It's easy to have unique keys in your spreadsheet so that you can easily relate information on different sheets to one another. The problem is, actually doing the processing that a SQL server would do trivially is irritating, and then it will be processed slowly every time. Whatever Excel does or doesn't cache, it isn't enough. You can do big complicated things, but they work slowly, and maintaining it is irritating at best. When you do complicated things either your formulas get long, or you wind up having to write code, or in fact often it's both. At that point you're way better off IMO doing it in something else so that at least performance is good when you're done, and you never have to screw with editing a long formula.
But, is 2e7 cells really that many? If I spent 5 minutes brainstorming I could probably think of 20 pieces of metadata you'd want in columns of a spreadsheet tracking financial transactions
That's exactly why it should be in a database and not a spreadsheet. Spreadsheets are best when you have a reasonably limited number of columns. It's also a horrible PITA to use them as a relational database (it's more or less possible, but you don't want to do it) so hiding pieces of that complexity in other sheets in order to limit the data the user interfaces with on the main sheet is just a lot of extra work you wouldn't have to do if you used another solution.
I'm mostly surprised that Google Sheets chokes on what feels like a fairly small amount of data. My best guess is that it's some insane formulas that it struggles with more than the number of cells.
It doesn't really matter where it fails, if Excel can do it and Sheets can't then Google has to admit inferiority to Microsoft which is never a good look.
When in the last two centuries have the French, or the British, or the Germans, or the Belgians, or the Italians moved in a way to unify that continent to stand up to this kind of genocide?
Biden went around congress to fund a different genocide. Pretty words, but living up to them is another matter.
A new study has found that people are more likely to act kind towards others when Batman is present â" and not for the reasons you might assume.
[...]
Psychologists from the Catholic University of the Sacred Heart in Italy conducted experiments on the Milan metro to see who, if anyone, might offer their seat to a pregnant passenger.
The kicker? Sometimes Batman was there â" or at least, another experimenter dressed as him. The researchers were checking if people were more likely to give up their seat in the presence of the caped crusader.
And sure enough, there did seem to be a correlation. In 138 different experiments, somebody offered their seat to an experimenter wearing a hidden prosthetic belly 67.21 percent of the time in the presence of Batman.
That's a lot more often than times the superhero wasn't around â" in those cases, a passenger offered a seat just 37.66 percent of the time.
[...]
"Interestingly, among those who left their spot in the experimental condition, nobody directly associated their gesture with the presence of Batman, and 14 (43.75 percent) reported that they did not see Batman at all."
The article goes on to speculate about what is causing people to be more generous.
The UK is one of the halfway countries that still uses miles and gallons for vehicles
Only for fuel consumption, but not fuel. Which his funny because we dispense fuel (and just about everything else) in liters, so MPG is an entertainingly irritating figure. We should use MPL obviously.
Pandering to Reform voters is pointless, they are not going to vote Labour unless they go full fascist.
Probably not even then. If you're going to vote for a racist, why not go for the real deal instead of a half arsed knockoff where you're not even sure if they're really committed or just doing it to try and impress.
Here it is every single year. Varies by State, of course. Some States it is 2 years, some have no inspections at all. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/...
In NM it's yearly: they ensure your tire treads aren't too deep and that you have one emergency spare in place of a regular wheel. They'll also put some chips in your windscreen if you ask nicely.
it augers the beginning of the end of total immunity for social media conglomerates.
You've drilled down to heart of the matter.
or a paper in Nature
That's not a paper in Nature, it's a paper in Scientific Reports, a much lower tier journal published by the same company.
Hells bells that is godawful though, and inexcusable from a publishing point of view.
SciRep is a very mixed bag. It's where you go when you've exhausted the higher impact factor journals. There are some really good papers in there, but also bad ones and with the vast deluge (even pre AI slop) of papers, getting good peer reviewers for mid to lower tier journals has been more or less impossible for years.
I read that as H2O conflicts first... I will let someone else insert the other obvious meme.
Yes it will keep being LLMs are LLMs week until the outside world moves on from hammering "LLMs are magic" week every week.
LLMs are of course LLMs.
automated image pattern matching has been around for decades
The problem is that the LLM only does one trick. When you start integrating other software with it, the other software's input has to be fed in the same way as your other tokens. As the last paragraph of TFS says, "every clock check consumes space in the model's context window" and that's because it's just more data being fed in. But the model doesn't actually ever know what time it is, even for a second; the current time is just mixed into the stew and cooked with everything else. It doesn't have a concept of the current time because it doesn't have a concept of anything.
You could have a traditional system interpreting the time, and checking the LLM's output to determine whether what it said made sense. But now that system has to be complicated enough to determine that, and since the LLM is capable of so much complexity of output it can never really be reliable either. You can check the LLM with another LLM, and that's better than not checking its output at all, but the output checking is subject to the same kinds of failures as the initial processing.
So yeah, we can do that, but it won't eliminate the [class of] problem.
There is nothing so easy but that it becomes difficult when you do it reluctantly. -- Publius Terentius Afer (Terence)