apawloski

I’m curious what your findings are for the best model for your use case

Are you a real American? Am I?

Great news for people who had to bend over backwards pretending this disruptive, nakedly corrupt behavior was "good, actually."

But unfortunately, there are other channels for them to effectively do the same thing, as discussed in oral arguments. So still not a major win for American manufacturers or consumers, I fear.

Can you clarify what you mean by "not very durable?"

Agree. It is harder to manufacture in America when the party leader breaks critical parts of your supply chain with rapid and unpredictable tariff changes. It is impossible to lower consumer prices on a good by raising taxes on it.

This is not even mentioning the astounding corruption of a president and his family personally and directly benefiting from these tariffs threats.

Does the party not understand the realities of this? Do they understand and are just lying about it because they're afraid of the leader? Afraid of admitting that they're wrong? I believe people are usually rational but I do not understand a rationalization where choosing to harm American manufacturers and consumers on the whims of a visibly corrupt leader is good, actually.

Does fishing without a license warrant the same large-scale violent carceral approach that DHS is taking? That would be an insane, disruptive overreaction for something that poses no public safety danger.

It was accomplished by simply choosing to enforce the law.

They accomplished it by terrorizing people based on the color of their skin. There's nothing "simple" about creating a gigantic secret police force. There's nothing "lawful" about blatantly ignoring court orders.

You already conceded that there is no public danger. Your argument boils down yet again Great Replacement nonsense about immigrants being bad for America.

Well because I want the laws enforced.

All laws? Because there are several that the administration are actively breaking. Surely you want those enforced too? How about court orders?

Other politicians had my whole life to enforce immigration law and they chose not to.

I mean, Obama was way more effective at deporting illegal immigrants than Trump. Even by raw numbers. So I'm not sure how you can honestly argue that de-naturalization quotas are necessary now, when they weren't before for an even more effective administration.

Can you elaborate more about how you think it's harmful despite having nothing to do with crime?

If it's not a serious case or a national security threat, why impose de-naturalization quotas? Surely if there are real threats out there we should be dedicating the energy to those?

(Also since you brought up Obama, why was Obama able to deport so many more people than Trump? And able to do it without terrorizing US cities with secret/poorly trained police, or needing a DHS with a larger budget than most other countries' militaries?)

You're fixated on a "technically this is legal" argument. But you're (perhaps willfully) missing the larger repercussions. This administration has lied and misled about their opponents committing fraud. You know they are not acting in good faith. So why would we want to further empower capricious, inconsistent, and politically motivated behavior?

For expensive GPU instances I have a crontab one-liner that shuts the node down after 2 hours if I don't touch an override file (/var/run/keepalive).

/5 * * * [ -f /var/run/keepalive ] && [ $(( $(date +\%s) - $(stat -c \%Y /var/run/keepalive) )) -gt 7200 ] && shutdown -h now

For somebody so concerned about China, how can you be so naive about the consequences of isolating America on the global stage? Actively destroying our alliances is an unforced error. How do you see our military working without the global logistical networks required to project US power?

It's so baffling to see you on this site consistently implying that Italians, Germans, or $WHOEVER are somehow worse Americans. Because if that were true, then you'd also have to acknowledge that you and I are worse Americans, which I don't think you believe.

And in general, your obsession with of the British is strange to me, because as you note, most Americans are not British and it's been that way for most of American history. Of course, there have been many great British Americans. But if we're weirdly keeping score, it's seems obvious that there would be a larger number of great Americans who weren't British?

5 years ago did you picture yourself defending the United States invading Greenland? Absolutely wild to watch the Overton Window move.

It's interesting that you're anti-economic sanctions but pro-tariffs. This administration talking points specifically justify tariffs as punishments for countries' behaviors.

Anyway be clear, I'm talking about this administration. Specifically their choice to invade Venezuela and capture their head of state, while simultaneously pardoning the ex-Honduran head of state who was convicted for the exact same thing. When I say inconsistent, I mean: they are saying (vocally and militarily) that they are anti-drug cartel, but also they are apparently pro-some-cartels? It makes no sense to me.

Yet another incoherent policy for this administration that will be interesting to see people defend. Why does Maduro get invaded and captured but convicted drug smuggler (and ex Honduran president) Juan Orlando Hernandez get pardoned?

I mean that’s cute, but surely you can add up the two parts (single training plus globally distributed inference) and understand that the net efficiency would be an improvement?

I've seen the Microsoft Aurora team make a compelling argument that weather is an interesting contradiction of the AI-energy-waste narrative. Once deployed at scale, inference with these models is actually a sizable energy/compute improvement over classical simulation and forecasting methods. Of course it is energy intensive to train the model, but the usage itself is more energy efficient.

Can you be clearer about The Times screaming about Trump trying to fight China economically? What are you referring to specifically from them?

Is it the same consistency model as S3? I couldn't see anything about it in their docs.

