HN user

blihp

4,300 karma

phil411nospam at gmail

Posts0
Comments1,123
View on HN
No posts found.

Not necessarily as even the factory produced optical discs have had issues with de-lamination, oxidation etc. Of course a lot of that had to do with companies cheaping out on manufacturing in order to make that last tenth of a cent of profit as they tend to do.

Apple M5 chip 9 months ago

Not possible given the anemic memory bandwidth [1]... you can scale up the compute all you want but if the memory doesn't scale up as well you're not going to see anywhere near those numbers.

[1] The memory bandwidth is fine for CPU workloads, but not for GPU / NN workloads.

Ollama Web Search 10 months ago

There are very few recently launched pure open source projects these days (most are at least running donation-ware models or funded by corporate backers), none in the AI space that I'm aware of.

Take a closer look at the history of how they've been running things pretty much since the beginning. Even though they give away a lot of code under open source licenses (most of it they have to), to me it's always looked like they have run the project as if building a business out of it was the priority. I'm sure their recent IPO will result in much more openness... that's usually how things go, right? Nothing wrong with that, just don't be fooled into thinking they're something they're not.

I didn't down vote but I'll take a shot: A valid reason to consider the question is to determine to what degree the model was steered or filtered during training. This goes to can you trust its output beyond the obvious other limitations of the model such as hallucinations etc. It's useful to know if you are getting responses based just on the training data or if you have injected opinions to contend with.

I don't think your take is incorrect. I give it a try from time to time and it's always been inferior to other offerings for me every time I've tested it. Which I find a bit strange as NotebookLM (until recently) had been great to use. Whatever... there are plenty of other good options out there.

Having watched some of his streams on the topic, I think you've captured it well. He's basically saying he's done wasting time on AMD unless/until they get serious. It's not so much that he wants free hardware from them, rather he wants to see them put some skin in the game as they basically blew him off the last time he tried to engage with them.

It was implied by the phrase 'transformed the ways everyone used computers'. True, to younger computer users MacWrite would be the most familiar of the three. However, in terms of total unit sales and percentage of users for their day, MacWrite was practically rounding error in the word processor market. It was WordStar and then WordPerfect that dominated (and therefore 'transformed...') until the early/mid-90's when MS Word took over.

I tend to agree. Pat seemed to be trying to take a middle ground approach: split the company in two, but not really giving up hope that Intel would regain x86 leadership and that somehow things were still going to be OK on that front. The reality is that even if Intel retakes x86 leadership, x86 isn't what it once was and is unlikely to command the premium it once did except in niche legacy applications. If you give up hope for a return to the glory days, there's some radical restructuring left to do which includes cutting most of the middle, and some vertical layers, out of Intel.

What's your rush, sonny? You say 'not anytime soon' but then you say 'next 10 years'. In the world of GNU software, to say 'glacial pace' is basically asking 'what's your hurry?' Fine wine, fine wine... give it at least 30-40 years...

I think it absolutely was. Even 50+ years ago there was far more competition in any number of industries and investors looking at a particular widget maker could compare numerous companies and analyze the operations and strategy of each before picking which one(s) to invest in. Today we assume EMH when competition has become increasingly rare... so everyone from consumers to investors have fewer options yet somehow efficiency is supposed to exist.

Today most just pile into the megacaps and generally assume 'these guys are the biggest... they must be the best.' Sure, there's a small window of competition in the VC world where money piles into non-public companies for a few years before a winner is selected (often having nothing to do with having the best product/service or even being the most efficient or profitable... it's all about who scaled to the finish line the fastest) and either becomes the 800lb gorilla or gets gobbled up by one.

I ran it through Perplexity Pro which gave a very different and detailed answer with this closing note: "It's worth noting that not all places named "Hamilton" are necessarily named after Alexander Hamilton. For example, Hamilton, Ontario in Canada is named after George Hamilton, a Canadian merchant. Similarly, Hamilton in Scotland and New Zealand are named after different individuals."

Did you try any of your queries using Perplexity Pro? (even at the free tier they give you a few 'Pro' queries a day) While it's still far from perfect, the Pro answers are generally higher quality than the free ones.

I'm finding several of the LLM's that can cite sources, including Perplexity, are more useful to me than Google for search these days. The notable exception is Gemini which has been quite bad in my experience compared to the other options.

The thinking is that the trajectory of LLM's will get them an AI flywheel where they can pump money in and get unlimited amounts of intelligence either augmenting or replacing human labor for pennies on the dollar. The business 'thought leaders' on this view it as a largely zero-sum game: get there first or watch your business die as someone else beats you to it.

This has a very late-90's vibe and is quite entertaining to watch.

Not so complex as to prevent this from existing: https://github.com/YosysHQ (if you have a supported device, these tools work quite well)

The limiting factor is that to support a given device it has to be reverse engineered since FPGA vendors don't want to provide the necessary details... that's the main issue.

OpenWrt One 2 years ago

It's primarily a wifi router so most of the bandwidth is assumed to be used by wireless devices.

OpenWrt One 2 years ago

Nice to see a (presumably) simple to setup OpenWrt device at a reasonable price. It would be really great to see a future device with a switched fabric (5-ports minimum, more ports better). Already having an older device with a hackable switched fabric has me spoiled and I want my next one to have it as well.

The talent and ideas that were Pixelmator will be substantially diffused as it's absorbed by Apple... most of what you liked about Pixelmator is likely no more over the next year or two. Depending on Apple's reasoning for the acquisition (i.e. how much of it was just for the talent vs the product) you'll may see some small glimpses of Pixelmator's influence a couple years from now in Apple's stuff. Most of the time Apple doesn't keep the acquired product around.

I'm arguing that Meta isn't in this for altruistic reasons. In the short term, they're doing this so Apple/Google can't do to them with AI tech what they've done to them with mobile/browsers. (i.e. Meta doesn't want them owning the stack, and therefore controlling and dictating, who can do what with it) In the longer term: Meta doesn't sell access... yet. Meta shows no interest... yet. You could have said the same thing about Apple and Google 15+ years ago about a great many things. This has all happened before and this will all happen again.

They can't since Meta can spend billions on models that they give away and never need to get a direct ROI on it. But don't expect Meta's largess to persist much beyond wiping out the competition. Then their models will probably start to look about as open as Android does today. (either through licensing restrictions or more 'advanced' capabilities being paywalled and/or API-only)

Likely not tense as it seems pretty clear where everyone stands on this. OpenAI and Anthropic are likely having conversations along the lines of 'move faster and build the moat!' while Meta is having a conversation along the lines of 'move faster and destroy the moat!'

It's not that Meta has anything against moats, it's just that they've seen how it works when they try to build their moat on top of someone else's (i.e. Apple and Google re: mobile) and it didn't work out too well.

This was just the author's current issue on Android. In another month or two it would have been something else. I fought similar battles for the better part of a decade before finally giving up when Google's policies made it so that even keeping apps running (at least in my case) was an economic non-starter. The sheer amount of bureaucratic B.S.[1] they constantly fling at you while simultaneously bit-rotting existing applications is insane.

[1] Sometimes it's related to their store listing policies which are constantly changing, sometimes it's related to taxation in a specific country, sometimes it's related to laws in a specific country, sometimes it's actually related to software (on-device or web services!) they are forcing you to update/change etc. etc.