Someone wanted to make sure to be the first?

> The fact he thinks otherwise tells me how out of touch he is.

We don't know what he really thinks. Maybe he knows it's a risk he wouldn't want to take but presents it as a goodwill

If you consider a person, their brain in particular, flowing backwards in time, the brain becomes a prediction tool. Events-memories (neural connections) appear out of nowhere (from the state of being 'forgotten' in the forward time flow) then completely disappear when the corresponding event happens, annihilating its 'predicting' memory.

The brain does want to predict (in fact I think that's what it's suppose to do), the problem is that the Earth is rather chaotic and unpredictable.

If you subject a brain-like neural network to watch planets and stars orbiting around each other and rewarding it for getting things right, it will likely do quite well.

Not that kind of predict. And this reverse-time brain instantly forgets things it saw for the last time.

Consider a black box. A person opens it, sees a dice with a number, closes it. In our version of the time flow, the person finds out there's a dice and remembers it. In the 'reverse time' persons brain, they would know they would open the black box and know which number they will see. Then they will close it and completely forget what was inside forever.

I didn't read the top level comment as dismissive or 'proving it wrong', but rather as adding context, or even being humorous somewhat

I don't understand how calling something "a ship of Theseus in corporate form" or "culture hasn't changed" etc, is not dismissive of the actual comment by the CEO on AI overspending. They dismissed the content of the message by saying IBM's culture sucks, is how i read it. Also things can be funny and dimissive at the same time, they often are.

As with evertything, there's always nuance. If everyone followed similar midset to the comment you were replying to, likely llm generated pr issues wouldn't be as much of a problem and we wouldn't even be here discussing it

No, the question is 30gb + 2gb ram swap vs 30gb + 2gb ssd swap

So in the described scenario, what advantage does an ssd-backed pagefile has over a ramdisk-backed one? Assuming the same sizes.

Because the common recommendation is "you need at least a few GB swap". We can change the total ram amount to 64 or 128.

A RAMDisk-backed page file removes useful RAM from the system. It's a net-negative. You're using RAM that would otherwise go towards useful things, like programs or file cache.

Again, if page file usage is a problem, you need more RAM, not less of it and certainly not allocating it to a RAMDisk.

What you're saying should make sense.

However:

32gb ram no pagefile: crashes

28gb + 2gb ramdisk pagefile: no crashes at all

32GB RAM + page file on disk also no crashes. Not all applications will function without a page file, as I said.

There's zero reason to use a RAMDisk for a page file. Stop listening to idiot gamers.

I don't care about ssd lifetime. This is purely an experiment. But you are inadvertently illustrating my point pretty well

I think you're under the false assumption that on Windows the page file is always being thrashed. That isn't how the VMM functions.

SSD "short" life span even from a bunch of 4KiB reads/writes is vastly overstated. Anyone who discusses the page file in terms of SSD lifetime is again, uninformed.

If anything, it would be detrimental to their mission. Asking them to improve android in every way is the lawyers equivalent of ddos'ing an adversary with paperwork

This is a maximalist view, in reality not feasible or scalable. Of course this is what we need to strive for, but aiming to decrease 'total unhappiness' with what we have, is a rational, if somewhat cynical, aim.

But even at aface value, more rational long-term approach would be to treat it, surely

Would you consider making a version/mode with resulting effects disclosed before the choice? I feel like that would make the whole experience smoother and more illustrative.