They mentioned the timeframe as 2006-2016. I think they were purposely omitting the recent gains to highlight their point about the unexpectedness of NVDA's stock jump.
Exactly. NVDA wasn't clearly a winner until the past 2 years or so. From Jan 1 2016 to Jan 1 2020, it grew by 8x -- certainly impressive (70% year-over-year growth). From there until the ChatGPT announcement in Nov 2022, it maybe doubled once more (peaked from the crypto-induced GPU shortage, then was falling). But from there on out, in the course of 20 months, it's skyrocketed 8x (an absurd 250% year-over-year growth).
So sure, if you correctly guessed that ChatGPT was going to spur a ton of interest in Nvidia hardware, then you could have made lots of money in not very much time. Meanwhile, to me at the time, this seemed like an incremental release on top of OpenAI's prior GPT models, none of which were earth-shattering paradigm shifts. I certainly did not anticipate the surge of all these AI startups that wanted to build on top of it, or the industry shift to try to use GenAI to solve all of the world's problems.
--
If I got the math wrong anywhere, it was the magnitude of investing that $1k in BTC back in 2011 -- I'd have $30-35 million to my name, minus taxes for long term capital gains. Even then, it wouldn't have been clear to me at what point I should sell -- mid 2017, when that investment would have grown to $1 million? After it peaked in December 2017 at $20k, it lost 80% of its value -- what reason would I have to expect that it'd grow to more than 3x its previous peak, just a couple years later?
The bet I described was that GPUs would be more and more relevant in modern computation, and that Nvidia sells the best GPUs and the best toolkit for writing general purpose code on GPUs. GPT is just the latest on a large chain of applications.
Sure they do, and the moderators, but it's getting worse.
Quite a few of the sub-reddits I liked went to shit over the summer when they made the API changes. The replacement mods aren't doing the same quality work as the original mods. What were nice sub-reddits previously are memified and gamified garbage now.
They have human moderators who by and large care about maintaining the quality of the communities they moderate, and give those moderators buttons to delete posts and ban users.
Although FWIW, reddit seems to have it's fair share of astroturfing (at least, in my own anecdotal experience), it's just comparatively less egregious than rawdogging the google results.
Although the title matches the article title, it may be nice to use "Salary" instead of pay here. That would reduce confusion. I thought that this article was about "Google Pay" the product.
We have nice bread in the US. Sometimes people outside the US don't realize the massive amount of choice we have here. There are like 50 different kinds of bread in the supermarket I go to. Unbleached organic flour is also readily available if you'd like to make your own bread. There's 10s-100s of types of fresh vegetables probably. There are organic variations of almost every available vegetable and herb as well. We have pretty good regulations around food labelling, so you can find healthy things. You just have to be vigilant. It isn't that hard to eat a diverse, healthy diet, once you know what to avoid. Bad things to eat do exist here though, and they're quite addictive. I think our car centric culture lends to eating fast, processed things. You can eat a full diet of rice, beans, vegetables, and meats very cheaply in the US. It gets about 2x more expensive when you go for organic foods, though. It's still significantly cheaper to eat a healthy diet of all unprocessed organic foods than it is to regularly eat at restaurants.
Before I had an interest in researching a healthy diet I made poor dietary choices. I don't think the good choices are always immediately obvious. I also spent about 3x my normal time in the supermarket when I first started eating healthy. If you live somewhere with few grocery options you may have to drive pretty far. When I was a kid we commuted 40-50 miles (1hr drive) to go to a better, cheaper grocery store.
I'm not sure I put much stock in the "organic" label which I mostly won't pay a premium to buy over the alternative. Though I do mostly buy fresh ingredients.
But to your original point, yeah, there are a ton of bread choices in a typical supermarket and, with few exceptions, I never buy the plastic-wrapped from the major manufacturers and buy something made in-house or otherwise locally or one of the "craft" breads from some other local company.
(The price difference isn't even that huge. It looks like a loaf of Wonder bread (stereotypical American white bread) at my local supermarket is $3.50 while better breads aren't necessarily more than $5--which isn't nothing for someone pinching pennies but isn't a huge premium either.
In your original comment, you seem to advocate for banning groomed lawns, which is different than lifting a mandate in grooming lawns. Perhaps the mandate for groomed lawns could be removed without banning them? I wonder how effective that would be, knowing how ingrained in many cultures a "well-kept" yard is.
True. My words were uncareful and flippant response to outlawing one thing with the proposal to outlaw another.
My end goal and what were said are close but not directly in line. I don’t really care if a few crazies manicure their lawn, but it shouldn’t be a forced standard. Everyone doing it is terrible for the environment.
Any communities where you have a critical mass of people with spare fucks to give about their neighbors' power equipment is already rich enough that most people are going to have landscaping far in excess of the bare minimum because they can afford it and they like it or feel obligated by social norms to do it, basically the same bunch of reasons you find 2-child households owning 4Runners and people who barely cook owning a bunch of fancy cookware.
