I thought Corsair gave up on the consumer RAM market because Altman would pay more.
How is Drop going to compete internally for their resources (time/attention/rtc.) when the entire consumer RAM market can’t?
547 karma · joined September 12, 2023
How is Drop going to compete internally for their resources (time/attention/rtc.) when the entire consumer RAM market can’t?
Hopefully this is just the start of x86 laptops responding Macbooks. They've been pretty much unchallenged for most use cases (even more now with the Neo) for the past few years.
In a fully staffed metro department (or even one with volunteer auxiliaries/volunteers staffing 3rd/4th seats from the station when available) the extra calls aren’t much of a problem and I think give everyone extra reps training & thinking about what to do if there was an incident at that location.
If you have volunteers responding from home/work, then yeah, it’s a huge drain and morale drain.
https://chatgpt.com/s/t_69c420f3118081919cf525123e39598c
https://chatgpt.com/s/t_69c4215daeb481919fdaf22498fb0c4f
Do you have a different definition of false? I'm referring to their reasoning context as their scratch pad if that wasn't clear.
You should check out the Norwegian Sea?
> And just out of curiosity: Why don't they build these wind parks inland in the great plains? Too much energy loss from distance to consumers?
Don't worry, this administration has been canceling those projects too: https://news.bloomberglaw.com/environment-and-energy/trump-c...
(This is why my stance is "bad faith" on the "national security" claim, if that wasn't clear; I know plenty on how RADARs work and it doesn't pass the sniff test)
The LLMs also have access to a scratch pad. And importantly don’t know when they need to use it (as in, they will sometimes get long multiplication right if you ask them to show their work but if you don’t ask them to they will almost certainly get it wrong).
Are you deliberately not trying to see the difference?
Early warning systems need all the help they can get when you only have 100km to your threats (ie. the baltic sea); when you have the entire Atlantic you don’t need that.
US early warning systems are great because they have 1000s of kilometers of space.
As other commenters have already pointed out to you, the Nordic countries do allow wind farms in:
- Gulf of Bothnia (Sweden + Finland)
- Kattegat (Sweden)
- Noregian sea (Norway)Still don’t see a problem making this comparing?
Atlantic ocean: thousands of miles to the nearest land from the NE coast; unrestricted commercial activity
Baltic sea: Belligerent nation on the coast (Kaliningrad Oblast) ~100 miles away; heavily patrolled and monitored commercial activity
> If wind farms are a problem for radars in the US
I’m asserting they are not because they magically weren’t 2 years ago and the airspace on the NE coast of the US has some of the largest and most aggressive ADIZ in the world since 2001. If wind farms were a problem for RADAR/early warning systems we would have heard about it in the last 25 years.
> So why you are bringing up nearest land I have no clue? The point is that the US is exposed to the oceans.
Er yes... I’m sure the military groups responsible for early warning didn’t just realise that in 2025. 10 years after offshore wind farms in the area were fully operational.
Edit: I want to say that learnings from recent conflicts (especially around drones) would be a compelling argument for why we only just realised these issues, but no one has articulated that or why it’s an issue on the Atlantic coast.
Representative democracy has been part of the definition of democracy (in English) since before the USA existed: https://www.etymonline.com/search?q=democracy
(Only in the US have I had to argue about whether representative democracy is a "real" democracy, so I assume you're American)
a) Finland needing fast & accurate RADAR tracking across their 50km gulf and restricting activity in the gulf as a result. Not just wind farms, other commercial activities are restricted in the Gulf of Finland including shipping.
b) USA restricting wind farms on it's east coast (NC and NY/NJ) where the nearest land is thousands of km away and no other commercial activities are meaningfully restricted.
(If the US can't field a RADAR for early warning off the east coast that can handle wind farms on the coast, we have other problems)
> but your local router has old software and treats all packages to x.x.x.x.* as directed to it.
So how do you have an IPv4x address? And then how did you let someone else on the internet know about the IPv4x address?
I know plenty well how IP routing works otherwise I wouldn't be in this conversation. Is there something specific in the RFC you think I’m not understanding?
What civil liberties are being eroded there?
(I do agree that poor handling of the pandemic normalised the removal of civil liberties)
I wish they’d separated them from the start because I knew immediately that my subscription (where I don’t use Assistant) was going to subsidise subscriptions that do. Now I don’t know what the right thing for them to do is, given they’ve been marketing Assistant as a feature.
Isn't it just a recoloured Safari (through WebKit)? Why is Chromium/Firefox bad but WebKit OK for this argument?
The ones that have a monthly/weekly/daily free download allowance don’t suddenly deflate the value of “uploaded bytes” across the whole network.
The allowance is enough for someone to bootstrap themselves onto the network by getting some torrents to seed.
UBI should largely be the same? It’s not to replace the incentive of high income, it’s enough to get the basics to live. Trading your time/effort/capital for more income is still incentivised the same way it is now. All the other market effects are still in play.
I don’t understand how Hotz thinks this will suddenly lead to UBI dollars being worthless.
Your computer knows it’s connected to an old router because dhcp gave it x.x.x.x address and not x.x.x.x... so it knows it’s running in old v4 mode.
And it can still send outbound to a v4x address that it knows about.
That’s really putting the cart before the horse. How do you get to “merging 50 PRs a week” before thinking “wait, does this do the right thing?”
I'm skeptical of this claim because the red light camera operators are usually contracted by municipalities. They don't have any direct control over the light cycles.
(Yes, obviously they can be in cahoots with the municipality, but I would be surprised if that was common and not the exception)
Do you have any evidence of this?
It’s addressed in the article (at the end, admittedly).
> However, the purpose of clean-room methodology is to ensure the resulting code is not a derivative work of the original. It is a means to an end, not the end itself. In this case, I can demonstrate that the end result is the same — the new code is structurally independent of the old code — through direct measurement rather than process guarantees alone.
He (and his allies) have referred to him as "warfighter": https://www.radiofree.org/2025/04/23/look-ma-im-a-warfighter...
Is the only sentence in that article related to the title and there’s no information to back up the statement? How is this a news article?
The rest of the page rehashes last week.
The government asks if they can rent your car. I hope we agree that you don’t have to say yes. (Specific exceptions exist to places of lodging etc.)
Anthropic is exercising their right to say no in the same way.
Weirdly Pediatrics (chart 7) skews the other way (less publications tended to get into residency programs)? Are those doctors/administrators/programs somehow seeing through the nonsense?
> For intelligence activities, any handling of private information will comply with the Fourth Amendment, the National Security Act of 1947 and the Foreign Intelligence and Surveillance Act of 1978, Executive Order 12333, and applicable DoD directives requiring a defined foreign intelligence purpose. The AI System shall not be used for unconstrained monitoring of U.S. persons’ private information as consistent with these authorities.
Isn't the "... as consistent with these authorities" phrase the problem as it allows their interpretation to contractually hold?
No, especially in this case when the first appeal to the high court resulted in the high court brushing it off as if nothing happened.
It was a reprimand two to institutes (the trial court and the high court) they have a job to do and they can't shirk that responsibility.