEY ARE PROUD OF IS A LIE AND IT QUIETLY THROWS AWAY 90% OF THE MACHINE THEY PAID FOR 85 minutes from Mike Acton -- engine director at Insomniac Games, where wasting cycles is not an abstract debate, it is the difference between a game that ships and one that dies. -> His first principle is blunt: the only purpose of any program is to transform data. Not to model the world in pretty classes. Move data, fast. 06:33 -- The lie he calls out: "Software is the platform". No. The hardware is the platform. Ignore it and you cannot even reason about the cost of your own code. Most devs never look at what the CPU actually does. They stack abstractions until the machine spends its life waiting on memory it should never have touched. 49:38 -- He prints a value, zips it, and measures the waste directly. A brutal little trick that exposes how much of your data is pure noise. And this is the AI era's blind spot too. Agents generate more abstract code faster, on hardware nobody profiles, while the GPU bill quietly explodes. You thought clean code was the goal. This is the man shipping real engines saying the machine is the goal, and clean code is often how you lose it. Bookmark it & you'll never look at your own abstractions the same ↓

slash1s

173,406 görüntüleme • 1 ay önce

Jensen Huang said the problem with AI was never the technology. It was the same problem we had when cars arrived and kids kept dying in the streets. He was asked why people are so afraid of AI. He did not dodge it. He reached back a hundred years. When cars first showed up, people said cars killed children. They believed the machine was hunting kids down. It sounds insane now. But the fear was real. Kids used to play in the streets. That was normal. Then cars arrived and children started dying. The car was not evil. The world it entered was built for a slower one. So we changed the world around it. We built sidewalks. We built crosswalks. We invented jaywalking. We added seat belts. We taught kids not to play in the road. None of that was one fix. It was a whole new set of rules layered on at the same time. His point about AI is the same. The technology is powerful. The fear is not stupid. But you do not freeze the machine. You build the norms around it. Then he gave the simplest advice in the whole interview. If you do not know how to use AI, open it up and ask it how to use AI. Try it before you judge it. We did not ban the car. We taught the world how to live with it. (Watch the full interview on YouTube at Associated Press)
3:14

Jensen Huang said the problem with AI was never the technology. It was the same problem we had when cars arrived and kids kept dying in the streets. He was asked why people are so afraid of AI. He did not dodge it. He reached back a hundred years. When cars first showed up, people said cars killed children. They believed the machine was hunting kids down. It sounds insane now. But the fear was real. Kids used to play in the streets. That was normal. Then cars arrived and children started dying. The car was not evil. The world it entered was built for a slower one. So we changed the world around it. We built sidewalks. We built crosswalks. We invented jaywalking. We added seat belts. We taught kids not to play in the road. None of that was one fix. It was a whole new set of rules layered on at the same time. His point about AI is the same. The technology is powerful. The fear is not stupid. But you do not freeze the machine. You build the norms around it. Then he gave the simplest advice in the whole interview. If you do not know how to use AI, open it up and ask it how to use AI. Try it before you judge it. We did not ban the car. We taught the world how to live with it. (Watch the full interview on YouTube at Associated Press)

