The most amazing thing to me about Cider-V was that Cider (without the V) actually went away after a relatively short amount of time, when virtually every other internal service that is officially EOL-ed lives on essentially forever.
That is because the Cider team did an amazing job of managing it, and spent tons of time going bug report by bug report to find and fix the blockers stopping people from preferring Cider-V over Cider, instead of the typical Google deprecation approach of "monkey knife fight"
I came from storage, so the monkey knife fight there was between PARMs. Very entertaining. For storage engineering could basically say "Well, figure it out, because if you don't find XX capacity, Google will stop working. Like, all of it."
I dunno, there's certainly a lot of monkey knife fight deprecations, but there's a lot that are handled pretty well.
If we're talking about the source side of things, p4->piper/citc was done well. cs (get) -> grimoire was done well. I'd like to think we did a pretty good job of grokv2-> Kythe, though we did drop a few clients of grokv2 who were wayyyyyyy the fuck up xkcd/1172 creek (we did try to help them in the right direction, like offloading onto direct blaze depserver queries).
I guess those are all close in the org to cider, so maybe that's just how dev infra deprecations used to go.
Initially I had thought so too. But later I realized that it’s quite easy to do so when you force-deprecate the old product. There was no real choice, the old IDE simply stopped working after a certain cutoff date. Adoption metrics felt forced and pushed, but were presented as if users were actively and willingly choosing the newer IDE.
I feel like core dev team learned a lot about actually enabling a web based ide for line 100k engineers across the globe for a gazillion line mono repo. ciderv is really just a skin for the amazing infra. Which is also why I think there was less resistance to the change
That seems possible for generating completely new proteins.
Do you think it's also the case for lead optimization where you typically have some degree of measurements around your starting point, and you are expecting to stay in that local neighborhood for the generated candidates, too?
Would you be open to sharing a version of your pitch deck? The main question in my mind is what kind of exit the VCs have in mind when they give you this money.
Sometimes the football culture is big in those specific places. Also generational players (kids of coaches/players) stick around the area. Walk-ons, as well.
That's definitely true for some of them, but for others it's not so clear, like the Apollo or Manhattan projects? Those of course also have lasting impact but it's more in terms of knowledge, which at least arguably we are also accruing with these data centers.
RS-25 - It was designed as HG-3 during the 60s for Saturn-V and manufactured for the Space Shuttle and refurbished for SLS and just launched last month.
Vehicle assembly building - Built for Saturn-V launches been in active use and continues today .
Crawler-transporters - Hanz and Franz were built in 1966 for Apollo and still used for launches.
There are plenty of other examples from Apollo program of actual hardware being repurposed and used for later missions.
In other mega space projects, Hubble is still doing active research, 35 years after launch, voyager is sending data close to 50 years later.
It is a whole another topic whether they should be used, how NASA is funded , and this is why makes programs like SLS or the shuttle are so expensive and so forth.
The point is these mega projects had a long lifetime of value, albeit with higher maintenance costs for the tech heavy ones like Apollo than say a bridge or a dam does.
The user's name is the name of an Anton Labs project [0]. Furthermore, the fact that the user is inconsistently bad at formatting, punctuation and capitalisation of their messages makes me suspect the user itself may be agentic-LLM-based, with a badly calibrated layer of "obfuscation" to pretend to be an oh-so-imperfect human.
Doesn't continuous time basically mean "this is what we expect for sufficiently small time steps"? Very similar to how one would for example take the first order Taylor dynamics and use them for "sufficiently small" perturbations from equilibrium. Is there any other magic to continuous time systems that one would not expect to be solved by sufficiently small time steps?
You should look into condition numbers & how that applies to numerical stability of discretized optimization. If you take a continuous formulation & naively discretize you might get lucky & get a convergent & stable implementation but more often than not you will end up w/ subtle bugs & instabilities for ill-conditioned initial conditions.
I understand that much, but it seems like "your naive timestep may need to be smaller than you think or you need to do some extra work" rather than the more fundamental objection from OP?
The translation from continuous to discrete is not automatic. There is a missing verification in the linked analysis. The mapping must be verified for stability for the proper class of initial/boundary conditions. Increasing the resolution from 64 bit floats to 128 bit floats doesn't automatically give you a stable discretized optimizer from a continuous formulation.
The abstract formulation is different from the concrete implementation. It is precisely b/c the abstractions do not exist on computers that the abstract analysis does not automatically transfer the necessary analytical properties to the digital implementation. Cauchy sequences & Dedekind cuts are abstract & do not exist on digital computers.
Infinity has properties that finite approximations of it just don't have, and this can lead to serious problems for certain theorems. In the general case, the integral of a continuous function can be arbitrarily different from the sum of a finite sequence of points sampled from that function, regardless of how many points you sample - and it's even possible that the discrete version is divergent even if the continous one is convergent.
I'm not saying that this is the case here, but there generally needs to be some justification to say that a certain result that is proven for a continuous function also holds for some discrete version of it.
For a somewhat famous real-world example, it's not currently known how to produce a version of QM/QFT that works with discrete spacetime coordinates, the attempted discretizations fail to maintain the properties of the continuous equations.
What really gets me is that the time between windows 95 and now is more than between voyager launching and Windows 95. Same for the moon landings for that matter.
reply