1,047 karma · joined November 30, 2014
Or if they were properly done. Example: Intel and the plundervolt vulnerability. To fix that they removed the ability for undervolting in ny laptop. If I don't use SGX there's no reason for the block. They could've restricted undervolting only when SGX is enabled but no, they had to "fix" it in the worst way possible.
The western world should have subsidized it too, now you can't dismiss it because it wasn't organic--because it NEVER would be organic.
Working for one myself, which does have a support contract wit Red Hat, I kinda get where they're coming from--if they make it easy to shoot yourself in the foot, dumb people shoot themselves in the foot in production and they have to fix the mess later. But for that they could have a sanctioned build for clients and a community build for everybody else, just like they have Fedora and RHEL.
If it was something that really added value to the user they would mention it specifically (like on the 5th and 6th items).
I have a Dell laptop that mentioned such vague "improvements". After updating the firmware I couldn't undervolt anymore. Luckily I was able to downgrade.
Problem is that the owner of the AI service has power over the model and thus can influence government decisions.
Maybe we should require that government use of AI should be required to use open models only.
One day it stopped working. During troubleshooting it would work only on a 10 year old PC I had lying around. The difference? Despite being full-size, the GPU slot on the old mobo was wired only for x8.
I reckon that the GPU die lost connection on some pins. Not worth fixing, x8 works fine.
To me it looks like the author is grasping for straws when saying "well, a server rack is just like a mainframe, so the mainframe is not dying!".
To me it's the opposite: yes, a server rack is just like a mainframe. That's why the mainframe is dying - a bunch of servers can do the same work much more cheaply.