Who is Sahil Chaudhary? Why he doesn't announce such a great advancement himself? Why Matt Shumer first announces it only because -- according to a later claim on X.com -- he trusted Sahil, does that mean Matt is unable to participate most of the progress? Then why announce a breakthrough without mentioning he was not fully involved to a level he can verify the result in the first place?
I recognize that surname from Twitter spams. Twitter has had financial rebates program for paying accounts for a while, and for months tons of paid spam accounts have been reply squatting trending tweets with garbage. Initially they appeared Sub-Saharan African, but the demographic seem to be constantly shifting eastward from there for some reason, through the Middle East and now around South-Indian/Pakistani regions. This one and variants thereof are common one in the Indian category among those.
Maybe someone got lucky with that and trying their hands at LLM finetuning biz?
I also want use docker swarm in production, but I keep hearing people say it has network bugs like after some time services cannot talk to each other. Have you experienced any such issue?
I haven't experienced any networking issues in production at all.
I have experienced 1 networking issue, but only specifically when keepalives are disabled on Windows (where I use Docker for dev/test only)[0]. When using an overlay network, network connections to dockerised Postgres go "stale" after 15 minutes. I workaround it by publish the Postgres port in "host" mode instead of the default of "ingress" mode using `endpoint_mode: dnsrr`.
So far, I live most of the life in China, IMHO, the root of our previous poverty is arrogance and one man in power (see Mao's policy which had led nation wide famine just because he want to surpass US in a short time), and that left us fall behind the world economically. And the latter so-called "lifted out of poverty" (a oftenly used propaganda tune in Chinese spokesmen to refute others' human rights infringement blame) is nothing but opening up the nation and letting our hardworking people to make products for the world (mostly in downstream application wise products, even nowadays, you see huge Chinese tech companies all cannot live w/o Github, btw, that's why government doesn't block github). Which is seen by me just recovering those years we had losing in politics and culture revolution.
>So far, I live most of the life in China, IMHO, the root of our previous poverty is arrogance and one man in power (see Mao's policy which had led nation wide famine just because he want to surpass US in a short time
How do you explain Poverty of India then? It doesn't suffer from one person in power.
India and China were roughly equal in population and GDP if you go back in time before the start of the British empire
Lifting that many people out of poverty is nothing sort of a miracle
> India and China were roughly equal in population and GDP if you go back in time before the start of the British empire
Any source for your claims?
The truth:
India population in 1800: 169 million [0]
China population in 1800: 322 million (nearly double India’s)
As for GDP:
China’s GDP (PPP) per capita in 1800: $316K [1]
India’s GDP (PPP) per capita in 1800: $177K
Note this is per capita. Factoring in the population difference, China’s overall GDP (PPP) was almost 4 times that of India. Hardly “roughly equal”.
I’m using 1800 as a reference year since it’s easier to find data for it.
And GDP (PPP) in 1980 (IMF estimates): [2]
China’s GDP (PPP) in 1980: $305K
India’s GDP (PPP) in 1980: $381K
India’s GDP in 1980 actually surpassed China: 4-5 times growth compared to China! (from 1800 to 1980)
This proves the grandparent comment that “IMHO, the root of our previous poverty is arrogance and one man in power (see Mao's policy which had led nation wide famine just because he want to surpass US in a short time”.
India’s population growth nearly doubles China’s (from 1800 to now) . Not surprising that, on average, more Indians are poorer than Chinese.
It seams India was ahead for most of the past two millennia.
Population
CHINA INDIA
1AD 59.6M 75.0M
1000AD 59.0M 75.0M
1600AD 160.0M 135.0M
1700AD 138.0M 165.0M
1820AD 318.0M 209.0M
Estimated Real GDP per capita in 2011 USD (cgdppc in source)
Selection of roughly comparable dates (note no chinese GDP per capita estimates from before 1661).
CHINA INDIA
1600s $940(1661) $1228(1228)
1700s $686(1766) $1103(1750)
1820s $741(1820) $ 968(1821)
1900 $840 $1131
1950 $757 $1417
1980 $1690 $1143
2000 $4071 $2003
I wouldn't take this as gospel. These are estimates put together from patchy historical sources and probably widely innacurate. But it seems to indicate that India was ahead in population for much of the last two thousand years. And ahead of China in GDP per capita for most of the past 400 years.
You don't need to look at 1800 data, because it is irrelevant. If you want to show what CCP did, you have to show the data in range. [2] is the chart comparing India to China from 1950 - 2010, which is the period when CCP is in power. I wish economy, society and history is so easy and everyone can nail down to a single sentence on the root of any economy phenomena. I love how he describe being poor was because of arrogance, lol.
Mao wants to surpass United Kingdom in 15 years and then US. Given China's condition at that time, if that is not arrogance, then it must be at least overestimation of his power.
