That may be related or not to the article but Feynman for example wrote a lot about the miracles that the brain can do in the small moments between being awake and being asleep. He thought it unlocked some extra juice and tried to force himself to stay in that moment longer and then to wake up to take notes. You should look into it.
Yes for sure, even if we stopped today the amount of almost free software that can be produced with current models will improve the world by a lot as the knowledge of how to use it propagates over more people.
The problem with this argument is that it shouldn’t take years for these developments to come about anymore. The world is incredibly interconnected via the web - it also explains ChatGPT’s explosive growth. To claim people aren’t trying would be comical - where there’s an opportunity to generate economic profits competition for it will be intense.
The best we have external to model producers is cursor and openclaw lmao. The gap between hype and reality is disgustingly large.
I don't think you're correct. Just think of things like using any computer system in your business, like a spreadsheet to keep track of inventory. From the moment software for spreadsheets became available to most businesses using them, how many years went by? I knew businesses that should have computerized processes that didn't in like 2010. So if you just apply this knowledge that even basic good things take a long time to truly spread and permeate, even if the tech stopped advancing today, the current benefits will take years to fully materialize.
There's many "little software tools for X" that now any business owner with a few hours can create. I know many people improving their small businesses for free like this and helped a few friends making their lives easier with "small software" assisted by AI. People that would never afford 20 SaaS products for this and that, and would never go through the hassle of hiring someone to do it custom. And they will be able to do this even if the bubble pops and all the labs go bankrupt by just setting up a little gpu with a local model.
I dunno about hype, I just know I have several friends running self made custom software "in production" for small things and almost no help for their classic "offline" businesses.
Last I checked they weren't really any quieter than their competitors at the same airflow and pressure (which is a little subjective because your curve will never match perfectly). They do have a really low number on their specs because they have a really low max RPM, but that's not really relevant when you can just lower the speed of other fans.
They're still really good fans, but a lot of this is just marketing.
At max power the Noctua NF-A12x25 has 56 CFM and 2.3 mmAq for 31dBA [1]. At 70% the Artic A12 Pro is 56 CFM, 4.3 mmAq, and 31dBA [2]. At 60% the Asus ProArt PF120 is 61 CFM, 2.6 mmAq, and 30 dBA [3].
Note that the ProArt is a bit thicker (25 vs 30 mm) and all these dBA numbers are almost certainly unobstructed airflow. The Noctua is certainly good, but it's literally over 5× the price of the Artic.
On the other hand, if I recall right the internet is rife with customer reports of the Arctic fans having noose spikes / unpleasant hums or resonances at certain RPMs. Lots of people using config tuning to avoid it.
I ended up buying Pure Wings as mentioned. Also much cheaper than Noctua and seemingly not having those issues.
It's funny because I replaced my NF-A14 and NF-F12 because they had hums at certain rpms when used on radiators, and neither the Arctics before them, nor the BeQuiets that replaced them, had that issue.
Noctua is working at the last five percentages of performance AND lifespan. They want their fans to perform (and sound) identical ten years later with daily use.
Most people change fans far earlier than that.
Indeed, the main reason why I choose Noctua fans from those that are silent enough and efficient enough is because I trust their reliability.
I still have computers from 2017, with Kaby Lake CPUs, which have been used as servers and in which the Noctua fans work as well as in the first day. Prior to that I had some computers with Noctua fans that had been used for more than a decade without fan problems, and which were upgraded or replaced for reasons unrelated to fans.
Thus the good experience that I had with the reliability of Noctua fans, coupled with some bad experiences with cheaper fans, which had to be replaced prematurely, make me reluctant to experiment now with other brands, which might have the same performance when new, but I could learn about their reliability only after a few years.
This is a very naive take. It's so common to get big companies in as signal to others, or just match the current provider you have for X or offer you a cheap price to then hike it up next year, among many other sales tactics. It's definitely not "always ask for the most if the company has a lot". In fact I'd say companies with more money are more likely to get early good deals.
Have you done procurement yourself at the type of companies you describe?
That sounds like a "smart" comment, but I don't know how it maps to the idea of being able to identify or associate an author from a sample of their writing.
This was the entry level project we did in a hardware optimization course I took maybe 15 years ago, using SIMD instructions. Lots of things can be naively optimized by unrolling any loops like this. Compilers do some of this themselves.
The chief scientist of one of the companies with the most money invested in the world, who probably makes millions a year, requested a picture of a unicorn and got a picture of a gremlin. Science circa 2026.
reply