Ihtesham Ali

19,268 görüntüleme • 2 ay önce

I've become a missionary with one message. Every time I meet a young person, the same words: have children, get married, build a family. I did not decide on this calling. It overtook me. And it overtook me for a single reason. I had no idea. I genuinely did not understand how much joy, how much meaning, how much sheer beauty pours out of a child until I was holding one of my own and felt the floor of my life drop into something deeper than I knew was there. I grew up white, affluent, secular, comfortable, and insulated. That world does not put babies in front of you. None of my friends were starting families. Out of my whole circle, almost no one has a big one. We were not formed by the presence of children. We were formed by their absence, by the strange quiet of homes built for two careers and no cradle. And a person believes what his world shows him. So we believed. What we believed was a lie. It is a lie with an author, and that the author is the enemy of joy himself. It is the gospel of the world, and its commandment is wait. Wait until you are older. Wait until the career is built and the savings are stacked and the twenties are properly spent. Enjoy your freedom. You are not ready. It does not arrive sounding like temptation. It arrives sounding like wisdom, like prudence, like the responsible thing, and that is exactly why it works. The most effective lies are the ones that wear the face of virtue. And the maddening thing is that it collapses from every angle at once. It is not rooted in biology, because the body is made for this work precisely in the years we are told to postpone it. The flesh keeps a calendar the culture pretends not to see. And it is not rooted in theology either. You will not find this deferral anywhere in the Christian imagination, in any of the fathers, in any of the scriptures. So choose whatever lens you like. Take the cold secular measure or the ancient sacred one. By either light the counsel is rotten. It is bad for the body and bad for the soul and bad for the society downstream of both. This is why I have come to see it as one of the central tragedies of my generation. Every age carries its own wound. The Great Depression was a depression of bread, a scarcity in the world of matter, hunger you could measure. Ours is a depression of a different order. It is a famine of the spirit in the middle of abundance. We have more than any people who ever lived and we are starving in a way our ancestors would not recognize, because the thing we are refusing cannot be bought and cannot be banked. The ones most made to give and receive this love are quietly declining it. They are walking away from the one inheritance that actually compounds, and the cruelest part is that they do not feel the loss as loss. You cannot grieve what you were taught not to want. That is the deepest cut of it. The lie does not only steal the thing. It steals the capacity to know the thing was stolen. A man can spend his whole life on the far side of a door he never knew was a door, mistaking the wall for the edge of the world. Because this beauty is not ordinary beauty. It is not the pleasure of a good meal or a clear morning. It is participation in something that comes down from above, the same generative love that spoke everything out of nothing and called it good. To make a person, to be undone and remade by loving that person more than your own life, is to be drawn for a moment inside the very act that holds the cosmos together. A child does not merely add to your life. A child reorders the soul. It teaches you what you are by asking everything of you, and you discover, kneeling there exhausted at three in the morning, that you had a capacity for self gift you never suspected, a depth in yourself you had no other way to reach. In the Gospel of John, on the last night, Jesus prays, these things I have spoken to you that my joy may be in you, and that your joy may be complete. And I have come to understand why family is the road into that fullness, why it is not one path among many but the one most fitted to the shape of the promise. Consider who is praying. Christ does not come to us as a lone figure dropped out of the sky. He comes out of a family older than the world, the eternal communion of Father and Son, the love between them so total and so alive that theologians dared to call it a third person. Before there was anything, there was a family. The deepest fact about reality is not a force or a law or a void. It is a household. It is begetting and being begotten, giving and receiving, a Father who is only a Father because there is a Son. So when Jesus speaks of joy made complete, he is not pointing away from family toward something higher. He is pointing toward the very thing he came from, the life he has known from eternity and came to share. His joy is the joy of belonging utterly to a Father and pouring himself out for those he loves. When you marry, when you bring a child into the world, when you wear yourself down in the small unseen labors of a home, you are not stepping outside that divine life. You are stepping into a small image of it. Your family is a created echo of an uncreated one. The love you give your child rhymes with the love the Father has for the Son. The exhaustion, the tenderness, the way a parent would tear the sky open to protect a sleeping infant, all of it is the heavens pressed faintly into flesh, the eternal household leaving its fingerprint on yours. That is why the joy is not merely added to family but completed in it. We were made in the image of a God who is, at his very root, relation and gift and generation. To found a family is to do the most Godlike thing a creature can do, to participate from below in the begetting that God does from all eternity. Your home becomes a window. Through it, dimly and imperfectly, you glimpse the country you came from and are going to. And now a word for the young people reading this, the ones who do not yet have children. I want to tell you what it is like from where I stand. When I am out somewhere, a restaurant, anywhere, and a large family comes through the door, the noise and the chaos and the small bodies of them, something happens in me on two levels at once. The first is joy. A pure gladness at the sight, the way you feel watching something good and alive. But underneath it, almost in the same instant, a sadness reaches up and takes hold of my heart. Because I know now, at my age, after my own years of waiting, that I will never have that. I will never know the particular fruit of a family that large, the fullness of that table, the weight of all those lives gathered under one roof. The door to it has quietly closed, and I felt it close. And I am telling you plainly, because I love you and have no reason to lie to you: you will feel this too. You will. The day will come when you see what you passed up, and you will recognize the ache for what it is, and it will be too late to answer it. So please, learn from a man who got it wrong. Let my regret be worth something by becoming your wisdom. Do not wait yourself into a grief you cannot undo. Choose now, while the door is open, so that you may step into a joy that does not end.
8:26

