spacemanspiff01

From reading online, linux battery seems to be a-lot better on the new intel board, and also if you configure linux with sleep to hibernate, you get really good behavioral performance. My experience is that the sleep states really drain the battery since the low power mode is not _that_ low power, at least with the ram I have.

For context I have a 13th gen intel with the old battery and only get ~4hrs of battery life, but generally go a week or 2 between full shutdowns, since I hibernate all the time. I can close the lid, throw it in my backpack, not use it for the weekend, and when I open it it is ready to go, not having lost charge.

I generally have a better experience than when I was on windows.

I had good experience within warranty period, but there was still some funky-ness with a non-posting board... I do sometimes wonder if it was a bios corruption - It died after running the battery 100% to zero...

That being said, I think the particular bios-chip is a design flaw that they should communicate about and fix for future boards... Probably a teething issue thing, but they should fix it. Either a usable replaceable chip so they can just send out a fix, or the fallback bios chip....

So one of my thoughts is maybe AI makes this more viable. You continually refactor the code base. Often when you start something you do not know the correct abstractions anyway - so vibe-code it.

Then once you have the kinda-sorta prototype, do a full rewrite, try to do component modules with interfaces.

(maybe do multiple rewrites depending on architecture complexity)

Then incrementally improve the software quality of each of the components.

---

My thesis in this is that the cost of a refactor has dropped precipitously, LLMs are really good at doing translations, and are pretty good at finding good abstractions if you work them a bit. It is also much faster, becuase in your refactor you try and focus on the big picture and interfaces, and yolo the components... Make sure that they work, but if there is a particular edge case you can fix it later.

I don't know for sure, but I am testing this out and am halfway through a rewrite of a large project into rust from c++ (second step from above) - I am mostly vibe-ing the components, But am paying a lot of attention to the interfaces and layout.

This is really cool - I really like the beam search idea,

You dont have to repay per hour? It seems like that is a design issue - Like yes we will keep these in whatever cache you want, but you will have some sort of renewal period

You should have a hosted site for this - It is entirely frontend - right?

Not knowledgable, but irradiated flies should not be expected to be irradiated again. There are 3 population pools:

1. The Factory spawning population - This is self-sustained, and never encounters radiation.

2. A subset of the spawned males from the factory population are irradiated, making them sterile.

3. The wild population, consisting of the sterile males + wild males + wild females.

If for some reason the sterile population is not fully sterile (unlikely), then maybe there is a gene that helps for radiation resistance, but the children of that strain will not encounter radiation, so it fades away.

The factories are not going out to the regions where the flies are deployed to get new fly studs.

The US (and Europe) have been under investing in shell production since the end of the cold war.

North Korea is a dictatorship, which one of its main deterrents is to shell soul to oblivion.

but some tokens are not really needed? This is probably bad because it is mismatched with training set, but if you trained a model on a dataset removing all prepositions (or whatever caveman speak is), would you have a performance degradation compared to the same model trained on the same dataset without the caveman translation?

> How do they audit that Anthropic can't alter model outputs for contexts they (the ethics board or whatever it's called, can't remember) don't like?

I was thinking that Anthropic would just be providing the models/setup support to run their models in aws gov cloud. They do not have any real insight into what is being asked. Maybe a few engineers have the specific clearances to access and debug the running systems, but that would one or two people who are embedded to debug inference issues - not something that would be analyzed by others in the company.

The whole 'do not use our models for mass surveillance' is at the end of the day an honor system. Companies have no real way of enforcing that clause, or determining that it has been violated. That being said, at least historically, one has been able to trust the government to abide by commercial agreements. The people who work in cleared positions are generally selected for honesty, and ability, willingness to follow rules.

Is it a voice to voice model, or a voice->text->voice?

I might have missed it in their writeup.

Anyone know the tokens/sec for llm inference?

How about Nvidia, they have both good hardware/software.

I mean, suppose, for the sake of argument, that remote viewing of some sort is possible.

Then the accurate remote viewings would be convolved with inaccurate imaginings. (If they were not everyone would do it)

So the issue with remote viewing would be training the person to be able to identify the difference.

So having a feedback mechanism, at least during the training process would be valuable.

IE find my keys, -> keys are in bathroom -> they were actually in bedroom.

One could imagine that remote viewer got two images in his mind, a proper viewing of the bedroom and an imagining of the bathroom. He could not tell which was which, so he guesses.

Again supposing remote viewing is possible, then having a correction feedback is valuable.

All that being said, my thought is that a lot of remote viewing was a ability to wash intelligence. IE: we definitely did not get this from our spies/satalites, It was our remote viewing team.

For those who wondered what gravity had to do with this:

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gravity_wave

This is my thought, sure a lot of VCs will lose a lot of money as they write things off.

But it's not like people are going to throw out all the Nvidia hardware they bought.

And there are ai applications that I can think of that would be viable at 100x cheaper price.

So, on the plus side, assuming that the absurd aspects get ironed out, couldn't this be a good thing.