That's the (obvious, I guess) comparison I was thinking of too, but IIRC correctly the issues there were 1) allegations of bribes (which ended up being false/that witness arrested by the FBI for lying about it) and 2) Biden improperly leveraging the State Dept (which was also found to be untrue by two different Republican Senate investigations).

Now if the issue was Hunter Biden being on the board at all -- even if independent of any Joe Biden dealmaking -- then I'm very curious how the Republicans sounding alarms back then react to the Barron Trump TikTok board seat now.

I am still baffled, because wasn't there a bipartisan law passed banning TikTok? Is that just being ignored while a deal is orchestrated to sell it to Larry Ellison (and install Barron Trump on the TikTok Board of Directors)? The enforcement of the law is confusing to me here.

I don’t think one guy acting corruptly makes regularly people act corruptly.

Calling the President of the United States “one guy” I think is a bit reductive. He has spent a decade traveling the nation, rallying, and propagandizing. Surely that has impacted American culture? And we (I think) agree that the way he talks and behaves is not what we want our children to model. To me, I’d be much more averse to them acting like that than I’d be worried about them acting like random New Jerseyans.

I also think the president and his administration corrupting the government absolutely will impact regular people’s behavior and I’m surprised to hear you claim otherwise. In the same message that you are concerned with cities being corrupt as a bad thing, you are accepting and endorsing Trump doing that at a much larger and impactful federal level. Corruption is bad and we should want less of it - I don’t see how that happens under Trump.

Just a heads up that I’ll be heading out for a while so I think we have to agree to disagree at this point. Feel free to take the last word.

I guess I just fundamentally disagree that Trump’s the lesser of two evils, if you truly care about American values and culture. How could you want our children behaving like the example he sets? Can you justify his Rob Reiner tweet (for an immediately recent example) to me in a way that persuades me it’s how Americans should behave culturally?

I would love for you to answer the question about whether you’d let us in today, but I suspect you won’t because you’d have to also admit that your stance is hypocritical.

Ok. So if we really did care about building that industrial capacity, then why are we randomly and capriciously taxing the resources needed to build that capacity? Including the critical resources that we don't have in America? Why are we making it so hard for domestic production companies to make short, medium, and long term plans by repeatedly changing our trade policies on whims?

The globalized supply chains needed to get the natural resources alone should be enough to answer your question about why we should care about America's global relationships.

You can look at the data and see that about 50% of the difference in levels of social trust between people in Italy and Scandinavia [...] You can then use your eyes to look at Minnesota versus New Jersey and see more social trust and less corruption in the former than the latter. You can even tie cultural background back to concrete social indicators!

For months on here you have defended and cheer-led the most nakedly corrupt administration in our lifetimes. (Let's skip the part where we have to talk specific examples of his corruption - you know it, and I know it.) And now you are spouting ignorant anti-Italian stereotypes and acting like you care about corruption. Your inconsistency of values is utterly unpersuasive so far.

The country that exists reflects that it was built by British settlers, with greenfield development by Germans and Scandinavians in the Midwest.

That does not include me, so if I were an immigrant today you would not let me in. If you were an immigrant today, would you let yourself in?

Surely you see the hypocrisy in that, especially if you consider yourself a valuable member of society. Maybe, just maybe, it's possible to be a great American if you're not British, German, or Scandinavian. And that's been true for millions and millions of non-British/German/Scandinavians through all of American history.

Were my ancient legal texts incorporated? Were yours? If you are born here, what does it matter?

But more importantly, I said Americans. Are some Americans more American to you?

America is not a startup. It is not even a company. It’s a country who was built inherently by immigration. And it was wrong to single out the Irish and Italians, and it’s wrong to single out the ___ now.

Thanks for pointing out the irony that these folks refuse to engage with: that they (we) are all here as the result of immigration. It's about as plainly hypocritical that they get. Their immigrants were fine, of course..

I wish the folks who are trying to cut off all immigration (and open channels to de-naturalize American citizens) could appreciate this more. Because it exposes their thesis at its core: some Americans are better than others, and these people know which are which. Where do I as an American fall into these categories of theirs?

I remember you trying to defend the tariff policies as a defense against China. Do you still honestly perceive China as a threat to American power and livelihood? If so, how do you square this stance of conceding global power to China at the same time? At the very least, surely you can see the importance of global supply chains to American manufacturing that you want to protect?

I'm asking these questions specifically based on your arguments in the past. I don't understand how you can believe America can thrive in a world without allies and trade partners.

This is becoming a Tim Robinson gag. I wish you would dedicate as much time supporting American consumers and American manufacturers as you did trying to argue whatever it is you’re digging in about food spiciness or whatever. Your points were not about pasta but truly that it’s more American to not enjoy food lol.

If you must respond, please address my initial points about all the concessions you’re making about these policies. Also, how do you end up finding these random op eds? Like what do you search to find them?