"beginner". Docs are written this was are targeted at other developers who are experienced. You know this by the fact your calling yourself beginner and this isn't a friendly coding camp where everyone is making a robotic arm go up and down in python. This is being a real world developer.

To a "non-developer", yes that's what being in _this_ industry is like/about. If like taking a random coder and expecting them to read instructions to make something using crochet. There's a learning curve...

He should have said good graduates with good grades, not middling types that turn up and put name to paper.

Given the news in the last 24 hrs plenty of opportunity for excellent coders to rise to the top.

Well yes, given this has been the message since the problems with short sightedness in the east everyone still seems obsessed with "too much sun bad".

How about not making any public messaging so black and white. B&W messaging leads to polarised ideas on healthcare and everything else...

</rant>

Or there's https://cvmfs.readthedocs.io/en/stable/

And how much time left do you have for your job and loved ones?

Flashing GrapheneOS on a new phone took 10min tops. Setting up Nextcloud using their Docker image does not take much longer than that. Setting up my email server took the most effort, but I did this in hard mode using bare Postfix and Dovecot on Linux. A dockerized email server could be up in a matter of minutes. There is no maintenance beyond sudo apt upgrade.

I think the question between the lines was "how much time did you take to the point where you know how all that stuff works?", or at least that's what I'd include in the spirit of the concern (as someone who knows all this too, and knows that the answer is 100's of hours)

Ok.

Now try to separate the "learning the language" from "learning the data".

If we have a model pre trained on language does it then learn concepts quicker, the same or different?

Can we compress just data in a lossy into an LLM like kernel which regenerates the input to a given level of fidelity?

In what possible scenario is burning cash vs keeping a fraction of it a bad financial decision?

I can only imagine it makes financial sense to rent if you live somewhere where you're not paying off someone else's mortgage and are paying a fair renting price. (Otherwise paying your own mortgage just makes more sense)

As an actual honest question, where in the world is like that any more?

In most HCOL cities it's cheaper to rent than to buy

not in the UK.

Which is why I asked.

I can name 4 cities easily where you're paying mortgage+extra driven by the "buy-to-let" craze over here. I'll assume you mean the UK is a phenomena in that case.

I think the difference for the UK is it’s HCOL but low pay, so people there can’t afford the mortgage down payment as much, which is not normal for say American HCOL cities.

> the UK is it’s HCOL but low pay

_sigh_ don't remind me...

> Because few people can afford the 20% downpayement needed for mortgage.

Current state of the British economy is the state is looking to allow 40yr 5% deposit mortgages. We're not quite there yet but it's heading that way. Be very thankful if your country isn't that bad!

Interesting. Down here in Australia our economy has been doing OK, we've had a great run of dodging recessions, but due to house prices appreciating so much since the 90s, there's similar problems with house down payments being far out of reach of many people.

Recently, our government is making a change to allow first homebuyers to purchase properties with only a 5% deposit.

Historically the Australian government set up the Housing Loans Insurance Corporation in '67, to provide insurance for banks against the risk of borrowers defaulting, to support home buyers. In 1997 the Howard government privatised the HLIC by selling it to GE, and we've had a private sector for mortgage insurance since, compulsory if borrowers are borrowing more than 80%.

Now in 2025 the current Albanese government is rolling out a scheme where the government will act as a public mortgage insurer again to allow first home buyers to buy with only a 5% deposit.

I'm not quite sure what to think. I heard an economist interviewed who reckoned this was a great idea to make it easier for young people to get into the property market, arguing that Aussie homeowners historically hardly ever default on mortgages. But naively it seems like this is yet another change that is going to push up house prices even further by increasing demand, without doing something to increase supply.

I also wonder if systemic mortgage default risk appears like it is lower than it actually is because Australia has been lucky enough to escape a major recession for so long.

There's some pretty poor economists out there, and don't underestimate ethe ability of journalists to find someone conforming to their biases.

I think giving the government an interest in keeping house prices high is an awful idea and we should get over this obsession with homeownership.

problem is, politically it is feasible for government to support policy that superficially appears to help home buyers, but also props up housing prices. like all these "give the first home buyers more money / access to loans / reduced stamp duty" policies

a government with an actual serious policy to increase housing supply, which should cause housing prices to fall, might have a lot of trouble getting elected or staying elected (only 1/3 of australian households rent, but that'll increase over time due to wealth inequality)

Problem in the UK is the economy is held up by the housing market, foreign students and pandering to the boomers who hold most of the liquid assets. Maybe the fourth leg on the stool is the London economy but that's more generational and systematic wealth than consumer or liquid assets.