You're welcome! While I understand your rationale now, I'm afraid I still disagree with it. :-) Simply because I find it very unlikely that people interested in and having enough skills to embark on any reasonable deep learning journey (even if just to try) would lack enough cloud computing skills to use cloud GPU instances. After all, using GPUs in the cloud is not much different from (and, thus, not more complex than) using physical GPUs in your local machine.
Fun fact: I've saved your post as PDF for offline reading and it clocked at 649(!) pages at the time of saving (32 pages for the post per se and the rest for the blog post comments). Combining that with feedback here at HN, it is clear that there is quite a lot of interest in the topic ...
Haha, 649 pages! Thanks for the discussion. I can understand your perspective. Maybe it would be best to add something to the blog post that discusses it from both perspectives and readers can then choose which perspective suits them better.
I should also a bit more in general about cloud computing, it seems some people agree that the post ran a bit short on that. At some point I just wanted to be done with it though — editing 10k word blog posts is not so much fun anymore!
It's my pleasure. I agree - it's a good idea to present both perspectives and allow readers to decide what works best for them.
I can certainly understand you being hesitant to add more content to an already sizeable post. Perhaps, several small paragraphs on important relevant aspects might still be worth considering (take it with a grain of salt, since I haven't actually read your post in detail, including cloud-related parts). Anyway, thank you very much, again, for your time and effort. Keep it up!
You're very welcome! BTW, do you have any interest in and time for potential consulting or advisory for a frontier/deep tech startup (ambitious goals, challenging tasks, great impact)? Not an immediate need, but, hopefully, it will be a more real opportunity in not so distant future.
Fun fact: I've saved your post as PDF for offline reading and it clocked at 649(!) pages at the time of saving (32 pages for the post per se and the rest for the blog post comments). Combining that with feedback here at HN, it is clear that there is quite a lot of interest in the topic ...