the word insisting shows your arrogance. Insisting on something implies one has a choice. Those who are sticking with X11 are doing so because wayland just does not do what they need.

when I need to type a dangerous command, i prepend it with #, so it’s just a comment.

Only when I’m really sure do i go back to the start of the line and remove the #

25% of users sticking with X11 is a very significant amount. which roughly means wayland does not account for the needs of a quarter of its (hostilely taken over, now) userbase

“i don’t care about that. Hhit was working and now it’s not” - the users

i live in malta and got an xev yoyo amonths ago today. It’s my daily driver.

i bought an original cartridge and played it on the vcs i iherited from dad

overactors trying to out-overact each other. Love it!

i still enjoyed the crap out of it. Sometimes zoning out and just running around collecting stuff is just what I need.

he was forced to release it quickly to coincide with the film’s release. For comparison, it used to take a team of devs a couple of months to make a game. He had 6 weeks.

Also, if you read the manual, this essentially never happened to you. It was easy to avoid.

You also needed to read the manual. The game did stuff that other games at the time didn’t, for example, a contextual button. You couldn’t know what would happen unless you read the manual to learn what the icons meant. A lot of people never did and so decided that the game was bad.

when climbing out of the pit, it was very easy to immediately fall back down (due to the pixel-perfect collision detection).

And here is an excerpt from the manual: “Even experienced extraterrestrials sometimes have difficulty levitating out of wells. Start to levitate E.T. by first pressing the controller button and then pushing your Joystick forward. E.T.'s neck will stretch as he rises to the top of the well (see E.T. levitating in Figure 1). Just when he reaches the top of the well and the scene changes to the planet surface (see Figure 2), STOP! Do not try to keep moving up. Instead, move your Joystick right, left, or to the bottom. Do not try to move up, or E.T. might fall back into the well.”

it was actually way ahead of its time, for a game. One small bug (the workaround for which was in the manual) ruined its reputation. But I genuinely think it was a good game.

Also written in 6 weeks by one guy. Freaking impressive

I was 14 years old, and I got the 128meg stick for free. Beggars can’t be choosers haha

i started using linux on a single core pentium 4 with 384M of ram

I’m partial to this one

you don’t check your brain’s file system regularly?

you wouldn’t be “freezing” anything. Each possible combination of input tokens maps to one output probability distribution. Those values are fixed and they are what they are whether you compute them or not, or when, or how many times.

Now you can either precompute the whole table (theory), or somehow compute each cell value every time you need it (practice). In either case, the resulting function (table lookup vs matrix multiplications) takes in only the context, and produces a probability distribution. And the mapping they generate is the same for all possible inputs. So they are the same function. A function can be implemented in multiple ways, but the implementation is not the function itself. The only difference between the two in this case is the implementation, or more specifically, whether you precompute a table or not. But the function itself is the same.

You are somehow saying that your choice of implementation for that function will somehow change the function. Which means that according to you, if you do precompute (or possibly cache, full precomputation is just an infinite cache size) individual mappings it somehow magically makes some magic happen that gains some deep insight. It does not. We have already established that it is the same function.

the fact that it is a fixed function, that only depends on the context AND there are a finite number of discrete inputs possible does make it equivalent to a huge, finite table. You really don’t want this to be true. And again, you are describing training. Once training finishes anything you said does not apply anymore and you are left with fixed, unchanging matrices, which in turn means that it is a mathematical function of the context (by the mathematical definition of “function”. stateless, and deterministic) which also has the property that the set of all possible inputs is finite. So the set of possible outputs is also finite and strictly smaller or equal to the size of the set of possible inputs. This makes the actual function that the tokens are passed through CAN be precomputed in full (in theory) making it equivalent to a conventional state transition table.

This is true whether you’d like it to or not. The training process builds a markov chain.

no, not any computer program is a markov chain. only those that depend only on the current state and ignore prior history. Which fits llms perfectly.

Those sophisticated methods you talk about are just a couple of matrix multiplications. Those matrices are what’s learned. Anything sophisticated happens during training. Inference is so not sophisticated. sjusm mulmiplying some matrices together and taking the rightmost column of the result. That’s it.

yes you can enumerate all inputs, because thoy are not continuous. You just raise the finite number of different tokens to the finite context size and that’s exactly the size of the table you would need. finite*finite=finite. You are describing training, i.e how the function is geerated. Yes correlations are found there and encoded in a couple of matrices. Those matrices are what are used in the llm and none of what you said applies. Inference is purely a markov chain by definition.

i let the wife do it. She enjoys it, I don’t