Do the servers really require 1.5gb? I've always enjoyed using super cheap instances with just 0.5gb of RAM at places like Vultr. I guess the new version won't handle those chores.

RAM is expensive. Didn't they get the memo/invoice?

Very likely, from experience package manager like dnf consumes about 1GB of memory just to fetch package metadata.

The dnf autorefresh service bit me running a small Alma instance for the first time.

Debian and apt seemed to require less RAM then, but that was a few years ago now.

And it's worse than that. In order to "factor" 15=3x5, they designed the circuit knowing that the factors were three and five. In other words, they just validated it. And that's something you can do with a regular CPU.

Oh yes, it's the evil publishers and book reviewers who are killing the business. Not the pirates like the people who post these archive links.

To be fair, many ancient civilizations played ball games. The Pre-Columbian civilizations in Latin America built stadia for ball games. So maybe the ancient Greeks had an effect too.

Yup. I know too many people who have a default message when asked for relationship advice: oh, my, the other person is terrible and you should break up.

It's an easy default and it causes so many problems.

Even if they do not go as far, telling someone they are right to blame the other person as a default is damaging.

The opposite, encouraging people to stay in a relationship when they should leave is also damaging.

And this is often taxed at capital gains rates which can be lower.

Yes, up to $125k per year per person excluded from capital gains.

I have one friend who likes to gamble. I've tried the old math argument with him and he dismisses it out-of-hand. He says that, yes, he knows it's a negative sum game but sometimes he wins and that makes it worth it. Then he says, "You spend money on a symphony or an art museum or an expensive restaurant, right? Those are guaranteed to leave you a little bit poorer at the end of the night. Same thing as gambling, but with a bigger guarantee."

And I didn't have a response.

Hear me out: Whenever people try the "math argument" on a gambler they are basically wrong and are misunderstanding how recreational gamblers actually think, which is not irrational (for the most part) or at least not irrational in the way people think on the surface.

Take the lottery: The classic "math objection" is to explain to the person that the expectation[1] of buying tickets in a lottery is negative so over time they will (on average) lose money.

Most people who gamble know this. The thing is they are not trying to maximise expectation. They are trying to maximise "expected marginal utility"[2]. They know that the dollar they spend on the ticket affects their life far less than the payoff would in the unlikely event they get it. Because the marginal utility of -$1 is basically nothing (it wouldn't change their life much at all to lose a dollar) versus winning say $10mil would completely change the life of most people and therefore the marginal utility of +10mil is much more than 10mil times greater than the marginal utility lost by spending a dollar on the ticket.

It is fundamentally this difference that the gambling companies are arbitraging. And for people who become addicted to gambling it is like any other addiction. The companies are just exploiting people who have a disease and are ruining their lives for profit. There are studies which show that addicted gamblers don't actually get the dopamine hit from winning, they get it from anticipating the win (ie the spin). So actually winning or losing just keeps them wanting to come back for another hit.

[1] Ie the average payoff weighted by probability

[2] Ie the average difference in utility weighted by probability. This could be seen as how much of a difference the payoff would make to their life.

All people who go to casinos are not pathological gamblers.

They have some disposable income, and spend it at the casino for a bit of fun. Sometimes, they come out richer, and they are happy, sometimes, they lose, they come out a bit disappointed, but that's the cost of of entertainment.

Some fraction of people that start out that way end up addicted and spending way more money on gambling then they should.

Gambling can be entertainment, and as long as it's viewed as consumption it's fine IMO. I enjoy playing craps whenever I'm in a casino, and have great memories with friends playing the ups and downs of the table.

The response is probably that gambling is designed to be as addictive as possible, and while your friend might think they will not get addicted, is it really a good risk to take?

While I'm also a bit skeptical, I think some formalism could really simplify everything. The programming world has lots of words that mean close to the same thing (subroutine, method, function, etc. ). Why not choose one and stick to it for interactions with the LLM? It should save plenty of complexity.