topspin
That is often exactly what is meant. The problem of running Ethernet through existing structures has spawned a bunch of tools, including glow-in-the-dark "fish tape."
The process is often brutal, and looks like tug-of-war when it takes a couple men to pull the bundle through a couple 90 degree turns. As such, we have "plenum" cable, which is much tougher than typical patch cable, because the latter would just get shredded inside the structure, or snap when pulled with a few hundred lbs of force.
Taking the results at face value, what is it about the "team" that makes the system so effective? That's the key here: presumably, the approach should work regardless of the model, open-weight or otherwise.
My guess would be that the division of labor makes the separate contexts more effective. This is an optimization around the limits of context. Some of that is simply the net amount of context brought to bear: each team member has a context, so the net amount of context is multiplied by the number of team members. Also, since the division limits the scope of each team member's focus, the context a team member has is used more effectively.
MCUs with MMUs are starting to appear, such as the ESP32-S31.
The agents weren't as empty handed as it first appears. We would need comprehensive data on exactly how the agents were prompted and the actual results of each test to evaluate how astonishing any of this really is.
My feedback: until the moment I click the "order" button, do not require me to log in. If "Checkout As Guest" can possibly be sufficient, at least for the "Grid Proto" tier, then do that.
You have a digital payment instrument for the order regardless of login. That should be sufficient for whatever legal obligations exist, real or imagined, so have the courage to make that policy despite the pushback.
They also don't hesitate to signal "mass production" availability while they're still working out substantial errata. Espressif will ship the moral equivalent of "engineering sample" silicon (no, they don't call it that) for early use by their supported customers, and eventually iron out the bulk of the issues in later silicon.
Espressif applies the "release early, release often" model of open-source software, but for silicon, and I love them for it. But it does create pitfalls for early adopters that don't understand the game.
So the big hole in ESP32-S31 SIMD documentation (literally "Coming soon"[1]) isn't surprising, despite the fact that you can buy official and third party dev boards right now.
[1] https://esp32-s31.espressif.com/en/docs/9-Technical%20Refere...
What cost? The lab cost today, or the cost after we figure out how to make thousands a day in a diamond wafer fab?
If this were to become practical, operating high speed circuits in space might become a great deal easier due to higher temperature differential. High frequency RF in space is valuable enough that this application is almost certainly a candidate for such devices, even at costs far greater than Si/SiC/GaN devices.
With that, there are at least three distinct reasons to care about subs: PR, hook and training data.
If that were true, they would cancel subs and save themselves the load.
Yet that hasn't happened. So they must care to some extent.
As you see, seeking validation for your anger is not well received when your own culpability goes missing.
I am. These machines push the limits of prevailing technology. Strong organizations set stretch goals and pursue them regardless of market viability. Sometimes they share this with everyone, and convention has named this practice "concept" cars. I appreciate when they take the risk to do this. And when they do it well, credit is deserved.
There are real engineers and technicians behind this. A lot of them. And they will tell the story of this event for the rest of their lives. I've known a number of people with such stories. They're among the best people I've ever met.
It is possible to exist without cranking the cynical knob to 11 at all times.
Has Ofcom been abolished? If so, that's pretty recent. Based on interference complaints to Ofcom, they were prosecuting and convicting people as recently as 2023.
[1] https://www.ofcom.org.uk/spectrum/interference/ofcom-investi...
And this is supposedly high grade debt we're talking about: JPMC is spending months on end shopping around a few $10's of billions, and having to discount it. Never mind the far greater sums on the books of vastly less credible outfits, complete with meme names that always age poorly when things go pear shaped.
How a bunch of highly speculative moonshot big tech stuff has managed to be financed by Tier 1 financial institutions and high grade debt, as opposed commonplace equities, is a question for the ages, and we may all yet find ourselves suffering the answers.
That directly contradicts specific points made in the story, about specific Tier 1 banks and specific amounts of debt not finding buyers. And the amount cited isn't all that great, given the overall equity in play.
> Nothing out of hte[sic] ordinary here
Matthew Moniot, Man Group: "the deal sizes involved are 'out of scale to anything we've thought about, ever.'"
Hard to compare your model with his, since he doesn't have one. When quotes from named credit risk guys from named finance organizations sound like angsty Gen Z, it's not ordinary.
In any case, the story is covering something significant. There is an important test occurring, and we're all going to learn the results, sooner or later. It could all turn out fine, but I don't know. I don't believe you really know either.
Yes, it does. Dependence may be mutual, but the leverage is not equal. Trump could make a Truth Social post tomorrow and erase billions of ASML market cap, and they know he's irrational enough to do it. ASML and the Netherlands can't reciprocate such force without inflicting great harm on themselves.
I'm not arguing that's right or just. Only that it is. If you doubt it, go figure out why ASML shares dropped ~5% last April 7th. These people hang on the US government's every utterance.
Something to think about when selecting a host nation for your international hacktivist IT operation.
Oh yeah. Completely forgot about that. Big headlines and big claims, but no one could actually use it and report on it.
Does seem like they don't quite grasp how the hype train operates. Or maybe they don't care as much.
Ideally, a software defined receiver replaces all of that with some high speed programmable component that can decode all types of signals across all frequencies, simultaneously. The ideal software defined receiver connects an antenna to a pin on a processor and software does everything digitally: demodulation, filtering, etc.
Physics and the limits of our semiconductor technology doesn't actually permit this ideal to exist. We can, however, achieve some degree of it, and improving components have expanded capabilities and made it cost effective.
I have an orange male. He's awesome, and he doesn't leave anything on the table as far as cognitive ability goes. He's just very wrapped up in his important cat business that mostly resolves around territory, chipmunks and hanging out with his enemies.
Great. Perhaps this will motivate the exploration of them. The prevailing racket is in desperate need of disruption.
The instrument is operated according to a detailed schedule that spans years. It takes a committee to create the schedule, and each separately scheduled observation is then organized by a team, with different teams organizing different observations.
They cannot simply aim the instrument at one system and forego everything else. The result you see is a campaign credited to at least four team members, and enough schedule time committed to make approximately one observation per year.
It is not a long term limitation. One might design any number of stages to fly in place of Starship on top of the Super Heavy booster.
Also, large science payloads can be launched by SLS. Back in the days of the Ares program, there were proposals to launch an 8 meter reflector (ATLAST-8m)[1] using Ares V. SLS anticipates payloads of such size as well.
So there are at least two viable platforms on which enormous space mirrors might launch, and one of them is likely to be highly cost effective. It's up to the science establishment to propose such missions and get them funded.
I know IBM has been employing a large number of people to work on Linux. I'm not as concerned about the eventual wind-down of that as I might otherwise be: Linux is the global lifeblood of enterprise computing, and there are a lot of other existing and potential sources of wealth in this world to employ Linux developers. A dispersion of this talent, with the inevitable shift in focus to things that are not strictly IBM's prerogatives, might have a real benefit for Linux.
Past that, software development has suddenly become cheaper in any case: Linux is in the optimal position to benefit greatly from the good parts of that, largely due a legacy of good leadership, so perhaps employed developer headcount doesn't have the importance it has always had.
In any case, I have every faith that Linux's future is not tightly coupled to the fate of whatever Red Hat withers into: there is too much at stake for too many well-resourced entities to permit Linux to suffer at the hands of IBM. If you need evidence for this, consider the outcome of the IBM's attempt to tighten their grip on the RHEL distribution, and the stampede to rapidly established alternatives this induced. If more of that is in Linux's future, so be it.
That feels right. It's not as if they've been missing out on great profits.