I think it’s better to think about what swap is, and the right answer might well be zero. If you try to allocate memory and there isn’t any available, then existing stuff in memory is transferred to the swap file/partition. This is incredibly slow. If there isn’t enough memory or swap available, then at least one process (one hopes the one that made the unfulfillable request for memory) is killed.

If you ever do start swapping memory to disk, your computer will grind to a halt.

Maybe someone will disagree with me, and if someone does I’m curious why, but unless you’re in some sort of very high memory utilization situation, processes being killed is probably easier to deal with than the huge delays caused by swapping.

Edit: Didn’t notice what community this was. Since it’s a webserver, the answer requires some understanding of utilization. You might want to look into swap files rather than swap partitions, since I’m pretty sure they’re easier to resize as conditions change.

The issue will have to be litigated, but… A lawyer once told me that there aren’t really “lawsuits” so much as “factsuits.” The actual judgment in a trial comes more down to the facts at issue than the laws at issue. This sure looks an awful lot like IBM strong arming people into not exercising their rights under the license agreement that IBM chose to distribute under. If it is ever litigated, it isn’t hard to imagine the judgment going against IBM.

Wouldn’t surprise me.

I’m pretty sure this article is a really bad attempt at satire. Or if there is a point, maybe it’s that… the fact that there have been things in the past that are not just fads (like SQL), that means that current things that are fads (like blockchain) are in fact not just fads?

Ah, le fumé monsieur.

I guess there’s a sense in which all computer science is table lookups, but if you want a nauseatingly technical summary of deep learning—it’s high-dimensional nonlinear regression with all the methodological seatbelts left unfastened.

The only thing this says about us is that philosophical illiteracy is a big problem in the sciences, and that computer science is the most embarrassing field in all STEM. Otherwise, you know, people find beauty in randomness (or in stochasticity, if you prefer) all the time. This is no different.

This is the curation effect: generate lots of chaff, and have humans search for the wheat. Thing is, someone’s already gotten in deep shit for trying to use deep learning for legal filings.

I guess the important thing to understand about spurious output (what gets called “hallucinations”) is that it’s neither a bug nor a feature, it’s just the nature of the program. Deep learning language models are just probabilities of co-occurrence of words; there’s no meaning in that. Deep learning can’t be said to generate “true” or “false” information, or rather, it can’t be meaningfully said to generate information at all.

So then people say that deep learning is helping out in this or that industry. I can tell you that it’s pretty useless in my industry, though people are trying. Knowing a lot about the algorithms behind deep learning, and also knowing how fucking gullible people are, I assume that—if someone tells me deep learning has ended up being useful in some field, they’re either buying the hype or witnessing an odd series of coincidences.

When I was looking at conspiracy theories about the submarine, this was basically the metatheory. That they’ve so heavily brainwashed us that we can read something like this and go, yeah that seems realistic.

Is it better or worse that I think someone made this by hand?

The best part about Bayeux Tapestry memes is, the Bayeux Tapestry itself came pre-memed. For example, this section has a naked guy in the margin for, I’m pretty sure, absolutely no reason at all.

What else are they gonna put in their tailpipes?

Of course, they’d charge you $300 for having to make the effort.

They should just start posting rules. You know, screenshots of laws, photos of stop signs, warning labels…

Even apart from that, it implies that a sixth grader is not only a gay furry, but he has no problem letting his teacher know he’s a gay furry.

I think not caring about being cool only amplifies preexisting coolness. An entitled boomer isn’t gonna become cool just because they’re even less self-conscious about their obnoxious opinions.

No future but what we make for ourselves—and we sure have done a shit job.

The actual goal of political economy should be the well-being of the people. Price stability can be a means to that end, but it can also diminish standards of living. Certainly, price stability is not an end in itself.

To clarify what I mean, this current inflationary period is being caused by transient supply disruptions. They’ll clear up on their own. Apart from Japan, what are the central banks of the world doing? They’re trying to throw their economies into recession. Because of transient inflation that was not caused by runaway demand.

It’s tricky to talk about actual gold standard days, since economic data aren’t very reliable that far in the past, but historical accounts don’t exactly paint a rosy economic picture. Whether there was price stability, I’m really not sure, but I do know there was mass unemployment, frequent economic crises, and widespread poverty.

Finally, the Eurozone… Their recession following the global financial crisis lasted longer than other advanced economies, because the Stability and Growth Pact is the opposite of sensible economic administration. Indeed, Europe is in a downward binge-purge spiral of—crisis happens, better ignore excessive deficit rules and let the ECB buy sovereign debt at its discretion; well the crisis is over, time to fuck up European economies again; oh no there’s another crisis, better ignore the SGP again.

At some point I might have to leave the US, so it’s a shame that Europe isn’t a viable alternative.

Nothing has inherent value. Inherent value shouldn’t be confused with practical value. Anyway, while gold has some practical value nowadays, being a corrosion resistant electrical conductor doesn’t explain why people wanted gold more than a hundred years ago. Thinking there’s something special about gold that makes it valuable irrespective of social beliefs or practical uses is just… the world’s least interesting religion.

The fact is, money has value because it’s the only thing that can be used to pay taxes. So for the next level, I’ve never quite understood what “social construct” means. Is being punched for cosplaying a Nazi a social construct? Not the justification, but the fist, is the fist a social construct? Is being harassed by the IRS because you’re a sovereign citizen who uses self-issued Freedom Dollars and doesn’t believe the Sixteenth Amendment was duly ratified so income taxes are illegal, is the harassment from the IRS a social construct?