The one I was talking about would be cards from 2 to 12 representing both dice, one card for 2 and 12, two cards for 3 and 11, and so on. So you would need six cards to represent 7, but your point still prevails.
Be a little kind, won't you? It's always an occasion of sorrow to see someone turn his face from the world, and certainly I'm not prepared to assume myself immune to the same pitiable fate.
Never underestimate the shamefully desperate desire of those who grew up being stuffed into lockers to find whom they may themselves stuff into other, presumably smaller and more easily closing, lockers of their own.
Lol. I don't think the people that buy/sell NVDA even know what this is about.
This is a highly specialized linear algebra library to do general matrix-matrix multiplications for low-precision floats (FP8, vs FP32 (float), FP64 (double)) while maintaining accuracy.
It would have to be "REMOTE (US EXCEPT CA, CO, CT, MD, NV, NY, RI, WA)" unless there is something different about the WA transparency law that I don't know.
> reduces corporate power enough we might actually be able to get some trustworthy people into office
If what did? The history of expropriation is one way: the rulers and their families accumulate the jewels. OpenAI gets fined and given to Biden, Meta gets fined and given to Trump. The economy gets divided by the people who have the power to seize.
> In philosophy, a razor is a principle or rule of thumb that allows one to eliminate ("shave off") unlikely explanations for a phenomenon, or avoid unnecessary actions.
I'd say maybe the rule here allows one to eliminate the useless parts of an explanation, thus simplifying the process of coming up with explanations for complicated things.
A razor is when you have a large number of potential explanations and want a simple rule to check if it worth further scrutiny. Occam's razor is the most famous, it says that the simplest explanation is probably the right one, Hanlon's razor is another one, it says that stupidity is more likely than malice.
Here it is just a guideline "don't dumb down", but there is no simple rule that tells if a message is dumb or not. For example, in the topic of science, a razor could be "numbers without error bars are dumb". It only takes a few seconds to see or not to see error bars, so you can quickly drop the ones without to focus on those that have.
How so? If you have a pile of explanations, you now have a way of dividing up the pile into ones you may want to keep and ones you should discard. That way is by asking whether an expert would understand what you're talking about.
Occam's Razor takes a pile of explanations and discards all those with extra assumptions or components. Feynman's discards all those that don't convey anything to an expert. I once told my son that any good story involves surprise, a relatable character, and some mention of a giant talking carrot. All of those are razors. (Some razors might be more useful than others...)
