this_was_posted

Just posting this here as it helped me get incredible performance out of my 2x r9700 setup that I didn't think were possible when using llama.cpp and vllm

"the market can stay irrational longer than you can remain solvent"

This fine is for the entire EU, the complaint was filed in France but handled by the Dutch because Ubers european headquarters is located in the Netherlands.

Then just make it the rule that the copyright expires after 30 years or when the author dies, whichever comes last.

Slightly off topic, but is anyone aware of a compile free method to convert protobuf messages to json representation based on a provided .proto file (and the other way around)? All protobuf implementations seem to require a compilation step, which makes it hard to support en-/decoding untrusted content using user provided schemas

I'm getting around 45 tps on a single r9700 for Q6 27B with build b9811 ( using https://github.com/kyuz0/amd-r9700-ai-toolboxes ) with the following parameters:

llama-server -hf unsloth/Qwen3.6-27B-MTP-GGUF:Q6_K -c 135000 -ngl 999 -np 2 -t 16 --temp 0.0 --top-p 0.95 --top-k 20 --min-p 0.00 -b 4096 -ub 4096 --chat-template-kwargs '{"preserve_thinking": true}' -fa 1 --spec-type draft-mtp --spec-draft-n-max 2

In the Netherlands it doesn’t quite work like that in reality. There’s a whole bunch of laws that refer to norms indirectly. In theory you could meet requirements without them but in practice it is absolutely impossible.

I'd say the entire market loses out on insider trading except for the two parties involved in the insider trade. The insider trades take away a part of the profit margin that other good faith future providers need to justify the risk they take on by offering the futures. This leads to future providers needing to raise the prices of futures to remain profitable.

would it be possible to use a heat pump to increase the temperature to a more efficient range? Or would all of the efficiency gained be lost by operating the heat pump?

In the bigger picture this kind of behaviour would destroy the market for innovative tech. Why would anyone still invest in making something innovative if your work gets taken away from you the moment you become successful?

Is this anecdotal or based on widespread publicly available evidence? Not meant as an accusation, but it’s the first time I’m hearing this and it’s slightly alarming

unless the body it rotates around rotates at the exact same speed around another body in the opposite direction

How ironic would it be if we doomed ourselves to a bad AI overlord by feeding it dark sci-fi that causes the AI to self identify with the AI in those stories

Jevons would like to have a word with you (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jevons_paradox)

You could argue that there is more economic incentive to invent new things as discoveries are worth more if you alone have the right to use them. This in turn could lead to more investments in research that lead to more inventions that increase disruption.

Wait a minute. You mean you get five cents here and ten cents there. You could round up bottles here and run them out to Michigan for the difference.

For me it's because ownership should mean true ownership, just like how you should be allowed to repair your own devices if you want.

glad to hear this got open sourced!

for someone at grafana; noticed a dead link in the post: https://grafana.com/docs/oncall/main/

Considering the crypto itself does not produce anything of value I´d be surprised if it would continue to outperform the stock market as crypto starts to stabilise. Maybe it could be used to be a little more resistant to inflation than with regular cash, but wouldn´t make any sense to me if the value of crypto would consistently grow to a bigger percentage of all wealth on earth.

Luckily there exist lithium iron phosphate batteries

True, though I do think great profit is not possible with _maximal_ social impact (unless hoarding cash serves to restrict total consumption and thus limit climate impact).

I'd be willing to bet that at least some of them would. Instinctively I would also guess that it would lead to a better outcome on average, but as I'm less certain about that which is why I would like to see it tested out.

No one is forcing them to retire, I for one would be interested to see what these productive people would come up with when they shift their goal from making a great profit to making a great social impact.

not sure why this is being downvoted, I could see plenty of use cases for a web based editor which cannot be fullfilled by a non-web based variant.

Legally, probably. According to proper etiquette, far from it.

I sincerely hope this ages better than the comments rejecting the initial announcement of Dropbox saying no one will need it. I'm afraid that Facebooks best bet to grow even bigger is to try and force themselves in the aspects of our life that are now still mostly "offline". Facebook doesn't have to get everything right from the start it just has to be able to use its resources to outpace the competition.