Prime video is more than just prime content, they are more of a marketplace where you can watch competitors content as well. Like their web marketplace for tv and movies. That's why you can sign up for things like HBO and even Apple TV directly via Prime.
IIRC the Go / Now switch was due to Go being the app if you already paid for cable and wanted to watch HBO by logging into your cable provider account. Now was the pure streaming option those without cable could purchase. Took a bit to consolidate I think.
That's a measurable qualify of life decrease as well for many people. Some things they just won't be able to buy anymore. Things they may require, but you claim its ok to go without because it helps the environment. Sounds dystopian.
You're doing operations on the memory once it's been transferred to gpu memory. Either shuffling it around various caches or processors or feeding it into tensor cores or other matrix operations. You don't want to be sitting idle.
You say that like I d a bad thing. Nvidia architectures keep changing and getting more advanced as well, with specialized tensor operations, different accumulators and caches, etc. I see no issue with progress.
That’s missing the point. Things like tensor cores were added in parallel with improvements to existing computer and CUDA kernels from 10 years ago generally run without modification. Hardware architecture may change, but Nvidia has largely avoided changing how you interact with it.
They don't have to, CUDA is a high-level API in this respect. The hardware will conform to the demands of the market and the software will support whatever the compute capability defines, Nvidia is clearer than most about this.
Sure, but you do have to do it pretty quick. Let’s pick a H100. You’ve probably heard that just writing scalar code is leaving 90+% of the flops idle. But even past that, if you’re using the tensor core but using the wrong instructions you’re basically capped at 300-400 TFLOPS of the 1000 the hardware supports. If using the new instructions but poorly you’re probably not going to hit even 500 TFLOPS. That’s just barely better than the previous generation you paid a bunch of money to replace.
Portable doesn't normally mean that it runs on arbitrarily old hardware. CUDA was never portable, it only runs on Nvidia hardware. The question is whether old versions of Whisper GPU run on newer hardware, that'd be backwards compatibility.
Single people or couples don't want doorless bathrooms, but they will probably tolerate them if forced into a room with that setup. Other types of travelers might not be so open-minded, and that's the point that OP is arguing about. Provide the bare minimum tolerable experience to your target audience and punish the customers you don't want.
Make sure to address the elephant in the room - privacy. Consider installing electrochromic glass panels that switch from clear to opaque. Or take inspiration from Japanese architecture with sliding wooden screens that double as art pieces.
And a third type, people who have had children so have gone through the toddler stage where a toddler would literally chainsaw and burn down a locked door before they let you have 3 seconds of peace to take a shit.
That's actually a very valid point I hadn't taken into consideration.
If you're single or have a partner that you're comfortable with, open concept bathrooms feel luxurious. But if you need sanctity and salvation from the kids, I can get it.
The real issue is when they're old enough to reach the lock, but not old enough to trust not to destroy things or injure themselves if left unsupervised.
I’ve actually ended otherwise decent relationships early because the other person was way too coy/upset with bodily functions like farting and pooping. If we’er sleeping together I expect us to be farting together. And if we are living together I expect us to be using the toilet in front of each other. Anything less is both inconvenient and reflective of deep personality conflicts that will never be resolved.
I have never in my life imagined that someone might break up with another person for the sole reason that the person refused to poop in front of them. That is honestly wild to me, but I appreciate your perspective, thanks for sharing.
Similarly, married ten years and my wife and I have never seen each other use the bathroom. And barring dire emergencies I can't actually envision, we never will.
It's stories like these (and poor parenting I guess) that causes things like my cousin standing up to wipe for close to 30 years until his gf filled him in one day.
If you flush the toilet at precisely the moment after you take a shit, the vacuum force of the toilet venting down the waste line will pretty much keep that from happening. That's basically prison rules.
I'd imagine that most couples would still want to be able to close a door when they're on the toilet.
I'd rather sleep in a shared room at a hostel and use a toilet in a stall in a communal bathroom than in a hotel room without a proper door on the bathroom.
> I'd imagine that most couples would still want to be able to close a door when they're on the toilet.
Right?
My wife and I don't use the toilet in front of each other. Even when we lived in an apartment with only 1 bathroom. You gotta use the toilet while one is showering? You can hold it.