Businesses that rely on open source software will either have to accept liability for defects, or contract out to a third party who accepts liability.

That seems like it might encourage open-source business models that encourage selling support, even just for the liability protection.

Or am I being too hopeful?

In addition to what others have said, Often from a network perspective you want smaller range.

At the end of the day, there is a total speed limit of Mb/s/Hz.

For example, in cities, with a high population density, you could theoretically have a single cell tower providing data for everyone.

However, the speed would be slow, as for a given bandwidth six the data is shared between everyone in the city.

Alternatively, one could have 100 towers, and then the data would only have to be shared by those within range. But for this to work, one of the design constraints is that a smaller range is beneficial, so that multiple towers do not interfere with each other.

Ah, I was curious if o1 is running code in background and doing an error loop.

What language?

The security risk comes from all those unvetted plugins, that have unrestricted access to the editor.

It's not about being convicted (sorry, I guess the parent comment was talking about fraud)

Suppose I was told to go home, don't do work, and am told 'we will pay you for the next 6 months.'

At a private company, that is fine, and if for some reason they do not pay, I take them to court over a contract violation.

The federal government does not follow that. If I am told by my federal gov manager that 'here is the deal, go home, we will continue to pay you, and you won't have to work.

My manager is not allowed to do that. He does not have the authority, if the gov comes back later and says 'we have reevaluated this, your manager was not allowed to offer this, sorry but you resigned, and you will not be paid the remainder of this agreement.

I do not have any ability to contest.

Now maybe you trust trump/musk/gov to follow the agreement.

The issue becomes that the government is currently only funded till March.

It is going to be a very messy budget negotiation, and part of that will be cuts. Starting with the people who agree to the offer.

Now, congress could certainly be kind, and say 'we will honor this offer and provide funding for those who have been not working, and accept their resignation.'

Or they could go 'we, as congress who are in charge of funding, did not agree to this. We don't want to pay people to do an agreement we did not agree to, but we will still accept their resignation.'

Both are possible.

_---------------------

Now you as an individual have to ask yourself, what is likely:

1. You are continued to be paid thru March (personally I think likely)

2. Congress accepts the agreement, and funds the offer thru September:

This depends on how much Elon and trump go to bat for it. Maybe? I could see a larger scale buyout being part of the budget with different terms, and those that accepted this one getting rolled into it. But it will probably not be these specific terms.

I could also congress saying nope.

I also don't really think trump or Elon care outside getting people out. (See their previous refusals to pay)

This is why I think rolling this into a proper, different offer is likely, especially if they do not meet their targets for worker reduction.

I believe they will not make it a priority to pay people as according to the agreement.

Also remember the Republican congress has 2 votes in the house, and some of those are deficit hawks that have not seen spending they do not want to cut, they may be hard to convince that the should pay a salary for someone who has 'resigned'.

_--------------------

So what's the benefit?

If you accept this now, you open up substantial risk of only getting paid till March.

There will probably be another offer In March this one approved by Congress.

The offer will be different than this one, if it is worse, those that 'accept' this offer will rolled over to it, as the current offer has no legal basis.

If the new offer is better, those who accept this one will be forced to keep it (I assume, that congress would retroactively authorize this to save money.)

So unless you have something lined up, or already planned to leave in March. Your best bet is to not take the offer and wait until after budget negotiations are done.

I personally thought that student loan forgiveness was unconstitutional.

That being said, alot of the actions of the current admin are designed to push the boarders of executive power. They are trying to move fast and break things and do an end run around congressional oversight, before the courts can catch up.

The example of this is USaid, which was probably not legal in the method they went about. But no one will be putting that egg back together.

Contrast this to when Biden did his student loan forgiveness, it was telegraphed for months, and a court immediately blocked it pending review. And most importantly it was a single action.

All that being said, both are bad, my overall point is that we as Americans deserve better, and 'but they did it first' is not a valid excuse.

My hope is that we finally start reducing the power of the executive branch. The past 100 years of congress abdicating it's responsibility has been too much.

I like the analogy, additionally, it seems like just 'stopping coming to work' is something that you could be fired for cause for. So if it comes up later that hey, this person has not been working due to a agreement that the government had no right to agree to.

Well we'll be nice and just fire them, won't even ask for salary to be returned.

The counterpoint from what I have been reading is that the Dems will not be helping without concessions, particularly about oversite regarding Elon musk, and doge.

If they were serious about the offer, they would get it passed through Congress on a party line vote via reconciliation, they have the votes, there is nothing the Dems could do to stop it.

The fact that they have not is telling.

I am moving my money out of the US stock market. Maybe most people don't care, but I want to live and invest in a functional democracy.

If enough people do it, maybe MAGA 401ks going down will make people care.

I am moving all of my assets to cash. Maybe no one else cares, but I do, and I would rather invest in a functional democracy.

Never know, if enough people divest , people might give a shit.

But I'm not holding my breath.

So I am moving all my money to cash, I would rather not invest in a fascist state.

I am withdrawing my money from the US stock market. Other people might not give a shit, but I want to invest my money in a functional democracy.