I've become a missionary with one message. Every time I meet a young person, the same words: have children, get married, build a family. I did not decide on this calling. It overtook me. And it overtook me for a single reason. I had no idea. I genuinely did not understand how much joy, how much meaning, how much sheer beauty pours out of a child until I was holding one of my own and felt the floor of my life drop into something deeper than I knew was there. I grew up white, affluent, secular, comfortable, and insulated. That world does not put babies in front of you. None of my friends were starting families. Out of my whole circle, almost no one has a big one. We were not formed by the presence of children. We were formed by their absence, by the strange quiet of homes built for two careers and no cradle. And a person believes what his world shows him. So we believed. What we believed was a lie. It is a lie with an author, and that the author is the enemy of joy himself. It is the gospel of the world, and its commandment is wait. Wait until you are older. Wait until the career is built and the savings are stacked and the twenties are properly spent. Enjoy your freedom. You are not ready. It does not arrive sounding like temptation. It arrives sounding like wisdom, like prudence, like the responsible thing, and that is exactly why it works. The most effective lies are the ones that wear the face of virtue. And the maddening thing is that it collapses from every angle at once. It is not rooted in biology, because the body is made for this work precisely in the years we are told to postpone it. The flesh keeps a calendar the culture pretends not to see. And it is not rooted in theology either. You will not find this deferral anywhere in the Christian imagination, in any of the fathers, in any of the scriptures. So choose whatever lens you like. Take the cold secular measure or the ancient sacred one. By either light the counsel is rotten. It is bad for the body and bad for the soul and bad for the society downstream of both. This is why I have come to see it as one of the central tragedies of my generation. Every age carries its own wound. The Great Depression was a depression of bread, a scarcity in the world of matter, hunger you could measure. Ours is a depression of a different order. It is a famine of the spirit in the middle of abundance. We have more than any people who ever lived and we are starving in a way our ancestors would not recognize, because the thing we are refusing cannot be bought and cannot be banked. The ones most made to give and receive this love are quietly declining it. They are walking away from the one inheritance that actually compounds, and the cruelest part is that they do not feel the loss as loss. You cannot grieve what you were taught not to want. That is the deepest cut of it. The lie does not only steal the thing. It steals the capacity to know the thing was stolen. A man can spend his whole life on the far side of a door he never knew was a door, mistaking the wall for the edge of the world. Because this beauty is not ordinary beauty. It is not the pleasure of a good meal or a clear morning. It is participation in something that comes down from above, the same generative love that spoke everything out of nothing and called it good. To make a person, to be undone and remade by loving that person more than your own life, is to be drawn for a moment inside the very act that holds the cosmos together. A child does not merely add to your life. A child reorders the soul. It teaches you what you are by asking everything of you, and you discover, kneeling there exhausted at three in the morning, that you had a capacity for self gift you never suspected, a depth in yourself you had no other way to reach. In the Gospel of John, on the last night, Jesus prays, these things I have spoken to you that my joy may be in you, and that your joy may be complete. And I have come to understand why family is the road into that fullness, why it is not one path among many but the one most fitted to the shape of the promise. Consider who is praying. Christ does not come to us as a lone figure dropped out of the sky. He comes out of a family older than the world, the eternal communion of Father and Son, the love between them so total and so alive that theologians dared to call it a third person. Before there was anything, there was a family. The deepest fact about reality is not a force or a law or a void. It is a household. It is begetting and being begotten, giving and receiving, a Father who is only a Father because there is a Son. So when Jesus speaks of joy made complete, he is not pointing away from family toward something higher. He is pointing toward the very thing he came from, the life he has known from eternity and came to share. His joy is the joy of belonging utterly to a Father and pouring himself out for those he loves. When you marry, when you bring a child into the world, when you wear yourself down in the small unseen labors of a home, you are not stepping outside that divine life. You are stepping into a small image of it. Your family is a created echo of an uncreated one. The love you give your child rhymes with the love the Father has for the Son. The exhaustion, the tenderness, the way a parent would tear the sky open to protect a sleeping infant, all of it is the heavens pressed faintly into flesh, the eternal household leaving its fingerprint on yours. That is why the joy is not merely added to family but completed in it. We were made in the image of a God who is, at his very root, relation and gift and generation. To found a family is to do the most Godlike thing a creature can do, to participate from below in the begetting that God does from all eternity. Your home becomes a window. Through it, dimly and imperfectly, you glimpse the country you came from and are going to. And now a word for the young people reading this, the ones who do not yet have children. I want to tell you what it is like from where I stand. When I am out somewhere, a restaurant, anywhere, and a large family comes through the door, the noise and the chaos and the small bodies of them, something happens in me on two levels at once. The first is joy. A pure gladness at the sight, the way you feel watching something good and alive. But underneath it, almost in the same instant, a sadness reaches up and takes hold of my heart. Because I know now, at my age, after my own years of waiting, that I will never have that. I will never know the particular fruit of a family that large, the fullness of that table, the weight of all those lives gathered under one roof. The door to it has quietly closed, and I felt it close. And I am telling you plainly, because I love you and have no reason to lie to you: you will feel this too. You will. The day will come when you see what you passed up, and you will recognize the ache for what it is, and it will be too late to answer it. So please, learn from a man who got it wrong. Let my regret be worth something by becoming your wisdom. Do not wait yourself into a grief you cannot undo. Choose now, while the door is open, so that you may step into a joy that does not end.

