https://www.amazon.com/Platform-Scale-emerging-business-inve...

This book has various examples of the double-sided marketplace and how they solved the exact _chicken and egg problems_ you are talking about.

https://vivegi.github.io/Trek/

I have a feeling this is going to make debugging code written just a few months ago incrementally difficult. At least the explicit if statements are easier to follow the intent from months ago.

The syntax is clean though. I'll give it that.

Some papers of relevance:

  - Xu Zhong, Jianbin Tang, Antonio Jimeno Yepes. "PubLayNet: largest dataset ever for document layout analysis," Aug 2019. Preprint: https://arxiv.org/abs/1908.07836 Code/Data: https://github.com/ibm-aur-nlp/PubLayNet

  - B. Pfitzmann, C. Auer, M. Dolfi, A. S. Nassar and P. Staar, "DocLayNet: a large human-annotated dataset for document-layout analysis," 13 August 2022. [Online]. Available: https://developer.ibm.com/exchanges/data/all/doclaynet/.

  - S. Appalaraju, B. Jasani, B. U. Kota, Y. Xie and R. Manmatha, "Docformer: End-to-end transformer for document understanding.," in The International Conference on Computer Vision (ICCV 2021), 2021.

The second is for documents. It contains 80K manually annotated pages from diverse data sources to represent a wide variability in layouts. For each PDF page, the layout annotations provide labelled bounding-boxes with a choice of 11 distinct classes. DocLayNet also provides a subset of double- and triple-annotated pages to determine the inter-annotator agreement.

GPT-4 can't solve Millenium Prize problems or other open problems in other domains yet.

Gap detection: The system is able to identify gaps in established knowledge

Path/problem decomposition: The system is able to decompose a problem (i.e., an identified gap) and break down the solution into a set of subproblems that can be independently solved.

Improvement/Optimization: Given a known solution, the system is able to discover objectively better approaches to solution.

There are probably other dimensions, but I would start with these.

https://translate.google.com/?sl=auto&tl=ta&text=pineapple&o...

This promises a single C code base and portable executable generation for

  Linux
  MacOS
  Windows
  FreeBSD
  OpenBSD
  NetBSD

NASA reported locating the Vikram Lander's debris in Dec 2019: https://www.nasa.gov/image-feature/goddard/2019/vikram-lande...

As John D Cook points out, the fact that the core 2x2 matmul operations that can be done in parallel is a big benefit for doing this in software or hardware.

Regulatory challenges (Jurisdiction India).

The OLAP data is populated from the OLTP data using queries (snapshot tables, materialized views etc., could be the implementation).

You then add/refresh data into the OLAP tables in a set frequency (for eg: daily, weekly, bi-weekly, monthly, quarterly, yearly etc.,).

The OLTP system has up-to-date realtime transactions. The OLAP data has snapshots as of a particular date. The OLAP data may be denormalized while the OLTP data is highly normalized. This makes the OLAP data optimized for reads while the OLTP data is optimized for writes.

That is a tall claim, if there ever was one.

> EIC officials like Ernest ‘Oriental’ Jones and Warren Hastings showed a profound interest in Hindu culture and went to great lengths to accommodate Indian custom to utilitarian understandings of law and property. Biggar suggests that, Edward Said, the author of the 1978 book Orientalism which spawned post-colonial discourse theory and decolonise campaigns in education, distorted the character of European and British interest in both India and China.

Warren Hastings presided over the Great Bengal Famine of 1770 and reported back to the EIC about the wipeout of 10 million humans in Bengal.

Damodaran, Vinita (2014), "The East India Company, Famine and Ecological Conditions in Eighteenth-Century Bengal", in V. Damodaran; A. Winterbottom; A. Lester (eds.), The East India Company and the Natural World, Palgrave Macmillan UK, pp. 80–101, 89, ISBN 978-1-137-42727-4, writes:

> Before the end of May 1770, one third of the population was calculated to have disappeared, in June the deaths were returned as six out of sixteen of the whole population, and it was estimated that 'one half of the cultivators and payers of revenue will perish with hunger'. During the rains (July–October) the depopulation became so evident that the government wrote to the court of directors in alarm about the number of 'industrious peasants and manufacturers destroyed by the famine'. It was not till cultivation commenced for the following year 1771 that the practical consequences began to be felt. It was then discovered that the remnant of the population would not suffice to till the land. The areas affected by the famine continued to fall and were put out of tillage. Warren Hastings' account, written in 1772, also stated the loss as one third of the inhabitants and this figure has often been cited by subsequent historians. The failure of a single crop, following a year of scarcity, had wiped out an estimated 10 million human beings according to some accounts. The monsoon was on time in the next few years but the economy of Bengal had been drastically transformed, as the records of the next thirty years attest."

So, yeah. The empire was evil.

  
Things to do

  https://example.com/foo.html#myanchor

[1]: https://www.w3.org/MarkUp/html-spec/html-spec_7.html#SEC7.4

> A.6 What is the Difference Between “Concurrent” and “Parallel”?

> From a classic computing perspective, “concurrent” and “parallel” are clearly synonyms. However, this has not stopped many people from drawing distinctions between the two, and it turns out that these distinctions can be understood from a couple of different perspectives.

> The first perspective treats “parallel” as an abbreviation for “data parallel”, and treats “concurrent” as pretty much everything else. From this perspective, in parallel computing, each partition of the overall problem can proceed completely independently, with no communication with other partitions. In this case, little or no coordination among partitions is required. In contrast, concurrent computing might well have tight interdependencies, in the form of contended locks, transactions, or other synchronization mechanisms.

> This of course begs the question of why such a distinction matters, which brings us to the second perspective, that of the underlying scheduler. Schedulers come in a wide range of complexities and capabilities, and as a rough rule of thumb, the more tightly and irregularly a set oparallel processes communicate, the higher the level of sophistication required from the scheduler. As such, parallel computing’s avoidance of interdependencies means that parallel-computing programs run well on the least-capable schedulers. In fact, a pure parallel-computing program can run successfully after being arbitrarily subdivided and interleaved onto a uniprocessor. In contrast, concurrent computing programs might well require extreme subtlety on the part of the scheduler.

> though the driver must remain behind the wheel to take over when prompted

That is a modal interface and the system may also decides to switch modes at will. Anytime a human is expected to wakeup from a mode and takeover from an automated system on short notice, we have failure modes that are unique compared to a modeless system (including Full Human Drive )