Kanban operates on a known product with a known manufacturing process. Many software products are undefined even at time of public release, and evolve continuously. "Deciding what to build", while explicitly highlighted in the agile software manifesto, is the weak link.
Put another way, lean manufacturing improves metrics for the margianal unit of goods. No one, customer or dev, is interested in the margianal unit of software.
I would guess not. An important feature of compilers is that they are guaranteed to emit code with certain properties in response to specific inputs (memory safety guarantees, asymptotic performance, calling convention, etc.). If they don't do that, you can file a bug report.
You cannot file a bug report against an LLM that it produced an unexpected output, because there is no expected output; The core feature of an LLM is that neither you nor the LLM developer knows what it will output for a wide range of inputs. I think there are a wide range of applications for which LLMs core value proposition of "no-one knows a priori what this tool will emit" is disqualifying.
Audio and video are encoded, compressed, and transmitted differently because of how humans audially/visually decode them. We fare better dropping late video frames than degrading their quality, where the opposite is true for audio. As we transmit the two as separate, asynchronous signals, it's unsurprising that they are frequently out of sync.
This, but also at the physical devices level, there will be different delays. For example my video stream goes to the projector with some specific frame delay. But the audio goes over bluetooth to a speaker, which introduces its own per-packet delay. The source tries to balance those as much as possible, but the result will differ slightly each time they're turned on.
If you're concerned that you've made/found something dangerous, the most appropriate solution is to disclose it to people who can evaluate how dangerous it is, and work with them on next steps.
In your hypothetical, I would observe that Paul Christiano is close to being the person in the US government in charge of evaluating AI danger, and that he is currently involved with https://www.alignment.org/ who specifically consider issues of AI risk. I would humbly contact them and ask for guidance on how to proceed.
Be prepared to be dismissed as a crank. Remember that avoiding harm to others is more important than proving that you're right.
I'm quite certain that the hypothetical person in this scenario is very grateful for the actionable steps you've provided, along with the cautionary words. Lots of hypothetical gratitude being sent your way.
Not significantly. Humans are made up of matter already available at the earth's surface, so population increase alone effects neither the amount nor distribution of the earth's mass.
Technological civilization might at some point meaningfully shift the distribution of mass, but I don't think it has up to this point.
“Humans are responsible for some of the wobble in Earth's spin.
Since 1899, the Earth's axis of spin has shifted about 34 feet (10.5 meters). Now, research quantifies the reasons why and finds that a third is due to melting ice and rising sea levels, particularly in Greenland—placing the blame on the doorstep of anthropogenic climate change.”
You ought to begin by getting really good citations on each of those figures. If you or the source you got them from had any confusion about how to arrive at those numbers, any results you get from them will likely be meaningless.
Hopefully in doing so you will start to notice the missing pieces of info and can ask more targeted questions to get better results.
Huh? I took a class on geoengineering taught by a woman who'd done work on ocean iron fertilization and a man who'd done work on sulfate aerosol injection.
Also the average "Ask HN" gets zero replies. I tend to "lean in" and answer a lot of them but that might say something more negative than positive about be but you can tell I am karma motivated by my score and I think I deserve more upvotes for this than I get.
I'll add to the other person's comment in that you probably won't find just one input for your figures but you'll find many of them.
You might find one paper that says that an acre of wetland holds 10 tons of CO2 and another that says it holds 15 tons of CO2. (I just made those numbers up)
In fact it probably depends on the wetland and if you spent a lot of time looking at papers you might find 20-30 numbers. All this is fine because this reflects real uncertainty and you're either going to say "the average is 12 tons with a standard deviation of 3 tons" or you're going to repeat your analysis with a wide range of inputs to do your sensitivity analysis that way.
----
My take is that soil carbon is like "dark matter" in that it is really mysterious. If anything is fraught it is soil carbon because Bayer sure wishes farmers quit plowing to control weeds and just spraying a lot of glyphosate everywhere which might be good for the carbon balance but the glyphosate almost certainly has unwanted side effects.
(Insert joke about how you wouldn't do that if you actually respected me.)
FYI, I'm an environmental studies major. I'm aware that in the real world, figures vary. A lot.
There are lots of smart people on HN. I'm hoping to not have to reinvent the wheel. At least not too much.
If anyone can point me to some formulas that already exist for what gets used to calculate climate change targets, I would appreciate it. I'm excited to learn that wetlands loss potentially accounts for a substantial part of the problem and is largely overlooked.
I would like to begin running some numbers on this dreary Saturday rather than just stick with "It's a whole lot!"
Not so sure what meaning of UFO you have other than "Unidentified Flying Object" which I am used to describe "intelligent aliens who have a physical presence on or near Earth" (don't believe in them) vs. "intelligent aliens who live somewhere else" (do believe in them)
Of course Jacques Valee thought it was more likely they were time or dimension travelers
This is true, and there are many strategies that hedge funds use besides just buy(long) or sell(short) the market. High frequency trading is one, another is spread trading. With spread trading, you take 2 stocks that are highly correlated to each other, let's say Ford and GM. You buy one, and you short the other. You are technically market neutral, so if they both go up or down, you are still break even. When the 2 stocks start trading closer or further apart by a couple of standard deviations, you can put on a trade that bets the 2 stocks will revert to the mean of their historic ratios.
People are more impressed by things they cannot do than by things they can. The vast majority of people in the industrialized world are functional writers; the portion who are competent performers is much lower.
While professional writers may be quite skilled, the gap between what they do and what the median adult does seems traversal. The psychic distance is much larger for other creative endeavors.
Put another way, lean manufacturing improves metrics for the margianal unit of goods. No one, customer or dev, is interested in the margianal unit of software.
reply