I found Pandera quite good for wrapping input/output expectations over Pandas. At the end of the day the vectorisation of operations in it and other table based formats mean they’re not easy to replace performantly.
At that point it isn't a $10k card anymore, it's a $5k card. And possibly not a $5k card for very long in the scenario that the market has been flooded with them.
Ah well yes to a degree that’s possible but at least at the moment you’d still be better off buying a $5k Mac Studio if it’s just inference you’re doing
Why would you do that when you can pay someone else to run the model for you on newer more efficient and more profitable hardware? What makes it profitable for you and not for them?
The fact that they were elected as a 'change' government and have barely done anything that really faces up to the scale of the challenge the country faces? If you're below the age of about 55, then the budget did absolutely nothing for you except put taxes up, and not even to improve services.
I appreciate things time but so far the government have enormously walked back their planning reform proposals, which was one of their few pro-growth policies, and haven't really made any dent in anything else substantive. It's been pretty clear since even before the election that they didn't really have a plan, and they got a fairly light scrutiny through the campaign because the Tories were so appalling. Then since they got in they're just scrambling around looking fairly incompetent and the dearth of talent on the cabinet has been pretty plain to see as well. Largely I want Labour to succeed but they're not making it easy to like them.
They have done a lot of sensible, boring things that are objectively positive but are going largely going unnoticed (plus of course a few massive footguns that make the headlines).
I keep recommending r/GoodNewsUK on Reddit. It’s often just a lot of press releases and government announcements, but there seem to be a continual stream of them, and it’s hard to hear about them by any other source.
It’s telling the outrage over the stamp duty cockup of Rayner (which had it been sold a couple of weeks later wouldn’t have been a problem), and near silence of the stamp duty evasion of Farage.
Farage’s mate - the leader of Reform Wales, was literally thrown in jail for 10
Years after he admitted she was a Russian agent. Barely anything in the media about it.
Due to the way FPTP works though it’s likely Farage will get a majority in 29 off less than 30% of the vote.
> The fact that they were elected as a 'change' government and have barely done anything that really faces up to the scale of the challenge the country faces?
They have done a lot. But they haven't even stopped the runaway train yet. And the fundamental mistake they have made is not explaining to people clearly enough, during the election campaign, that it would take the first three years just to stop it.
Then you have the absolutely shameful, racist, nihilistic, fact-free intervention of five MPs that the media thinks will run the country in future so they are getting ten times the airtime of anyone else.
I really don’t agree. Look at the first year of 1997 Labour:
* Good Friday agreement signed and referendum
* Introduction of Minimum Wage
* Human Rights act introduced and passed
* Scottish and Welsh devolution set out, Parliament voted on it, referendums passed
* Bank of England independence
A government coming into a mess of a country on a platform of change cannot just fiddle around with minor things, which is what many of the changes they have done, though positive, are. And at the same time, they’ve also wasted so much political capital on some really stupid things that it’s hard to see where they can go from here.
This is an unfair comparison. The economy Blair inherited was very different, thanks to Ken Clark's preoccupation with eliminating the 'Public Sector Borrowing Requirement'. The pressure on public finances we see now, in part because of privatization under Blair, wasn't there in 1997.
I don't think it's unfair at all, stuff like BoE independence was planned prior to the election and implemented quite quickly.
The planning reforms of Labour have been held up largely by their own MPs. I don't particularly care about it but House of Lords reform seems to have been abandoned. Their 'charter for working people' has been largely unworkable and they're arguing internally an enormous amount. Lots of these don't have a huge amount of bearing on them based on the economy at all, they're largely cost neutral to the government itself.
Instead we've had (a) more bungs to pensioners via the triple lock which they're too scared to deal with at nearly a 5% increase this year (b) getting rid of the cap on benefits for more than 2 children, which is terrible optics for everyone working who can't afford more than two kids and doesn't get any support (c) a rise in employer NI which has hit hiring and pay rises massively for anyone working (d) a rise in employee NI to pay for all of this via stopping salary sacrifice, which only hits private sector employees.
Yes and I'd argue that this is because they have not been elected on merit but because the people rejected the Tories. I believe that Corbyn got more votes than Starmer!
They have neither talents nor a plan. So far it seems that Starmer has picked policies to make him survive and he knows that this means placating power bases in the Labour party, not generally good policies for the country. Opinion polls are scathing.
It put up my taxes a little with the NI removal of pension contributions. It put my employers tax up a ton though.
The freezing of threshold just continued Tory policy.
While I’m annoyed the extra money has been given to those who don’t work, and marginal rates advice 60% still exist, I just see this as lost opportunity. They could have increased income tax and reduced NI, thus raising tax on non working people. But truth is all governments are beholden to the elderly for the next 20 years.
However the attacks on reeves have been vitriolic since the start and there’s a significant amount of misogyny in them.
I largely agree, expect I think my expectations were lower than yours to start with. The ruling class all think alike regardless of party.
