183 karma · joined April 17, 2020
The hardware I have (32gb Macs and a gaming PC with 10gb 3080) can only get me to Qwen3.6-35B-A3B at various quants but that’s enough (200-400 PP, 20-30 TG).
It’s taken some time to learn how to best utilize it - some things take a bit of babysitting or direction - but it’s quite useful. Not having ever used CC I can’t compare but it’s been a great assistant or pair programmer for everything from embedded C++ to Vue. I wish I could run 27B as there have been moments when this model feels like it just can’t quite figure something out but those moments are quite rare. For a lot of tasks it’s a huge time saver and has proved super capable at digging into and fixing bugs given pretty vague instructions.
I’m using Pi as my harness.
I’m making a digital ESP32 powered synthesizer at https://subalpinecircuits.com/. It’s been a ton of fun, learning so much about every part of the process (and I don’t use LLMs). Currently I’m learning FreeCAD and figuring out what my case design will be. Woodworking, CAM and DFM is a whole other world for a software guy!
SSD1322 looks great and might be something I look at for the future..
And yes, the audio data runs over I2S - the chip I’m using just uses I2C for control.
https://twitter.com/ashleyfeinberg/status/160101566099344998...
> Oh joy, another paper for the antivaxxers to misinterpret. Some red flags though.
> The tone of this paper, particularly the last sentence ("potentially harmful effects") seems suspect...almost as if they were intentionally riling up the anti-vax crowd.
> They appear to have misinterpreted the outcome of this study, claiming "higher risk of infection than unvaccinated individuals 9 months post-vaccination". The study makes no such claim that I can find. The tables in the supplement show the only subcohorts with a slightly higher incidence rate for vaccinated individuals at 9 months is age >80 (1.3 per 100,000 person days in vaxxed vs. 1.1 unvaxxed, supplemental table 5) and those requiring in-home care (1.6 vs. 1.5). Also notable is that the only vaccine that shows less effectiveness against infection is the non-MRNA vaccine (supplemental table 6) and that vaccinated individuals in all subcohorts were still substantially protected against hospitalization or death compared to unvaxxed.
> The primary source for the claim that mRNA-LNP is inflammatory is a paper authored by three of the four authors of this paper.
> Also notable is that at least one of the primary authors - the one credited with writing and editing - is a GBD-adjacent, anti-MRNA, HCQ truther (Don’t Look Up” Your Science—Herd Immunity or Herd Mentality? - "The virus fatality rate did not support lockdowns, blanket restrictive measures, and non-selective mass vaccinations. There was no solid scientific rationale to adopt the untested mRNA-LNP platform over other well-established vaccine formulations to fight COVID.").
> None of this means the science in the paper is wrong, but I'd be hesitant to take anything at face value.
I work on the discovery team, so this is great feedback to have, thank you :)
(also proper radio is a great idea)
I can't really comment, but it is a common request... I'm curious, are you using Chromecast via TV or Chromecast Audio (or something else)?
A few records were announced this week that I'm pretty excited for, if you need some inspiration:
http://music.sufjan.com/album/the-ascension
Bezos gotta hit that $1T somehow