clipsy

The main trend is that models are moving out of cloud to local setup to avoid paying for tokens. This becomes possible due to free open-source models like Kimi K3 that already reached level of the best commercial models.

Who on earth is running a 1.8T parameter model locally? The hardware to do that with a usable token/s rate for a single person is (at least) well into 5 figure territory.

That's actually more aggressive than the rule as it exists, which merely requires that AI-modified listing photos be labeled as such.

Real, friendly, generous humans live in Haiti, too. That doesn't make it a good travel destination.

I thought Republicans were opposed to gender affirming therapy?

Mr Tan was not the one who retained the Apple-issued laptop:

Liu also failed to return an Apple-issued laptop after his departure.

Like, if you're a kid drinking and shooting bystanders from the back of an Uber, what do you think is going to happen?

I certainly don't think the Uber driver would hold me prisoner.

Agreed, Twitter should be shut down and Musk should be in prison.

Netflix -- and most streamers at this point -- seem to think that dragging out the time between seasons to 2, 3, sometimes even 4 years is something they can do without a cost. Viewers forget the plot lines, lose interest in the characters, etc and ultimately don't tune in (and are less engaged if they do tune in) for seasons 2+.

The costs are additive, unless you think there are people buying the helmet without a bike.

Which raises the question: why should these robots be prioritized over humans? Why can't they use the streets when there are pedestrians? Why should the SAFETY OF HUMANS be compromised for these profit-seeking corporations and their robots?

That's a good start, now ask some of the same questions about cars vs pedestrians. Ultimately, big money will win as it always does. Get used to dodging robots.

The New York Times (which published this) and the New Yorker are different publications.

The premise of the Republican party for half a century now has been: "The government can't do anything right, and if you elect us we'll prove it!"

Sounds like a skill issue, I've been remote for most of my career and have not had trouble getting promoted.

Clinical trials don’t happen until there’s a treatment to try.

Will Google foot the bill for anything that goes wrong?

So if a Democratic president uses the IRS to illegally seize assets from billionaires and the courts later rule it illegal, your opinion would be that the government should get to keep the money? If not, could you explain why it would be different?

There are two possibilities: One is that Flock is genuinely only being used for legitimate law enforcement purposes and proves useful in less than 0.1% of cases -- a data point the taxpayers footing the bill certainly deserve to know; the other is that there are a very large number of illegitimate uses, which any reasonable citizen should oppose.

Why are people like you so eager to defend Flock rather than simply expecting transparency on its uses?

I don’t think you quite understand what a “source” is.

This chucklehead CEO will be the unemployable one.

The chucklehead CEO will get a severance package worth more than you've made in your life and walk into another C-suite position courtesy of his golfing buddies.

Your version is a lovely thing to daydream about, though.

How is bias defined in this context? Is it always bad to be biased?

I think it's obviously correct that people have a right to defend themselves (including by using their car as a weapon) when genuinely threatened. But looking at the video, I see no indication whatsoever that he was in any danger; he was being inconvenienced and harassed, these are not things that justify a use of potentially lethal force in response. He had every opportunity to simply call the police and wait it out without endangering anyone's life.

Claims of self defense need to be held to a higher standard than a wholly subjective and non-falsifiable claim of "feeling threatened," otherwise it devolves into nothing more than selectively allowing assault and murder.

The party is named the "Democratic Party," not the "Democrat Party."

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Democratic_Party_(United_State...

"I can only explain my beliefs to people who promise they'll agree" is certainly a unique take.

For the viewers, or the performers?

A better comparison would be ~550000 average US houses... or a single medium-sized aluminum smelter factory.

Want to provide a citation for either of these? This would have the average US household dissipating the equivalent of ~30kW, which does not pass the smell test for me.

Have these dramatically higher tech requirements and expectations improved the quality of education whatsoever?

That sounds simplistic and worthy of criticism in some ways, but how is it "textbook racial discrimination"? You're jumping from "they were required to interview a person of color" to "they discriminated against white people" without demonstrating the latter, and judging by the statistical overrepresentation of white people in powerful roles it doesn't hold water. All this does is force the hiring manager to interview a more diverse set of candidates; the expectation is still that the most qualified will ultimately be hired.

Edit: Actually, it does deserve criticism for assuming that there are white people and men in the interview pool, regardless of the fact that this is almost certainly true; a better approach (similar to what my own employer does) would be to require that the interview pool included candidates of at least two races and of both genders (or "at least two gender identities," if you prefer). Statistically, though, I'm not sure it makes a significant difference. Nevertheless, fair point.

Since the 1970’s, actually.

Oh ffs. I belong to the one true faith (big fat /s so you comprehend). I do not agree with people of inferior beliefs but I _understand_ why and how their beliefs drive their actions. So I’m not alarmed by Vance because he is a Christian and that’s what Christians do. I would have advised Usha not to get involved in that but 1. It’s too late and 2. She didn’t ask me.

Why do you single out Christians by saying "that's what Christians do" when you already stated "A Hindu in the equivalent situation would want his Christian spouse to share his"?

The disagreement we're having here fundamentally is that you want to portray this as an argument about how liberals "don't even understand" faith, but the content of your argument treats faith as nothing more than an excuse for the husband to dominate the wife. When a Christian husband disrespects his wife's Hindu faith, you support the husband. When a hypothetical Hindu husband disrespects his hypothetical Christian wife's faith, you support the husband. What's the determining factor? Spoiler alert: It's not faith.

So please, just be honest about the reason you really support JD, about the real thing liberals "don't even understand": that women should be subservient to their husbands.

potholes

If you think the president fixes potholes, please do the country a favor and stop voting.