echion

Where? Going to Shenzhen soon after a long hiatus and need tips.

Thanks for that link -- deserves more attention.

Free Software types already do for all software

Free Software types also create software...they didn't just argue for a better license and try to regulate Sun/others to re-license their software; they wrote free (libre) versions of proprietary software and released it for free (cost), which is what counteracted the "[putting] what they make behind a wall". If you're saying "[some] LLMs should be free", I agree.

Looks excellent -- thanks; shame older intel macs don't get it (a lot of those still around)

Any place we can look for you to release this?

Ad hominem much?

Those of us whose appreciation of da Vinci's mastery are not affected by him painting the Mona Lisa with a moustache are keeping you in our thoughts.

(non-snark: your reply is clever and got a smile but I still think the GP post is overriding: no need for the distraction (c.f.: these asides) of the "S(c)am" swipe)

Same here

Tiananmen square

The Tiananmen Square killings happened independent of one's "worldview".

What's an example of "the exact same thing" done to OpenAI models by western governments?

you can combine Spark with M3U, the former streaming the compute, lowering TTFT, the latter doing the token generation part

Are you doing this with vLLM, or some other model-running library/setup?

training smart LLMs like Qwen3-Next-80B-A3B-Instruct-NVFP4

Sounds interesting; can you suggest any good discussions of this (on the web)?

with same success you can prove bias in western models.

What are some examples? (curious, as a westerner)

Are there "bias" benchmarks? (I ask, rather than just search, because: bias)

when do we stop this kind of polarization?

When the tool isn't polarized. I wouldn't use a wrench with an objectionable symbol on it.

You don't forecast weather with image detection model

What do you do with a large language model? I think most people put language in and get language out. Plenty of people are going to look askance at statements like "the devil is really good at coding, so let's use him for that only". Do you think it should be illegal/not allowed to not hire a person because they have political beliefs you don't like?

I'm tired of this example everyone tests out, I think it undermines the researchers and engineers hard work.

It's completely valid, IMO. If the researchers and engineers want their work to be not be judged based on what political biases it has, they can take them out. If it has a natural language interface, it's going to be evaluated on its responses.

Can you elaborate a bit on your setup if you have time?

It's not supported by dhcpcd yet: https://github.com/NetworkConfiguration/dhcpcd/issues/341

Oh, itsdrewmiller pointed us in the right direction: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=44551579

Ironically, this fell off the HN front page without enough upvotes...neither hackernews.coffee nor Claude suggested it to me...

Normally I would say you're right, but I read the context opposite to you; I read the "fine" as a straight/literal statement: the author of "this is fine" is disputing the author's parent's statement that "this can be considered [a bug]".

"Axial motors" don't seem to have been discussed much here; In 2022 there was some discussion of the flaws ( https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=30816149 ).

Conifer motors is making a low-cost power plant for everything from scooters to factories

iPhone [...] blasting an alarm in my ear at regular volume if I happen to be talking on the phone when [the alarm] goes off

This always gets me...is there not a public bug report for this one?

Lots of little technical reasons why not.

What are some?

To be able to select from a table you need

* CONNECT

* USAGE

* SELECT

Isn't LOGIN (https://www.postgresql.org/docs/16/role-attributes.html) also needed?

  Only roles that have the LOGIN attribute can be used as the initial role name for a database connection

hmu

It's supposed to be the introduction to rigorous proof, so it is supposed to be "the first book on [formal] mathematics" for its audience.

if you're not comfortable with the basics of mathematical proofs, then you're not ready for the subject of linear algebra

That's quite far from what the author of the book you're discussing wrote:

[this book/course] is also supposed to be a first course introducing a student to rigorous proof, formal definitions

this book is meant for the audience who can read and write proofs

It seems like the opposite is true:

"It is intended for a student who, while not yet very familiar with abstract reasoning, is willing to study more [than a] "cookbook style" calculus type course."

(from the link).

If your point is one can't learn linear algebra before learning "abstract [mathematical] reasoning"...don't think you're the main target audience of a subject as practical as linear algebra.

Syntax rigour has almost nothing to do with correctness.

I see your point: has almost nothing correctness with rigour do to Syntax.

Syntax rigor has to do with correctness to the extent that "correctness" exists outside the mind of the creator. Einstein notation is a decent example: the rigor is inherent in the definition of the syntax, but to a novice, it is entirely under-specified and can't be said to be "correct" without its definition being incorporated already...which is the ultimate-parent-posts' point and I think the context in which the post-to-which-you're-replying needs to be taken.

And if you're going to argue "This is just wrong?" (I love the passive-aggressive '?'?) while ignoring the context of the discussion...QED.

This is very cool. Any idea about the threat surface change? Do you only deny with the poll?