That’s not massive, though. Make it 96GB at $2,000 (ok, probably impossible right now, but they could have before the surge in prices) and you’ll see developers work really hard to make AI tooling work for their cards, CUDA be damned. The same goes for AMD.
It’s like they both want to rely on market segmentation for VRAM too but fail to realize that it’s their only potential inroad right now.
If you buy three 32GB GPUs, that's 96GB total at a very reasonable price. An AI model splits easily by layers, so running on multiple GPUs is quite feasible.
I don’t necessarily disagree with your overall point, but for some reason at least in US society you’re no longer allowed to broadly talk having kids like you used to be able to. Let me break that norm for a second.
So, are other activities more fun than child rearing? Often, yeah. Definitely less stressful. Rewarding? Not in a million goddamned years. Nothing, absolutely nothing, compares to when your kid first walks, talks, tackles a problem they had a hard time doing before, or tells you that they love spending time with you completely unprompted.
For what it’s worth, I personally think a good portion of the birth rate dropping is environmental. Maybe it’s plastics, pfas, or something else nobody is looking at. Some people still have an urge to have kids, completely separate from the urge to have sex. I don’t think it’s a coincidence that testosterone and sperm counts have been dropping among humans and dogs, and that the deliberately child free people I know all veer on the (forgive the derisive slang term, but I don’t know how else to get the point across) “soyboy” type of person - both male and female.
That potential pollution aspect also explains this happening to industrial societies.
> but for some reason at least in US society you’re no longer allowed to broadly talk having kids like you used to be able to.
This has not been my experience. What has changed is that its now looked-down on to denigrate people who choose not to have kids (in some circles), and that people are no longer treated as heroes for having children. It had historically been the case that people who chose to not have kids were browbeaten about their choices.
I have had no issues talking about my children at all even with people who have remained childless. This is because I respect other peoples' decisions when doing so.
I don’t buy that having children is the only really rewarding thing you could do as a human.
Like the only reasons you can come up with is mystery chemicals or soyboys - seriously?
I think it’s vastly more complex than “insert my favourite political reason” and includes many different factors.
Personally I think it’s telling that only the Orthodox Jews don’t seem to have that problem - with an extremely rigid, strict and misogynistic religion as their primary purpose.
Personally as a male I don’t mind having kids but if I were a woman no way in hell would I have one.
In surveys, Orthodox Jewish women rate their happiness with life higher than secular women. You could argue that this is subjective, but I think you would find the same if you look at other derived markers, like substance abuse, suicide, etc.
There can be multiple reasons why modern societies have less kids, but the main theme of Orthodoxy is to keep as much as possible the same as in previous generations. So they would be avoiding almost all the possible reasons given for the decline.
> the deliberately child free people I know all veer on the “soyboy” type of person
If you were to actually know parents at your local area daycare centers/schools, it'd quickly become evident that the "masculine"/"feminine" types are a definite minority.
I wish that would have worked for me - we had oral tests. 2 years of French in high school and one semester at college - what an absolute waste of time. How much French do I know now? Basically none. The same goes for everyone in my life that did Spanish instead in high school.
Part of what we could do during this upset is re-prioritize.
I took four years of Spanish in high school, and thirty-ish years later I can hold basic conversations with people, ask for things, answer their questions.
I’m about the same age as you and at a similar level of ability at this point. I tested out of all 16 credit hours of foreign language requirements at my university but my current Spanish skills are nowhere near what will be required of me to function well in Mexico when we retire there.
I'm a man, and when I was a teenage boy I was tired. All the time. My feet had also shrunk and I lost some height. This all started after a bad concussion, though I'm not sure if he made the connection on that last point.
My doctor's diagnosis? Depression. Oh, and my foot arch must be getting higher.
My sister's best friend going up lost her dad because he was told that the pain from recent dental work couldn't be that bad and that he should just tough it out. The infection broke through into his brain and he died very quickly.
My dad almost died from lupus because doctors wouldn't test him for it because it primarily affects women.
Women, statistically, are more neurotic. I'm sure that affects how doctors diagnose them, and it shouldn't. However, I don't like things like what you're describing to be attributed to misogyny. It could be, but it also could just be that doctors focus way too much on horses when it could actually be a zebra. Hopefully LLMs will help with that - when GPT 3 or so came out way back when, one of the first things I did to test it was to give it what I knew about my condition at the time. It told me 3 tests I should have done, one of which was correct, and one of which I still haven't managed to get a doctor to give me after trying for many years.
If you blame it on misogyny the actual problem won't get fixed.
I'm not blaming it on misogyny. I thought I was very clear that "medical misogyny" is a commonly used term, and was very specific on the definition.
Also, in this sibling comment thread[1] to yours I discussed with haldujai why we both dislike the term, specifically because of the animus is implies, which is inaccurate.
It is however, a term you will hear in discussions like this, so it is good to know what it means, and the fact that the problem as defined exists, no matter what you call it.
Thanks for pointing that out. You are indeed correct. However, from what I can see DaVinci's tools still have the edge. With Capture One the feedback on what hues have been selected is far vaguer than I would like. Moreover, the node-based workflow is far more suitable for complex adjustments.
Repeating a point I made in another comment: in DV it is possible to edit hue to hue, hue to saturation, hue to luminesce, luminesce to saturation, saturation to saturation and saturation to luminesce. There is also the amazing chroma warp, using which near arbitrary color adjustments can be made. Nothing out there comes even close to that capability. No wonder most Hollywood movies are color graded in DV.
Guilty as charged. However,... from a certain point of view image editing is all about color. I guess the exception would be Adobes new generation of object selection tools, which are hard to best. DaVinci has such tools but they are more suited to editing movies.
Everything else is up around 3% YoY. And if energy and transportation are up double digits, and producer prices are up double digits, other consumer prices will follow.
Am I wrong for thinking “good” for a lot of those points? Many are either harmful (I still haven’t heard what we actually expect to gain from gain-of-function research that makes up for the potential cost) to absolute wastes of taxpayer dollars.
You can agree with the stated goals and still disagree with the policy mechanism to achieve them. Indeed, much of the current administration's strategy appears to be to sane-wash the destruction of our scientific institutions while trotting out it's "goals" to non-critical observers. Of course, the true goals are what the policy actually accomplishes, which is to hollow out the capacity for competent dissent.
Alzheimer’s research would probably be the easiest one to point to.
And I’d argue all fields could use more dissenting opinions and new options. I don’t know if this would be the path to that but keep in mind there have been many things historically where someone needed to take a leap of faith to go against the current dogma.
Academia is full of dissenting opinions, it is the wet dream of any tenured professor to break tradition and create a new field or area of research and become the lead in it.
Consensus is a thing, but science is not one institution, is a bunch of different warring factions of people trying to get published and cited and funding.
This should be done by lessening the feasibility metric in grading grants. If you want to escape incrementalism, you have to not punish scientists who ask for funding to do hard things with a higher chance of failure.
It’s like they both want to rely on market segmentation for VRAM too but fail to realize that it’s their only potential inroad right now.
reply