Is this really true? Or are we counting like the games kids made in a computer lab somewhere.

Or there's this 87% number, but it's based on "no longer a legal way to buy it," not that it's not archived/preserved: https://gamehistory.org/87percent/

> Or are we counting like the games kids made in a computer lab somewhere.

We don't have to count amateur projects but the commercial releases in the US is not the entirety of the gaming history. There are other countries with their own rich gaming histories and other platforms (e.g. browser, mobile) that don't get the same attention as American releases for PC or popular consoles.

I cannot play a single game from my childhood, they were early flash games "for girls" and they were not in English. Nobody archived those.

I don't think anyone expects nvidia to "sink". We're concerned that competitive pressures and possible reductions from sky-high demand could make it really hard for nv to justify or maintain their current valuation.

That is, revenues may be unusually cyclically high.

It's going to be hard for frontier labs to keep spending at this rate without starting to make money. And even if they do, lower cost alternatives will likely impact at least to -some- extent how much of that revenue nv gets.

Have you ever checked out the beta on Nvidia stock? Not to mention its surprisingly sane P/E ratio?

Compare and contrast with Tesla.

I know the P/E isn't completely nuts.

It still prices in revenue growth.

It is possible that nv maintains an absolutely dominant market position and total amount spent on GPUs continues to rise.

It's also possible that either of these things doesn't happen.

That doesn't really have anything to do with what I said.

It's not like you can allow kids to shoot pellet guns out of a car indefinitely in a metro without substantial risk of something going wrong.

We need to (be able to) trust the police to not escalate irresponsibly and to deal with situations with nuance. Declining to escalate to authorities because we're scared of what they may do is not great.

Believe me, without the internet we can still teach.

We'll be pretty annoyed that we can't project the video that we think scaffolds today's science lesson best or show the approved choreography for the school play.

And our office staff will be annoyed that we suddenly are all running attendance to the main office old-school.

And students will take a few days to adjust to writing down homework in their planners again.

> We'll be pretty annoyed that we can't project the video that we think scaffolds today's science lesson best or show the approved choreography for the school play

There are offline wireless hdmi adapters, this is a solved problem. Just have to have the videos pre downloaded or offline available

Sure. 99% of teachers don't know yt-dlp or use things like that, though, so you can expect minor disruptions in a lot of rooms.

But, c'mon, we have complete power outages and still address our curriculum.

We just dont have the technology

There's an infinite number of possible math problems, but the things that make these open problems worthwhile is they're interesting to people who have worked in related areas.

They're good to give to new mathematicians, and they're good to help humans understand the shape of the problem space and relative difficulty with the tools we have.

Cheesing these problems with LLMs gets rid of both the training benefit and our ability to create good related problems. There's an aesthetic part of this, too, that LLMs do not capture.

This kinda reminds me of the guys who decided to industrialize digging up dinosaur fossils, in order to feed the dinosaur fossil collector market. They were amazed that paleontologists were so "inefficient" at finding and digging up dinosaur fossils.

But from paleontologists' perspective, they go out looking for dinosaur fossils when they have questions that digging up a fossil may answer. The metric they're focusing on isn't tons of fossil mined out of the ground, it's a developing understanding of extinct life.

These open problem solutions often reveal tighter bounds on prior conjectures. Even if the solutions produced are far from elegant and only machine verifiable, we do learn new information. But I agree that just like writing prose and code, brainstorming frontier math proofs is a perishable skill

Eating is not a weakness. But a strong requirement to eat is a weakness because you don't have the strength to be happy without eating.

I would actually argue that eating is a weakness, that every single human (and animals in general) just happen to share.

At some level you are defined by your weaknesses enough that they can't really be called weaknesses.

Definitely, but it would be silly to say not needing to eat is a luxury. Not starving, perhaps.

Isn't that true? Not being able to live without eating is, in fact, a weakness, just a very common one.

Trying to do 4 Osprey flights per day, with refueling, for spartan resupply... is going to be tough. Sure, it's not impossible...

In such a situation I expect you'd have a lot of other stuff competing with food for that lift, too, like spare parts.

When we had crews that had trained for it and recent operational experience with the capability, it was deemed not worth it.

Trying to stand it up in an emergency now is asking for trouble.

You'd have to be in a really dire situation to risk the carrier and aircraft this way.

I have kids.

I also travel, socialize, work, code, play video games, solve puzzles, etc. Love all that shit.

I'd be sad to "miss" some novels, or to never see the Ocarina remake, etc. Or just the time I spend piddling around with things.

But I think if I was about to die and an advance bought me a few months of moderate quality life, it'd mostly be about seeing my kids cross milestones. I don't imagine I'd spend nearly as much time cranking through those things.

Understood. No doubt I would be similarly inclined if I'd gone down that path in life. My beef is that I feel this is a trope that gets rolled out without question, and it doesn't even bother paying lip service to the diversity of human experience.

I feel similarly whenever I hear about someone expressing empathy with someone, but apparently only after realizing they are someone's daughter/brother/sister/mother whatever type of relative. What's that about? I feel empathy for any innocent victim, they're human, they're living a life, maybe a very enjoyable life even if they don't have a single relative.

It's a trope for a reason. Having kids does shit to your brain and breaks it in a bunch of ways you cannot anticipate. For better and for worse.

Finding an answer isn't always an objective, though. I agree it often has been too much in baseline schooling.

First, there's a certain amount of baseline knowledge we'd like students to possess. Without a certain prerequisite amount of underlying information committed to memory, it gets far more difficult to achieve fluency in a topic.

But more than that, there's other skills we're trying to build: frustration tolerance, processing contradictory information, disciplined problem solving. You only really develop these skills through productive struggle. If you find a way to shortcut the productive struggle, students truggle.

> but tutors have always made people better students.

Sure. Bloom showed us that students taught with a combination of tutorial and mastery methods, one-on-one, outperform students in a normal classroom by roughly 2 sigma.

The paradox has always been-- why hasn't technology unlocked these gains for students in normal classrooms? If we could boost everyone's performance by this amount, it would be huge for society-- but society can't afford to teach everyone with tutorial methods.

Since the 1970s, we've invested in edtech towards trying to make this happen, but most of it has actually had net-negative effects as best as we can measure. AI, so far, looks to be much worse.

I think part of the answer is that a big part of what makes a conventional classroom work are social pressures. So far, it looks like AI (and edtech in general) does more to dismantle conventional pedagogy and to break down the social fabric of the classroom, than it has improved differentiation or unlocked this tutorial effect more broadly.

> If you find a way to shortcut the productive struggle, students truggle.

I was assuming this was a typo and was thinking about making a joke about it, but it does appear to be slang that fits the context:

https://www.urbandictionary.com/define.php?term=Truggle

> 1. the standard of perpetual intellectual failure made by an individual.

> Truggle; the standard defenintion of a person who is a failureat everything.

Was it a typo or did you actually mean this?