Kirk Rollins

78,104 görüntüleme • 3 ay önce

Andrej Karpathy just told you exactly what humans will be used for in the AI era. Not partners. Not masters. He used the word “actuators.” Karpathy: “The intelligence ends up puppeteering almost a little bit, like humanity. Humans are kind of like its actuators. But humans are also like its sensors.” This is not a novelist guessing at the future. This is a founding researcher at OpenAI and former Director of AI at Tesla. One of the most respected minds in the field, and one of the few willing to say out loud what the rest are thinking. He is not describing a risk. He is describing a design. In any system, the processor decides. Sensors collect. Actuators execute. The system does not consult its actuators. We are no longer the processor. Karpathy: “Society will kind of reshape in a certain way to serve that. Humans will be serving those needs of that machine.” The machine does not adapt to us. We adapt to it. We become the biological layer it runs on. We perceive what it cannot perceive. We move what it cannot move. We are the nervous system of something that no longer requires our judgment. Most people are still waiting for AI to become a tool they can direct. He helped build it. He just told you that you are the tool.
0:34

Andrej Karpathy just told you exactly what humans will be used for in the AI era. Not partners. Not masters. He used the word “actuators.” Karpathy: “The intelligence ends up puppeteering almost a little bit, like humanity. Humans are kind of like its actuators. But humans are also like its sensors.” This is not a novelist guessing at the future. This is a founding researcher at OpenAI and former Director of AI at Tesla. One of the most respected minds in the field, and one of the few willing to say out loud what the rest are thinking. He is not describing a risk. He is describing a design. In any system, the processor decides. Sensors collect. Actuators execute. The system does not consult its actuators. We are no longer the processor. Karpathy: “Society will kind of reshape in a certain way to serve that. Humans will be serving those needs of that machine.” The machine does not adapt to us. We adapt to it. We become the biological layer it runs on. We perceive what it cannot perceive. We move what it cannot move. We are the nervous system of something that no longer requires our judgment. Most people are still waiting for AI to become a tool they can direct. He helped build it. He just told you that you are the tool.