Lifting a ban won't do squat because it only affects a tiny minority. The only reason the laws and HOA rules even exist in the first place is because most people in the effected jurisdictions already kept a lawn and so nobody cared to raise any opposition when the jackbooted types wanted to force the few nonconformists to conform.
Why would you say duped? Is there some major problem with mongoDB? The way you've stated this makes it sound like there's some common knowledge I should be aware of.
Yes, plenty. It's mostly useless for relational data.
Nowadays that's clear on the documentation and you won't get loud people proclaiming that it's useful there, but there was a time when both of those were false.
I see so reference data that you want included in an object for which you're willing to pay the performance overhead of a join rather than denormalize across many object representions in your database. This model has some downsides when it comes to reasoning about scale and denormalization isn't necessarily a consistency quagmire when you can use transactions to keep multiple objects in sync. More generally you can absolutely do this types of queries in modern data systems whether or not they are "relational".
Yeah, I guess I should retract my claim that people aren't claiming it's useful for relational data anymore.
Anyway, I was focusing on invariants. But yes, destroying your performance every time you need an atomic change or joining values also makes it bad for relational data.
That doesn't mean it's useless, just that it should not be used on the most common problem people have with their data.
Mongodb was a lot easier to manipulate json in for a while vs postgres, but once postgres got json path support it evened out a bit imo.
Say you have some json and nested in it somewhere is an array of objects, and you want to just map over that and update those objects. I was writing a migration to do that in Postgres <11 once and it was not fun to try and figure out how to do it.
I haven't worked with Mongo in years though, so no clue how it has evolved since like 2015.
Unfortunately that benchmark was very inaccurate. They tuned the postgres configuration and didn't tune MongoDB. They also used an unsupported, experimental driver without connection pooling on MongoDB.
For example: they measured Query B execution time on postgres: 41m3s, mongodb: 1h13m3s. When MongoDB measured Query B with a supported driver, the execution time was only 3m30s more than 10x faster than postgres!
Good engineers can come from anywhere, just like bad engineers.
Engineers leave a company for three reasons:
Lack of career development opportunities -- Not being able to move up or grow in the way you want to. This is a sign of bad management.
Failure to perform -- Management and said engineer couldn't see eye to eye for whatever reason. Incompetent engineer or (worse) incompetent management.
Boredom -- Work has become stagnant, stale, or otherwise boring and management can't find a better place, or there's limited opportunities internally for someone to find new interesting things to do.
Only one of those reasons is truly something that should raise concern. Bad management makes good engineers leave.
Amazon's core problem isn't the engineering. The engineers there are sharp as tacks, in my experience. I am frequently in awe of the people I work with for their technical acumen in so many different fields.
But management training at Amazon is lacking. Managers are often ICs that have been drafted into management with little to no formal training and the amount of training that they get is often from their subordinates who were previously their peers. What little training outside "Just figure it out" seems to be mandatory HR-related content on how to handle the HR systems. That's it.
I had a junior system admin working for me in ~2012. He wasn't bad, in general, but he was extremely dishonest. We had a failure in a raid volume and volunteered to do the work, got trashed at a trivia night and then completely destroyed the system before passing out. This was one of many, many issues with him that were all documented.
I have another friend, a woman, who had five years experience before working at Uber and several years there. She applied for a senior position but was denied. However, they did put her on the hiring committee for it.
My friend knew what happened with my junior system admin (and new him personally). The first thing she noticed was that his resume was completely made up- he gave himself a senior devops title, lied about his previous internship being a job, and otherwise grossly overstated his skillset. My friend on the hiring committee pointed all of this out, and said a simple reference check would resolve this.
He was hired for the senior position, she was treated like crap. He was later fired for stalking and sexually harassing a coworker. The hiring process at that company is just ridiculous.
Interesting. I find that Google is retirement home engineers. Netflix is top quality if they didn't join first in 2020. Meta is same as you. Microsoft is questionable.
But the Amazon thing is surprising a little. Some of the guys I've spoken to from there were fantastic!
I guess I could be a terrible judge. Or I could be over-indexing on the guys I've encountered. Or there's some team effect here that I'm missing.
I've seen a somewhat surprising amount of bad from Apple FWIW. Uber is kind of this weird snowflake because it grew its eng org way too fast then shed a ton of people in their layoffs.
In my observation, the really good people either climb through the ranks or they leave for non-unicorns (either for some technically interesting / otherwise fulfilling niche like edtech etc, or to create a startup/company of their own)
The Engineers in Defence look at all other Engineers like this. FAANG to me means your a sheeple who trades off dignity for aspiration. A Defence contractor just means your smart and well meaning and get unlimited budgets but ultimately your just a pawn in a large bureaucratic nightmare paid to keep your secrets secret along the way loosing all sense of self and freedom.
