You can run DeepSeek v4 Flash at 4bit in ~150 GB VRAM, and it would absolutely destroy a 1 bit quant of K3.
13,557 karma · joined January 4, 2022
meet.hn/city/38.8950982,-77.0363849/Washington
__ Location
Washington, DC, USA
Email: 6mac0wobz (at) mozmail.com
- Systems and embedded engineering, with expertise in VHDL for hardware description and FPGA design
- Software development in C++, Go, Rust, TypeScript/JavaScript, and Python
- IEEE Nanotechnology Council
- IEEE Systems Council
- Analog systems
- Kernel development, focusing on Linux ABI design and optimization
- Low-level GPU driver architecture and hardware-accelerated computation
- ASIC development and methodology
- Hiking
- Pizza
- Volleyball
- WeightliftingOr, OpenAI CEO Sam Altman wants to begin regulating openweight competition now that they're catching up.
Why should frontier knowledge be in the hands of few, when it could be in the hands of all?
But I would add, I don't think we can define a person as anything other than a genetically distinct individual of the species Homo sapiens. If a definition were to be proposed not on the basis of what something is, but rather how it functions, where it exists, or its level of dependence on other persons, then personhood ceases to be an inherent property and becomes a conditional privilege. And historically, whenever society has tried to separate biological human status from legal 'personhood,' it has paved the way for dehumanization and injustice.
To preserve human equality, personhood must be tied strictly to objective biological reality.
Exodus 20:13: "Thou shalt not kill."
I don't think we have the same reading of the paper. Scientific facts inform ethical decisions, they are antecedent to them. We can't decide whether something is good or bad if we don't understand what it is.
But to the point, the comment I was responding to wanted to assert that pro-life arguments rested on some "unscientific" premise that a "lump of cells" is a "child," which is actually scientific consensus; my citation of that paper was to refute that claim.
Whether or not it is ethical to end a human child's life under certain circumstances is a moral question, but the fact that it is in fact a human child is scientifically settled.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Begging_the_question
> unscientific view of pregnancy
As of 2018, a study found that 95% of all biologists affirm the biological view that a human's life begins at fertilization.
> being a child rather than a lump of cells
A child is an individual organism of the species Homo sapiens. Since the majority of biologists (who are the de facto subject matter experts here) affirm that human life begins at fertilization, your opinion is patently unscientific.
You may argue, as some do, that there are cases, including abortion, where it is permissible to take a human life, however your opinion as expressed is in fact unscientific, and I would encourage you to question the cogency of your conclusions.
[0]: https://papers.ssrn.com/sol3/papers.cfm?abstract_id=3211703
Ridiculous statement, pretty much all LLM tooling is model agnostic.
Based on my experience lately with Codex, it seems the opposite. Gemini 3.6 Flash (high) in Antigravity CLI feels a LOT faster than GPT 5.6 Luna (high) in codex. In the order of 10-50x.
It's got 20 keys, hot-swappable, and individually addressable RGB.
And for an FOSS printable one, https://github.com/Dwin17/bento
This is unnecessarily reductive; if we reduce all action enough we can justify anything as simply continuous 1 centimeter movement; e.g. grand theft would be innocently grasping an object in a store, and then a series of 1 centimeter movements which you could independently justify as "freedom to move."
We understand complex actions to have complex consequences, and the aggregation of vehicular data is itself a search, which by our laws requires a warrant. Jurisprudence evaluates the totality of an act and its consequences.
> The state will take for itself power that the people have but do not wield.
The Framers of the Constitution would understand this idea as tyranny.
Let me quote myself on this:
> As Justice Sotomayor noted in United States v. Jones, logging a vehicle's public movements "reflects a wealth of detail about her familial, political, professional, religious, and sexual associations." An action revealing all this is ipso facto a search.
> I'm not in love with the encroaching mass surveillance society but in terms of privacy in public there is little in the US by right.
Suggesting that a citizen possesses "little privacy in public by right" is to stand the American constitutional order squarely on its head. You have a very Eurocentric understanding of rights, as if they're concessions by the king/government to the people. We do things the opposite way.
The enumeration of certain rights shall not be construed to deny or disparage others retained by the people (Ninth Amendment). Further, the Tenth Amendment explicitly reserves powers not delegated to the government to the states or to the people. What's your proposed basis, historic or constitutionally, granting the state the power to aggregate people's location history? The burden does not fall on the citizen to produce a right not to be monitored; it rests entirely on the state to demonstrate the authority to monitor.
You are focusing exclusively on Justice Scalia's opinion. Five other Justices provided two separate concurrences in that same case, including Alito's:
society’s expectation has been that law enforcement agents and others would not—and indeed, in the main, simply could not—secretly monitor and catalogue every single movement of an individual’s car for a very long period.Your understanding of privacy misapplies the plain view doctrine. Plain view allows the state to seize evidence provided that the officer seizing the evidence has a lawful right to access or observe the seized object. (Collins v. Virginia)
An officer glancing through a car window is performing a constitutional act.
However, were the state to compile a history of your car's location, which it does, that exposes your "familial, political, professional, religious, and sexual associations." (Jones) This compilation of data is an action legally defined as a search, since it turns up data NOT readily available in plain view. And this search takes place without warrant.
The Framers of the Constitution drafted the Fourth Amendment in direct response to these abusive general warrants, protecting against the exact kind of arbitrary power that placed "the liberty of every man in the hands of every petty officer." (John Adams)
Moreso, Adams maintains:
Writs in their nature are temporary things. When the purposes for which they are issued are answered, they exist no more; but these live forever; no one can be called to account...
But these prove no more than what I before observed, that special writs may be granted on oath and probable suspicion. The act of 7 and 8 William III that the officers of the plantations shall have the same powers, etc., is confined to this sense; that an officer should show probable ground; should take his oath of it; should do this before a magistrate; and that such magistrate, if he think proper, should issue a special warrant to a constable to search the places.
You conflate the generally unremarkable act of taking a picture of a single car in public with the indiscriminate collection of photos of all vehicles. The former is a constitutional, isolated observation. The latter is a search, since in toto it reveals personal information.
> If the police don't have the expertise to maintain such a network can they pay a third party to do so?
May the police pay a third party to execute warrantless searches?
If we accept your premise that the government can spy on you simply because an activity is regulated, then the Fourth Amendment is effectively dead. Under that logic, the state could mandate interior cameras in every heavily regulated business, or search the backpack of every passenger using public transit without a warrant.
You have a reasonable expectation of privacy for the contents of your trunk, your backpack, and your travel history. The police cannot search your trunk without a warrant just because you are driving on public roads. They should not be able to search your travel history either.
According to Carpenter:
A person does not surrender all Fourth Amendment protection by venturing into the public sphere. To the contrary, 'what [a person] seeks to preserve as private, even in an area accessible to the public, may be constitutionally protected.'