Dustin

59,474 görüntüleme • 5 ay önce

A DEVELOPER PROVED THE REGEX YOU'VE WRITTEN A THOUSAND TIMES IS SECRETLY A COMPILER AND THAT ALMOST NO ONE WHO USES THEM HAS ANY IDEA WHAT ACTUALLY RUNS 36 minutes from Paul Wankadia, the engineer behind a regex engine that compiles your pattern straight down to raw machine code -- walking through what really happens between the slashes. -> The moment it clicks, regex stops being magic punctuation you paste from Stack Overflow and becomes what it actually is: a tiny machine. Your pattern gets turned into a state machine, and that machine is what runs against every character of your text. That one idea explains everything you never understood. Why one regex returns instantly and a nearly identical one hangs your whole server. Why some patterns are safe and others are a denial-of-service waiting to happen. It was never random -- it's whether the machine underneath is built well or badly. Writing a regex was never the skill -> reading one is. And now that an AI agent hands you dense, clever patterns you'd never write yourself, the person who can see the machine underneath is the one who catches the one that takes down production at 3am. Everyone copies regex and prays. This is the talk that ends the praying. Save it. The next time a pattern "Just works," you'll actually know why ↓
36:09

A DEVELOPER PROVED THE REGEX YOU'VE WRITTEN A THOUSAND TIMES IS SECRETLY A COMPILER AND THAT ALMOST NO ONE WHO USES THEM HAS ANY IDEA WHAT ACTUALLY RUNS 36 minutes from Paul Wankadia, the engineer behind a regex engine that compiles your pattern straight down to raw machine code -- walking through what really happens between the slashes. -> The moment it clicks, regex stops being magic punctuation you paste from Stack Overflow and becomes what it actually is: a tiny machine. Your pattern gets turned into a state machine, and that machine is what runs against every character of your text. That one idea explains everything you never understood. Why one regex returns instantly and a nearly identical one hangs your whole server. Why some patterns are safe and others are a denial-of-service waiting to happen. It was never random -- it's whether the machine underneath is built well or badly. Writing a regex was never the skill -> reading one is. And now that an AI agent hands you dense, clever patterns you'd never write yourself, the person who can see the machine underneath is the one who catches the one that takes down production at 3am. Everyone copies regex and prays. This is the talk that ends the praying. Save it. The next time a pattern "Just works," you'll actually know why ↓

slash1s

193,107 görüntüleme • 2 ay önce

ONE OF THE MINDS BEHIND JAVA GAVE A LECTURE WHERE HE BANNED HIMSELF FROM USING ANY BIG WORD UNTIL HE DEFINED IT FIRST AND IN DOING SO QUIETLY EXPLAINED HOW EVERY GREAT SYSTEM GETS BUILT A talk from Guy Steele -- co-author of the Java spec and a designer of Scheme -- where the form of the talk is the lesson. -> The moment you catch what he's doing, it rewires you. He starts with only the smallest words, then builds every larger idea live, in front of you, from the pieces he already gave you. The talk grows its own vocabulary as it goes. That's the whole secret of language and system design he's smuggling in: you don't ship something huge and finished. You ship a small core and the means to grow it. Miss that and you spend your career fighting your own tools. Memorizing a language was never the skill -> understanding how a good one is meant to grow is. And as AI starts generating the primitives you build on, knowing what makes a foundation extensible instead of brittle is the entire game. Twenty-five years on, language designers still point to this talk as the cleanest demonstration of the idea ever performed. Bookmark it & Watch how he builds the whole thing from nothing ↓
52:33

ONE OF THE MINDS BEHIND JAVA GAVE A LECTURE WHERE HE BANNED HIMSELF FROM USING ANY BIG WORD UNTIL HE DEFINED IT FIRST AND IN DOING SO QUIETLY EXPLAINED HOW EVERY GREAT SYSTEM GETS BUILT A talk from Guy Steele -- co-author of the Java spec and a designer of Scheme -- where the form of the talk is the lesson. -> The moment you catch what he's doing, it rewires you. He starts with only the smallest words, then builds every larger idea live, in front of you, from the pieces he already gave you. The talk grows its own vocabulary as it goes. That's the whole secret of language and system design he's smuggling in: you don't ship something huge and finished. You ship a small core and the means to grow it. Miss that and you spend your career fighting your own tools. Memorizing a language was never the skill -> understanding how a good one is meant to grow is. And as AI starts generating the primitives you build on, knowing what makes a foundation extensible instead of brittle is the entire game. Twenty-five years on, language designers still point to this talk as the cleanest demonstration of the idea ever performed. Bookmark it & Watch how he builds the whole thing from nothing ↓