>And the latter so-called "lifted out of poverty" (a oftenly used propaganda tune in Chinese spokesmen to refute others' human rights infringement blame) is nothing but opening up the nation and letting our hardworking people to make products for the wo
if that was the case there'd be fewer poor countries on the planet. The Chinese government has made many mistakes, a lot of them quite terrible, but a lot of progress over the last few decades also is the result of successful and active governance. Statecraft is not something that just happens or that is trivial.
Even just creating an open environment and the sort of conditions that let hardworking people do what they want is difficult, successful ecosystems are built, they don't happen because everyone at the party office just drops their suitcase and goes home.
I think we do not need semantic representation in HTML case at all. For example, f(x+1) can be a multiplication, or a function, but should we write something like \function f (x+1) ? I think knowing the layout similarity with query is enough for math-ware search engine to identify similar math expressions. Adding too much in Math HTML standard is not helpful but redundant.
What I really want to say is whether f(x+1) is function or multiplication does not matter that much in terms of both browser presenting and math-aware search, moreover, extracting semantics can be done by algorithm from context. Considering that few author want to annotate on their expression semantic, and adding semantic does not really help math-aware search, I argue for the necessity for bringing math semantic notation into WEB.
Agree, we do not include a 4*4 image in HTML by inserting <img><row><col><pixel r="255" b="0" g="128" a="0"> ......
In browser level, I think we should treat math expression as a simple and atom component, and the only benefits to expose DOM/XML/JSON or whatever structural information in webpage is probably you can manipulate/extract info from it (e.g. using Javascript). Do we really need to manipulate a math expression? I think a simple "<math>\frac a b</math>" makes much sense to me. I think it is about the trade-off on HTML granularity.
"Do we really need to manipulate a math expression?"
If you don't, please don't say no one does. Having a math DOM allows for actual interactivity with mathematics, from highlighting, copying subtrees, embedding links, having on the fly computations/simplifications, etc.
Not to mention add-on services like math indexing and search.
Yes, we need to manipulate and machine-read math expressions, if we want to finally take online math workflows to the 21st century.
What I mean is "really need". In fact, there is also the possibility we want to highlight a portion of an image, copy a subimage, etc, but did our HTML <img> tag designed like the way I mentioned?
I am the author of a math search engine OPMES (tkhost.github.io/opmes), the search engine works pretty well without the knowledge of DOM structure of math expression.
Actually MathML makes a lot inconvenient during OPMES development, to a degree that I choose not to support it.
BTW, if we want a <math> tag that no one will write by hand and only machine will try to understand, then think about why not HTML being designed as some open binary format in the first place?
So, if you can give me an ill-designed analogy, you think you're making a valid point?
Images are not mathematics, they have nothing to do with mathematics. If you take a look at SVG, you may be shocked to find you can do just as much decomposition of principle components as you can do with any DOM, just the way MathML allows you to.
Please substantiate the "works pretty well" claim about your search engine with some data. Your sense of inconvenience comes far from an objective argument.
How many people write HTML by hand? Generating it from a wide range of tools, richtext editors, markdown inputs, etc etc is much more common. Your analogies are just inaccurate.
We can argue all day about if <math> should be like <img> or a <svg>, but I do not think I am wrong about asking whether we really need to manipulate a math expression. I just said "it makes sense to me" to write "<math>\frac a b</math>" does not necessarily mean I stand firmly for making <math> this way. If you think there are cases we need manipulate AND we indeed need to sacrifice HTTP length (Internet transmission time) and simplicity to enable math expression manipulation, that is totally fine. I admit your points and will still argue for my points, I do not believe there is an evident truth for this issue we argue (so as this thread). It is still OK. However, I should point it out I am quite confident in terms of hand-writing "<math>\frac a b</math>" more quickly than other people who use whatever advanced richtext editor they want to write its MathML alternative. You can still doubt how many people want write HTML by hand, but shorter HTML is not bad at everything, many high-volume websites get benefits from it. Think about a very hot math Q&A website in the future, being able to handle a lot request, math rendering computation on client side is a logical solution. In this case, MathJax makes a lot sense. I will agree we can adopt a solution that define short <math> and convert into lengthy MathML at client side, in this case we both do not have to compromise.
As for my "works pretty well", please refer to my answer in another thread below. To be concise, I use subjective words on search engine effectiveness because NTCIR makes it difficult to compare my TeX search engine with "MathML search engine". But I have already shown better efficiency of my engine compared to Tangent, and an important factor is Tangent have to use LaTeXML to parse every TeX back to MathML. Without considering NTCIR, I am willing to make a comparison (probably after done my new version search engine) with some open-source established math engine (e.g. Tangent) on effectiveness and efficiency based on some corpus with both MathML (used by Tangent) and TeX (used by my engine) annotation.
