Nearly every languages’ every core packages are written in C. And almost every higher packages have some amount of C. That doesn’t mean we get to say every program is done in C. And if you keep drilling down, everything is just machine lang. And certainly still disproves the OPs point of inefficient python.

Saying it’s all done in C hardly even true. Just look at xformers library on GitHub. Only 2.7% of the code is C. And the entire library is about optimizing.

Additionally, vast majority of the great leaps in ML efficiency changes hasn’t come from better programmed packages, though they too certainly made big strides. How we calculate itself has changed. That’s what makes the greatest optimizations in anything. It doesn’t matter what language it is, doing a loop 1000000 times to add 1 is going to be worse performance than just doing 1 multiplied by 1000000. How we calculate, what we choose to give up (such as determinism in some implementations if SDP attention changes) and such makes big differences.

Optimizations also has to be done by someone. Whether that be data scientists or otherwise. The ability for higher level languages to enable them to do so like you say also makes a big difference. If all the programmers had to optimize in C only, we’d still be way behind where we are now in performance.

Just swapping languages doesn’t yield better results like OP is implying.

It makes the best example because there’s that much more money to be saved.

What makes you think python is in optimized and bloated?

Did you know vast majority of AI development happening right now is on python? The thing that literally consumes billions of dollars of even-beefier-than-4090 GPUs like A100. Don’t you think if they could do this more efficiently and better on C or assembly, they would do it? They would save billions.

Reality is that it makes no benefit to move away from python to lower level languages. There is no poor optimization you seek. In fact if they were to try this in lower level languages, they’ll take even longer to optimize and yield worse results.

If people gave me money, I’d just pay bills and put it into savings.

Wrap it up first.

This is amateur advice. You can’t lift with your knees for a bulky and squishy item like a body if it’s in front of you. If you attempt this, you’ll notice that your knees get in the way and you need to reach out a lot and can’t lift as a result. Body isn’t like gym weights on a perfectly nice to grab steel bar.

If you don’t actually have to lift at all, just drag it. And if you do, use a fireman’s carry which is designed for carrying unconscious hoomans.

Thanks!

I haven’t figured out what it means.

Hey, don’t give them ideas.

Shoes have too much of a usage difference to go off of Amazon reviews. You don’t know their lifestyle. For anyone that runs a marathon or similar exercise to have shoes that last over 3 months would be a miracle. Any typical big brands like adidas, Nike, etc lasts me many years if I only wear them lightly, like if I take the car. But if I exercise outside in them, they’re not gonna last half a year. It’s just usage dependent.

Occasionally you might get a bad batch and glue comes off or stitching rips. That’s inevitable bad luck. Though you can just get gorilla glue and glue it back yourself.

Dress shoes is a different ball game. Get stitched build/welted, not glued on. That’s usually a safe choice though expensive. These can be repaired and resoled, so you could wear them for 10+ yrs. Though getting bored of them might be an issue.

Light weight shoes are also obviously going to not last. Like hey dude shoes. They’re literally a single sheet of cloth. Easy to wash, but not going to last.

Also stop trying to buy shoes from Amazon. Go wear shit and try them on.

The most acid trippy book that survived to the current version! Bunch of books were removed over the ages when they thought it was too crazy.

You should check out book of Enoch for extra trippy. It’s largely about fallen angels and many batshit crazy games and novels spawn based off of it, like Xenogears (which is awesome but also considered the most convoluted story JRPG ever).

Just get a rice cooker. It’s worth it.

This comment seems to have a negative understanding of how accounting and taxes work.

You’d lose money if you do this. And your tax rate is unaffected since revenue and cost go up identically.

Reality has all of them. But the quality competitors are expensive and this keeps it to a niche audience. Then you have the race to the bottom competition that does business in quantity over quality and likely the one you grab since you’re also likely to value price over everything else.

I’ve seen enough combat footage of real people dying to real bullets to know that they do just drop down.

Free market per wikipedia definition:

In economics, a free market is an economic system in which the prices of goods and services are determined by supply and demand expressed by sellers and buyers. Such markets, as modeled, operate without the intervention of government or any other external authority. Proponents of the free market as a normative ideal contrast it with a regulated market, in which a government intervenes in supply and demand by means of various methods such as taxes or regulations. In an idealized free market economy, prices for goods and services are set solely by the bids and offers of the participants.