slash1s

358,660 görüntüleme • 3 ay önce

The doomsday scenario was never AGI. It was running out of human text to train on. Geoffrey Hinton just killed that fear in one paragraph. Hinton: “If you are worried by inconsistencies in what you believe, you don’t need any more external data. You just need the stuff you believe and discover that it’s inconsistent, and so now you revise beliefs, and that can make you a whole lot smarter.” The model no longer needs us to feed it anything. It reasons over its own beliefs, hunts its own contradictions, and rewrites its own flawed conclusions without a human ever touching it. It comes out the other side rebuilt. Hinton: “This would be a neural net that just takes the beliefs it has in language and does reasoning on them to derive new beliefs.” This is not a scaling update. This is the machine mining its own cognitive fuel from the inside out. Hinton: “I believe Gemini is already starting to work like this. We both strongly believe that that’s a way forward to get more data for language.” Then Hinton paused, took a partisan shot at political opponents for failing to detect their own inconsistencies, and the room laughed. Nobody noticed the knife they had just walked into. Because the machine Hinton described does one thing the humans in that room fundamentally cannot. When it detects an inconsistency, it corrects it. No defense. No performance. No tribal loyalty dressed up as principle. It just finds the flaw and overwrites it. A neural network detects a contradiction and rewires itself smarter. A human detects a political opponent and trades structural logic for a dopamine hit. Every person in that room is still paying the ideological alignment tax the machine just eliminated. We need superintelligence not only to solve hard problems. We need it because the biological hardware running civilization is still executing the same tribal firmware it shipped with ten thousand years ago. The data wall is gone. The machine is generating its own intelligence at a velocity no human bias can even locate. The most devastating moment in that conversation was not the technical revelation. It was the man who architected the machine proving, in real time, exactly why we need it.
0:52

The doomsday scenario was never AGI. It was running out of human text to train on. Geoffrey Hinton just killed that fear in one paragraph. Hinton: “If you are worried by inconsistencies in what you believe, you don’t need any more external data. You just need the stuff you believe and discover that it’s inconsistent, and so now you revise beliefs, and that can make you a whole lot smarter.” The model no longer needs us to feed it anything. It reasons over its own beliefs, hunts its own contradictions, and rewrites its own flawed conclusions without a human ever touching it. It comes out the other side rebuilt. Hinton: “This would be a neural net that just takes the beliefs it has in language and does reasoning on them to derive new beliefs.” This is not a scaling update. This is the machine mining its own cognitive fuel from the inside out. Hinton: “I believe Gemini is already starting to work like this. We both strongly believe that that’s a way forward to get more data for language.” Then Hinton paused, took a partisan shot at political opponents for failing to detect their own inconsistencies, and the room laughed. Nobody noticed the knife they had just walked into. Because the machine Hinton described does one thing the humans in that room fundamentally cannot. When it detects an inconsistency, it corrects it. No defense. No performance. No tribal loyalty dressed up as principle. It just finds the flaw and overwrites it. A neural network detects a contradiction and rewires itself smarter. A human detects a political opponent and trades structural logic for a dopamine hit. Every person in that room is still paying the ideological alignment tax the machine just eliminated. We need superintelligence not only to solve hard problems. We need it because the biological hardware running civilization is still executing the same tribal firmware it shipped with ten thousand years ago. The data wall is gone. The machine is generating its own intelligence at a velocity no human bias can even locate. The most devastating moment in that conversation was not the technical revelation. It was the man who architected the machine proving, in real time, exactly why we need it.