Even when I'm home alone and don't expect her to come home any time soon, I close the door. I just feel so exposed with the door open. Even when I lived alone, I'm pretty sure I would close the door.
Whether the room has a door on the bathroom or not, business travellers should be getting separate rooms... Over dozens of trips, the only time I've ever shared was a two-bedroom apartment when I went with a colleague for a conference (one had an ensuite so we had separate bathrooms as well as separate bedrooms with doors).
I wouldn't be OK with going on trips (or sending people I manage on trips) where two people had to sleep in the same room, I wouldn't consider that acceptable...
20 years ago a shared room was kinda the go-to for conferences and business meetings seemed like at companies I worked at. It was normal to share a 2 bed room with another guy, but all the hotels we ever stayed at had a bathroom with door that closed and didn't open straight to the bedroom. It also had a curtain or at least a frosted door if someone happened to open the door.
No, it is because doors take up a lot of space. A typical door is 3 feet wide, and requires 7-14 feet of empty space to operate [0]. You can't place any furniture, toiletries, or luggage racks in this space. For a typical hotel room of 300sq feet, this "dead space" represents 3-5% of the room. Removing the door allows hotels to decrease the size of each room, and fit more rooms on each floor, increasing profit.
This is why many newer hotels choose to sliding doors, which barely take up any space, or just remove doors entirely.
[0] For a door of r=3 feet, A door swings a minimum of 90 degrees, which takes 3.14 * 3*2 / 4 = 7.065 sq feet at a minimum to 14.1 sq feet to operate.
It's also staged. They did it in multiple takes, and then composited out one of the takes with a mosaic of the clean sun. None of the others are composites, and none of the others got multiple takes
Source for it being a composite? The article says under the headline
> This is not photoshopped. That’s really a person falling in front of the Sun.
I haven't watched all the videos. From the Reddit thread, it sounds like it was photoshopped (using that as a generic term for photo editing with a computer) but in a way acceptable to the astrophotography community. I don't understand where those limits are: somewhere strictly between cropping the photo and photographing the skydiver in front of a white screen before pasting the silhouette into a picture of the sun.
Sure, all of the elements were captured, but not in a single image released as the final image. If you look at a search for “solar transit”, none of them have as much detail in the sun as this one. That’s evidence of comping the sky diver onto his mosaic. It’s similar to when people come in a full moon over itself when captured in a wide angle image. Yes, the moon was there and it is just updated with something with more detail and better exposure, but it’s not a single image possible to capture without comping. Maybe it’s not as obvious to someone less familiar with astrophotography, but that just makes the sin that much worse.
At the end of the day, it’s a great artistic shot, but it nothing more than the same level of effort to make a modern Marvel movie
Sometimes the actions you want to perform does not map cleanly into one or two API calls, or would be too messy to assume correct parsing. Maybe your UI is fine POSTing to /users and PUTing to /groups or whatever but giving the LLM a direct CreateUserAndAddToGroup action simplifies the task and keeps context cleaner.
Imagine a future where we have an evolved version of MCP -- call it MCP++.
In MCP++, instead of having to implement a finite list of specialized variants like CreateUserAndAddToGroup, imagine MCP++ has a way to to feed the desired logic (create user, then add that user to $GROUP) directly to the endpoint. So there would be something like a POST /exec endpoint. And then the /exec endpoint can run the code (maybe it's WASM for something)...
Wait a minute! We already have this. It's called programming.
You could have the LLM write code, so that any pipelining (like your example), aggregation, filtering, or other transformation happens in that code, and the LLM only needs to spend the output tokens to write the code, and the only input tokens consumed is the final result.
I definitely am not the first person to suggest this:
... but I can say that, as soon as I read about MCP, my first thought was "why?"
MCP is wasteful.
If you want LLMs to interact with your software/service, write a library, let the scrapers scrape that code so that future LLM revisions have the library "baked into it" (so you no longer need to spam the context with MCP tool descriptions), and let the LLM write code, which it already "knows" how to do.
What if your library is too new, or has a revision, though?
That's already a solved problem -- you do what you'd do in any other case where you want the LLM to write code for you: point it at the docs / codebase.
I do this all the time with Shopify / Spotify. The number of times non-tech friends have had to ask what Shopify is when discussing music and I slip up :/
reply