It’s not equal to lawlessness, but it is lawless within market. These two are not equivalent. Still, that is not to say it is without order. Free market is entirely an economic system and not a social system nor any other plethora of systems in a country. So the topic of those other systems are simply out of the scope. Therefore, laws can exist in the society.

Robbery is part of the free market. Along with whatever happens like tornadoes, fire, murder, etc. Including the cost to hire your own security if necessary. Police is against free market because it is an intervention by the government. There does exist a grey area like if a robber becomes a gang and becomes a businesses’ external authority. Then they are impeding on the free market.

This is how free market is defined. So, to reiterate, if there exists any body that is redistributing your profit, it is against free market.

Communism is not a share of labour profits. Communism is more than just an economic system. It’s also a social and philosophical one. But assuming we’re only talking about the economic parts, it still doesn’t mean to share labour profits. Quoting wikipedia once again:

Communism is […] a socioeconomic order centered around common ownership of the means of production, distribution, and exchange that allocates products to everyone in the society based on need.

The keyword here is common ownership. Everyone owns the entire chain of production together. Your view on the concept of profit even existing is out of line with communism. From wikipedia:

Monetary relations in the form of exchange-value, profit, interest, and wage labor would not operate and apply to Marxist socialism.

If we go with Marxist version, you already own everything together and nothing has monetary value. You can’t have profit because there is no such thing as selling, and there is no money, so you can’t profit on anything. The concept of the profit sharing would be anti-communism.

If we go with Lenin’s view on state capitalism (which he said is not communism, but may be a necessary transition state to communism) where we accept that things have value but that only the state engages in capitalism, people still wouldn’t get profit. Because people still wouldn’t have money. You would simply have better status in livelihood in hopes that the state has used that money well for the benefit of the people.

Communism is not profit sharing, its very core purpose is to remove the concept of profit.

Sharing of labour profits at a nation level is called “labour share”. And at a company level, it is called “co-operative business”.

I think the person you’re replying to is trying to say that:

It’s NOT just pressing a button for the people making it

But to the outsider that look at it thinks it’s just pressing a button because they only see the final ending.

Complete communism can’t have free market by definition. And complete free market can’t have laws to redistribute profits. That is the definition of these words. The theoretical maximum definition obviously differs from actual application as nothing is applied in a complete sense.

Revolutions and socioeconomic systems aren’t human nature. Along with all your above examples. My entire point is that there is a difference between individual human nature and the societal nature. Your point of human nature wanting feudalism is opposite of my point. I’m stating that EVERY SINGLE social construct you can imagine or think of is not of the individual nature but the societal one, including feudalism. And that less of construct you require is closer to human nature. More construct required is further away from human nature. That is, communism requires greater management by the society than the free market to exist, and thus is further from human nature. You may choose to define “human nature” differently, but this is how I see it.

Yes, it’s stupid. But it’s so ridiculously commonplace when talking about animals exerting force of any kind, especially “bite force”. Even in scientific literature to nat geo. They seem to actually mean force but I have no idea why they use the word pressure. I’ve seen some supposed experts on tv even interchangeably use words force and pressure in the same sentence.

I hate it.

That interpretation seems more like your own opinion rather than the opinion of those who actually say that. I see little causal relevance between charity and trickle down economics.

You have to think more impartially to understand why these two train of thoughts have little to no intersection. Do you know why these people you’re characterizing are saying “people are generous”? Because like you said, greed is simultaneously said. If you get it, you’ll see it’s not about trickle down.

Additionally the general right wing argument for the structuring society around volunteer charity over forced social care is that volunteer format is enough from the view of the giver, not that they will get enough from the view of the receiver. If that happens to be nothing, they’re saying so be it. If that happens to be a lot, that’s great. The argument is also about having the option to choose where they help rather than a government body choosing it… Though I don’t think individuals could possibly know though to choose well.

I am not making an argument for the right or left. I’m just fixing the polarized viewpoint of the other party.