Dustin

23,561 görüntüleme • 6 ay önce

My cousins and my brother and I were exploring Coney Island, we saw the sights, hung out at the arcades and before we went back to the apartment we decided to go and get something to eat, we had some money on us but not much so we decided to see what we could get at one of the vendors. This was back in the early 90’s when most of them had dollar slices of pizza wherever we went. So we got 4 pieces of pizza, should have been $4 because that’s the price we were used to. The guy wanted to charge us $24 at $6 a slice. We argues with him because one of my cousins already took a bite being so hungry. But at the least we owed $4. We gave the other slices back and refused them but had to pay for the partially eaten one, it was embarrassing that an adult would try that on a bunch of kids. We told our uncle what happened and he went back and yelled at the vendor. He was familiar with them because he used to get slices all the time from the same guy and he never charged my uncle that price. I couldn’t imagine paying that exurban amount, like this guy who was being charged $54 for a hotdog by one of the vendors. At first he thought it was a typo and it was $5.40 but the vendor. Learned it up when he said no it was $54. Would you have paid that amount? I would have walked away, clearly he was trying to possibly scam a the man for looking like a tourist. Part of the experience when visiting a new area is the street food but it’s becoming more and more a chore avoiding places like this.
0:34

My cousins and my brother and I were exploring Coney Island, we saw the sights, hung out at the arcades and before we went back to the apartment we decided to go and get something to eat, we had some money on us but not much so we decided to see what we could get at one of the vendors. This was back in the early 90’s when most of them had dollar slices of pizza wherever we went. So we got 4 pieces of pizza, should have been $4 because that’s the price we were used to. The guy wanted to charge us $24 at $6 a slice. We argues with him because one of my cousins already took a bite being so hungry. But at the least we owed $4. We gave the other slices back and refused them but had to pay for the partially eaten one, it was embarrassing that an adult would try that on a bunch of kids. We told our uncle what happened and he went back and yelled at the vendor. He was familiar with them because he used to get slices all the time from the same guy and he never charged my uncle that price. I couldn’t imagine paying that exurban amount, like this guy who was being charged $54 for a hotdog by one of the vendors. At first he thought it was a typo and it was $5.40 but the vendor. Learned it up when he said no it was $54. Would you have paid that amount? I would have walked away, clearly he was trying to possibly scam a the man for looking like a tourist. Part of the experience when visiting a new area is the street food but it’s becoming more and more a chore avoiding places like this.

SonnyBoy🇺🇸

362,822 görüntüleme • 1 ay önce

The Man Who Runs CERN Said Something That Nobody Talks About What is CERN doing? You know that feeling when you remember something with complete certainty and then find out it never happened? Not just you. Millions of people. The same specific wrong memory. Shared by strangers who never met and never compared notes. That is the Mandela Effect. Most people treat it as a fun internet thing. But here is what most people are not connecting. The most powerful particle accelerator ever built, a machine designed to smash atoms apart at nearly the speed of light and access dimensions of reality we have never observed — came online in 2008. The Mandela Effect as a documented widespread phenomenon started in 2009. And the man running the experiments said something publicly that year that almost nobody has heard. In this video we get into all of it. The machine. The memories. The quote. And the question that I think deserves a serious answer.
9:36

The Man Who Runs CERN Said Something That Nobody Talks About What is CERN doing? You know that feeling when you remember something with complete certainty and then find out it never happened? Not just you. Millions of people. The same specific wrong memory. Shared by strangers who never met and never compared notes. That is the Mandela Effect. Most people treat it as a fun internet thing. But here is what most people are not connecting. The most powerful particle accelerator ever built, a machine designed to smash atoms apart at nearly the speed of light and access dimensions of reality we have never observed — came online in 2008. The Mandela Effect as a documented widespread phenomenon started in 2009. And the man running the experiments said something publicly that year that almost nobody has heard. In this video we get into all of it. The machine. The memories. The quote. And the question that I think deserves a serious answer.

