The people who still use Windows yet complain about this are quite confusing to me. There's been every indication that it will keep going like this for years now, and the cost of switching is just not that high. If you're still riding that train it's time to just embrace it.
For you. I mean, obviously it's still high enough that they're not switching. Beside the point, I'm bouncing between the different OSes at home and work, and honestly they're all deeply broken in different ways that require significant effort to make the best of it. I get people hate ads, so Windows is at the bottom of the list, but honestly I could care less for that additional 2 min of initial tweak when I'm spending half a day doing the setup anyway.
On Notepad stopping being raw text only, the main issue to me would be the safety it provided. Being first party meant never having to care about security (e.g. the company getting bought by a random malware vendor) or availability.
>The people who still use Windows yet complain about this are quite confusing to me.
What confuses me is how people think theres anything close to an alternative for corporate environments.
Windows isnt Windows. Windows is the best supported OS by the Microsoft cloud stack. They get away with this sort of nonsense because large corps have nowhere to go.
>the cost of switching is just not that high.
Lol, lmao even. The cost of switching one laptop to linux is quite low. The cost of taking an enterprise using Microsoft everywhere to linux is something else entirely.
> They get away with this sort of nonsense because large corps have nowhere to go.
I think a lot of large corps could function quite well with a model like: (a) allow employees to choose a MacBook instead; (b) use various macOS enterprise management tools (such as Jamf); (c) use Windows virtual desktops for Windows-only apps
The main reason many don’t isn’t because this strategy won’t work - it is because it would cost them significantly more than a Windows-only strategy. So they won’t do it, or they will but limit it to only certain job functions (engineering, executives, sales) where the business benefit is clearer
The problem with adding Linux to the mix, is the variability of hardware and distributions can make it a lot more complex to manage, compared to a Windows-only or Windows+Mac fleet. And you also need people in your IT org with the skillset to handle it
>The main reason many don’t isn’t because this strategy won’t work - it is because it would cost them significantly more than a Windows-only strategy. So they won’t do it, or they will but limit it to only certain job functions (engineering, executives, sales) where the business benefit is clearer
Yeah VDI is getting close to universal adoption, but security is always where things come back to. Eventually an end user is going to have something sensitive on their macbook, and they will have fallen through some sort of compliance gap.
Its easier from a compliance standpoint to control everything permissible.
I’m not sure why you were downvoted. I have to use Windows for work. The barrier to entry is simply lower for many system administrators and users alike. The homogeneity of a Windows rollout is extremely attractive. You are going to have a hard sell getting your accounting team and receptionist onto Linux. Your developers will complain and make do. I love complaining about Windows!
Oh, my sweet summer child. Please realise that such blanket statements like that are profoundly ignorant. (Note: I'm running an entirely Windows-free household. )
The problem is changing the way companies build themselves up to work. Business logic. Even for medium-sized companies (100-1000 heads), what you're proposing is paying scores of business analysts months (years?) worth of time to review business processes, before you even get the teams of IT people to start making the switchover.
And that's not even taking into considering the fact that many large software packages simply do not work under nix and there is no realistic alternative. Basically every industry related to engineering simply cannot switch.
The processes and systems required to build Big Things in the real world are gargantuan and terrifying and sickening. Companies spend hundreds of millions every year putting up with Microsoft's bullshit because there is no alternative.
Interesting. I'll have to give it a try. If I understand your suggestion, you're saying that rather than doing 2 lookups for logs, then an addition, and then another lookup to exp back, we could just precompute the whole thing for any 2 arguments and do one lookup in a table? It's worth noting that some of the operations already use the mul_log format which just does an add with wraparound, but I could certainly see the big table option helping when we truly need field.mul
As far as LDPC, I'd love to, but I need to get a better understanding of them first. I'll probably go for Turbo next just because conceptually they feel closer to the convolutional codes I have already. But time willing, it'd be fun to do both.
You could certainly call this crate through a shim in goestools but you'd have to add a Rust dependency. But you could also rewrite goestools in Rust, though it wouldn't be a small undertaking. This crate does have everything you'd need for the forward error correction, at least.
I used the benchmarking binaries that ship with libfec. My own crate has a libfec-compatible C shim, so I can link the benchmark against the Rust crate. The benchmark itself reports time spent for a given number of iterations, so the throughput can just be extrapolated from that.
"How do you find the speed of the Rust version of your FEC vs, the C version?"
translates from "Australian" to "English" as:
"What is the speed of the Rust version of your FEC vs, the C version?
Though it was interesting to know how you do it. I'm interested in the speed, as I once looked into using Rust for a signal processing project, but ultimately went with C++ because the team wasn't familiar with Rust. At the time, it seemed to me that Rust had the potential to go faster.
tldr: My library matches or beats libfec's SSE2 assembly for convolutional codes and pretty steadily beats it in Reed-Solomon. For the convolutional codes, my crate is using a generic, templated decoder rather than hand-written assembly, so it was nice to see that I could match the performance.
The models would have to get significantly better for this to help, though. Unedited LLM dialog is quite bad. Though, I wouldn't put it past AAAs to try anyway.
I read these stories and I can never figure out how people are managing to use these $200 plans. If I really go full bore, I can sometimes max out the $20 plan. Even then, it already produces more code than I can reasonably review and merge.
I've maxed out my chatgpt plus the first week and that include an smf forum rewrite. Trying my best I haven't been able to max out again. Things are setup that you need to max out your 5 hour window multiple times which becomes a job in itself.
At work I'm struggling to keep my claude bill around $500.
Exactly this, it’s the loops. The first 50k tokens of a task is by far the most valuable. But when left to run independently, the agent will consume millions of tokens of error messages from running tests and discovering a minor syntax error, a missing import, a method call with incorrect parameters, etc. Then it will write some helper program while debugging the main task and get into the same loop debugging minor errors in the helper. From my experience, the vast majority of tokens consumed by Claude Code on totally independent tasks are consumed fixing minor mistakes it just made.
I can't even keep up with the chain of thought needed to manage a single session, let alone review. I typically never exceed 30% of a 5x plan. Fable took me almost to the limits, but not Opus. Claude design hits things harder, but still not to saturation.
do you do it for a job (8 hours a day)? and do you work in large, mature projects (more than 5 team members)? A big part of it is dealing with frankly terrible architecture and 15 people's different ideas of how things should work (and the spam theyve been able to do with their own agents makes this worse)
What? Most (all?) platforms let you opt out of this, and you receive payment when your shares are borrowed. And shares are fungible, how would it matter if one share is borrowed by 10 people or by none?
“What? Most (all?) platforms let you opt out of this.”
Genuinely didn’t know that appreciate you pointing it out.
“Shares are fungible, how would it matter if one share is borrowed by 10 people or by none?”
Lets hedge funds create disproportionate downward pressure
Why mess with all this shit unless you're trying to retroactively justify a really heavy bag you're holding.
If you invest in good companies making good profits you don't have to care about any of this stuff. Free yourself, you have nothing to lose but your bags
You literally produced 0 arguments. Market maker is pretty irrelevant to the situation influential institution who's goals are aligned with other major players having pull on DTCC actions would be more relevant. I again have not dug in too much as was not relevant to me but looked fairly suspicious. I have direct knowledge of relevant situation where investment bank arm or top 5 US bank had Knight Capital Group type moment. They had enough pull to make all transactions not clear and get unwound so exerting that type of influence would not surprise me.