They have pushed ahead with the Tories Online Safety Act. Legislation I have looked at or that affect things I know about such as the Children's Wellbeing and Schools Act is terrible.
There is a lot of smoke and mirrors. For example, if you assume the justification for the "mansion tax" is that people who own higher value properties should be taxed more, why does someone with a £50m house not pay more than someone with a £5m house? Its designed to hit the moderately wealthy but not the really rich.
Although I agree it should be proportional to value, a £5M property puts you in the top 1% of property prices in the country. Even within London, it’s also within the top 1% of all but the most expensive boroughs. The average home property sale in the UK is less than £275,000.
A tax on a £5M home is not a tax on the moderately wealthy, it’s a tax on the wealthy.
No, it's designed to maximize what they can raise without pissing off too many voters. Even as it is, it's going to raise barely half a billion pounds, which is relatively insignificant in a budget worth hundreds of billions; but it's something, and something they (think they) can sell to their core electorate as a bit of token redistribution, when in reality it's just a cash-raising exercise.
If they'd targeted the really rich harder, it would have looked more consistent but would have probably raised even less (because, when a tax starts being significant, the really rich have the means to find ways to avoid it). As it is, it looks insignificant enough that the really wealthy will just pay it and move on.
> because, when a tax starts being significant, the really rich have the means to find ways to avoid it
Taxes on property are something they cannot avoid though.
One of the reasons the rich are able to find means to avoid taxes has always been government reluctance to stop them. There are many deliberate tax breaks for the rich - think of how long it took to get rid of non-dom status, so I really do not think the government has ever tried very hard to stop avoidance by the rich.
There are plenty of loopholes and corner cases, you just need skilled accountants and lawyers (companies registered abroad, etc etc). That's why there is legislation about "ultimate ownership" and such: authorities are increasingly desperate about being able to prove who owns what.
Starmer does not really care about not pissing off too many voters. He already has but he is also safe from them as the next election is far away. On the other hand, he is at risk, high risk, from his own party so he does what placates them. We've seen it before with private schools, now again with the 2-child cap, for instance.
Starmer was already the most unpopular PM on record before the budget, and Labour's voting intention is the lowest it's ever been. It's just a really, really unpopular government so of course it gets a lot of attacks.
The public do not see or agree that they have done well in any areas, hence their appallingly low popularity. And that was before this budget announcement.
It does not take a crystal ball to understand that the British media, which are vitriolic on a good day, will have an absolute free-for-all. It's nothing new.
There's two ways of doing it, I implemented them both in my PhD and didn't have a ton of fun doing it.
(a) There's a method that works well for monopolar sources (gravitational + electrostatic particles) called the Barnes-Hut method. You effectively divide space up into a quadtree (2D) or octree (3D), and in each cell work out the center of mass / total charge. You make particles in "nearby" cells (using a distance criterion that can be adjusted to speed up/slow down the simulation in a trade off with accuracy) interact directly, and far away cells you just use the center of mass to work out the interaction between any given 'far' particle and the particles in that cell. The method is O(N log N) but in practice, this is 'good enough' for many applications.
(b) uses a more rigorous technique called the Fast Multipole Method which is O(N), where rather than just using the center of mass or sum of charges, you expand the potential from particles out into higher order components which captures the distribution of particles within each cell. This also means you can capture more complex potentials. The downside is that this is a nightmare to implement in comparison to the Barnes-Hut method. Each cell has it's own multipole expansion, and it is 'transferred' to work out the additive contribution to every 'far' cell, calculating a 'local' expansion. Typically people use the most compact representation of these potential expansions which uses Lagrange polynomials, but this is a pain.
A number of years ago I worked on a POWER9 GPU cluster. This was quite painful - Python had started moving to use wheels and so most projects had started to build these automatically in CI pipelines but pretty much none of these even supported ARM let alone POWER9 architecture. So you were on your own for pretty much anything that wasn’t Numpy. The reason for this of course is just that there was little demand and as a result even fewer people willing to support it.
Not just little demand, also expensive and uncommon hardware. If the maintainers don't have the hardware to test on they can't guarantee support for that hardware. Not having hardware available often happens because there's little demand for it, but the difficulty of maintaining software for rare hardware further reduces the demand for that hardware.
All quite good examples but I would say that these are quite well known. It’s also missing that there are mitigation strategies for some - for e.g. in vibration analysis it’s typical to look at the Hann windowed data to remove the effect of partial cycles, and it’s common to overlap samples too. Similarly there are other tools like the Cepstrum which help you identify periodic peaks in the spectral data.
Fourier tutorials are a dime a dozen, so it would likely have been a better idea to link to his excellent wavelet tutorial at https://www.continuummechanics.org/wavelets.html . Good explanations of that concept are a lot harder to come by.
That is an excellent description of wavelets from one of the first points: "The vast majority of wavelet documents and internet tutorials appear to be written by mathematicians for mathematicians." all through the article.
reply