Another one I've noticed is using "I've" as a contraction in e.g. "I've a meeting to attend". Seems totally reasonable but for some reason native speakers just don't use it that way.
Wait, what? Englishman in my 50s here and I use phrases like that all the time — “I’ll be missing standup cos I’ve a GP appointment”, “leaving at lunchtime as I’ve a train to catch”, “gotta dash, I’ve chores to do”. No one’s ever said I sound German!
I like this analogy a lot for non-technical...erm...audiences. I do hope that anyone using this analogy will pair it with loud disclaimers about not anthropomorphizing LLMs; they do not "lie" in any real sense, and I think framing things in those terms can give the impression that you should interpret their output in terms of "trust". The emergent usefulness of LLMs is (currently at least) fundamentally opaque to human understanding and we shouldn't lead people to believe otherwise.
These qualifiers would seem to belie the whole argument. Surely the volume of HFT arbitrage is some large multiple of what would be necessary to provide commercial liquidity with an acceptable spread?
Does the HFT volume actually matter? Is it a real problem that the HFT volume exceeds the theoretical minimum amount of volume needed to maintain liquid markets?
In a distributed system all clients would need to agree on the largest existing gap under various messaging anomalies. If you have a mechanism to reach that agreement then you can probably use a simpler deterministic load balancing algo. Consistent hashing gives you eventually consistent routing without (synchronous) agreement.
You don’t need agreement. A newly added node can try best effort to find the optimal placement based upon the known state of the cluster and then advertise that it is going to a specific place in the hash ring. When clients learn about the new node they will also learn where that node has decided to put itself into the ring. No coordination is needed. There are probably moments that a client learns about the node they also atomically learn about where that nodes is placed.
There are probably other issues where simultaneously added nodes may try to insert themself into the same position in the ring, you could add some jitter in the placement to compensate for this, but then I guess you are now introducing randomness which is one step closer to just having vnodes again.
As a parent of kids with ADHD I've come to believe that it is disabling in two ways: an actual deficit in attention that makes it more difficult to complete tasks AND an incompatibility with an inflexible society.
I see both of these in my kids' experience at school:
The true deficit can be seen in inability to complete schoolwork on time. Sure, homework is artificial, but I have no doubt the same difficulties would apply to - say - planting and harvesting crops on a schedule
The societal incompatibility is seen in relatively benign "behavior issues" like difficulty sitting still. The idea that children should sit at attention for hours seems bizarre unless you accept that school is training an obedient factory/cubical workforce.
Both of those have immediate rather than delayed (artificial?) consequences, which might have been easier to handle.
When factories tried paying peasants by the hour, they would work as much as they felt like (e.g. not showing up at all on "Saint" Monday) until they were taught time-discipline.
Came here to say basically the same thing. It is possible both that ADHD itself negatively impacts some people and that other people's (especially parents') reactions to ADHD negatively impact some people. They're not incompatible beliefs at all. Same for autism, and also personality disorders like BPD. Putting all of the blame on either side seems overly simplistic and unhelpful. Identifying which issues stem from which causes seems much more likely to yield solutions (or at least coping mechanisms).