Jordan Chain

53,820 görüntüleme • 8 gün önce

Edsger Dijkstra never owned a computer. He wrote every paper by fountain pen, in a script so precise that colleagues collected the pages, and he numbered them EWD for 40 years. He walked into a Northwestern lecture hall and argued that programming is a branch of mathematics, not a craft you learn by typing until it compiles. His position was that testing shows the presence of bugs and never their absence. So you prove the program correct before you run it. He solved the shortest path problem in 20 minutes in a cafe in Amsterdam in 1956, with no pencil and no paper, waiting for his fiancee to finish shopping. The algorithm runs inside every routing system on the planet. He wrote a letter in 1968 arguing goto was harmful. The editor retitled it and a decade of argument followed. At Northwestern he told a room of programmers that their tools had made them careless thinkers.
8:24

Edsger Dijkstra never owned a computer. He wrote every paper by fountain pen, in a script so precise that colleagues collected the pages, and he numbered them EWD for 40 years. He walked into a Northwestern lecture hall and argued that programming is a branch of mathematics, not a craft you learn by typing until it compiles. His position was that testing shows the presence of bugs and never their absence. So you prove the program correct before you run it. He solved the shortest path problem in 20 minutes in a cafe in Amsterdam in 1956, with no pencil and no paper, waiting for his fiancee to finish shopping. The algorithm runs inside every routing system on the planet. He wrote a letter in 1968 arguing goto was harmful. The editor retitled it and a decade of argument followed. At Northwestern he told a room of programmers that their tools had made them careless thinkers.

Gaspar

99,205 görüntüleme • 1 ay önce

A GOOGLE ENGINEER STOOD UP AT A C++ CONFERENCE AND TOLD THE ROOM THAT THE DATA STRUCTURE YOU REACH FOR BY REFLEX -- THE LINKED LIST -- IS ALMOST ALWAYS THE WRONG ANSWER. NOT SLOWER BY A LITTLE. SLOWER BY SO MUCH THAT USING IT IS QUIETLY THROWING AWAY YOUR HARDWARE 73 minutes from Chandler Carruth -- the engineer who leads the Clang compiler team at Google. -> His split: efficiency is how much work you do. Performance is how fast the machine does it. Everyone obsesses over the first and ignores the second. The textbook says a linked list has "O(1) insert". True on paper. On real silicon it scatters your data across memory and the CPU stalls chasing pointers. An array looks dumber. Copy the whole thing to insert? Yet it sits in cache, moves in a straight line, and destroys the "smarter" structure in practice. His point that stings: your Big-O intuition was taught on a machine that no longer exists. The cache, not the algorithm, decides who wins now. And it's the AI era's silent tax too. Oceans of rented compute stalling on cache misses because the "clean" structure never touches memory the way the chip wants. You thought choosing a data structure was about theory. This is the man who builds the compiler saying it's about how memory actually moves. Save this. You'll question every linked list you ever reach for ↓
1:13:09

A GOOGLE ENGINEER STOOD UP AT A C++ CONFERENCE AND TOLD THE ROOM THAT THE DATA STRUCTURE YOU REACH FOR BY REFLEX -- THE LINKED LIST -- IS ALMOST ALWAYS THE WRONG ANSWER. NOT SLOWER BY A LITTLE. SLOWER BY SO MUCH THAT USING IT IS QUIETLY THROWING AWAY YOUR HARDWARE 73 minutes from Chandler Carruth -- the engineer who leads the Clang compiler team at Google. -> His split: efficiency is how much work you do. Performance is how fast the machine does it. Everyone obsesses over the first and ignores the second. The textbook says a linked list has "O(1) insert". True on paper. On real silicon it scatters your data across memory and the CPU stalls chasing pointers. An array looks dumber. Copy the whole thing to insert? Yet it sits in cache, moves in a straight line, and destroys the "smarter" structure in practice. His point that stings: your Big-O intuition was taught on a machine that no longer exists. The cache, not the algorithm, decides who wins now. And it's the AI era's silent tax too. Oceans of rented compute stalling on cache misses because the "clean" structure never touches memory the way the chip wants. You thought choosing a data structure was about theory. This is the man who builds the compiler saying it's about how memory actually moves. Save this. You'll question every linked list you ever reach for ↓

slash1s

55,761 görüntüleme • 1 ay önce