I’ve read through parts of the Wikipedia page several times in the past. It’s not ideal. I haven’t studied music theory systematically but I believe all the modes that contain a minor third above the root are technically considered minor scales (so Dorian, Aeolian, Phrygian, and Locrian), but in addition to that there are of course other constructed scales like melodic minor and harmonic minor as you mention, as well as multiple different scales called the Blues minor scale (the only one I’m familiar with is the one constructed from the minor pentatonic plus a diminished fifth).
This “law” was never really reasonable or sensible.
I’ve been working on optimizing compiler backends for nearly 30 years. The reality is that you hit a wall of diminishing returns pretty quickly, within say 5-20 person-years of effort (so a small team working for say 3-5 years).
You also relatively quickly get to the point where heuristics matter very much and all you do is generate new S-curves as you make changes. Meaning that every change speeds some workloads up, and slows others down.
Disciplined compiler writers will follow the old adage that an optimization needs to pay for itself, meaning that you don’t add things that slow down compilation without improving that S-curve by a relatively comparable amount.
What we get with LLVM is a large number of people tossing in the things that help the handful of workloads they are currently working on, with limited oversight regarding how that’s impacting compile-time for everyone else. So the compiler gets slower and slower, the compiled code doesn’t get much faster, and overall the compiler grows and grows in complexity.
This is why I’m personally a lot more excited about working on small manageable compiler code bases rather than large monolithic ones that try to be everything to everyone.
> What we get with LLVM is a large number of people tossing in the things that help the handful of workloads they are currently working on, with limited oversight regarding how that’s impacting compile-time for everyone else. So the compiler gets slower and slower, the compiled code doesn’t get much faster, and overall the compiler grows and grows in complexity.
Is that how you'd describe runtime "speedups in the 10-15% range in optimized builds" vs compile-time "2.2x slower in O2/O3"? Because as a compiler user it sounds totally worth it to me. A lot more CPU time goes into running my code than into compiling it. That's true both when I write large distributed systems software (which occupies many machines) and when I write small-scale software (that runs on less powerful machines than I use for development).
Sure, "15% slower in debug builds" kind of sucks, I might have hoped for more improvement over 10.5 years, maybe complexity did snowball (I'm not a LLVM developer so I wouldn't know), and maybe there were a bunch of changes that didn't carry their weight. I'd still take LLVM 11 over LLVM 2.7 overall.
> This “law” was never really reasonable or sensible.
I took two compilers courses from Dr Proebsting, and while he never discussed it in my classes, based on his sense of humor I'd guess he chose "18 years" mostly as a parallel/pun on Moore's law and "18 months".
In other words, I doubt he ever fit a curve and tried to make predictions. I think the whole point was to cast shade on whether compiler optimizations were all that important past a certain point.
> This is why I’m personally a lot more excited about working on small manageable compiler code bases [...]
It sounds like you came to the same conclusion :-)
I don't think they have a choice either way, but you're right, and I have a friend who recently did this, but not between Apple and Meta.
He was working at another well-known tech company that is suffering from a brain drain and he was getting a lot of exposure (including in the press). They gave him a seven figure retention bonus in RSUs, and he used that to get around the same from a competitor where he felt he would have better long-term prospects. Overall his yearly expected comp went up by about 50%, and should be around $750k-$900k at this point.
Invest the money in relatively stable/safe investments. Some real estate, index funds, etc.
Leave yourself enough for a year or so, and take that time to figure out what you’d really like to do without putting too much pressure on yourself on a daily basis. Spend that time focusing on doing healthy activities, socializing, reading in areas that you aren’t that familiar, etc. I don’t know if it’s an option, but if you could withdraw from school with the option to return at a later date that might be a good idea if you’re not finding the motivation at the moment.
Sorry, but I don’t think your idea of meritocracy is very much in line with what most Universities are looking for.
That’s why they have things like essays and consider extracurricular activities. Most of the selective Universities specifically exclude people with high grades and very little else that they were involved in.
Moreover, I recall reading at some point that at least some of the Ivy’s, during at least the first half of the 20th century, specifically avoided students with the highest grades in favor of those who were more like a B+ average and were more social, which they determined through the very subjective means of interviewing students on campus. (I’m old enough that I recall some of my friends visiting Universities for such meetings, but I have no idea if they still meet prospective students like this).
Sorry I cannot tell what “this” is since that article neither mentions downplaying grades or interviewing students.
I believe the specific things I am talking about were discussed in relation to introversion and The Ivy’s specifically wanting to lean toward extroverts who were well-rounded and had good social skills.
I was going to make the same point, more generally about electronic music gear.
People greatly favor knob-per-function and minimal menu diving. Having some kind of screen and minimal menus for rarely used features is fine, too, but anything that’s about playability and something you want to tweak in real time needs a knob or slider interface.
To be very contrarian and sound like a bit of a neo-Luddite, I have been a photographer for more than 30 years and have never taken photographs as good as the ones I take with my Leicas, which are the most feature-poor expensive cameras you’re likely to find.
No auto-focus, no video, limited feature light metering, etc.
I drooled over getting a Leica M for 15 years and finally took the plunge about five years ago. Best choice I have made gear-wise in all this time. After getting the first, I went ahead and got the Monochrom as well (yes, B&W-only sensor).
Also like the K3, but not nearly as much.
I have the medium-clicky keys on the K2.