I'm having some success running `qwen/qwen3.6-35b-a3b` in LMStudio with Opencode. I'm on an M4 MBP with 36gb. I'm getting 80 tok/sec with 260k context limit and temperature set to 0 (same prompt results in same output every time).
If they aren't educated, throw the whole thing away and start over. if they are educated, and decided to share HIV needles with children, throw the whole thing away, but put them all in prison.
Oh, you think the current administration only wants robots that kill other robots! Sweet Summer Child!
Its not fully autonomous ice cream machines, its fully autonomous _weapons_. are you stupid or are you dumb? I don't think you're asking an honest question.
I agree with you, in spirit, but I think the true issue lies elsewhere.
Rich people can spend money to influence elections, yes, but how can they do it? through political donations, super-pacs and bribes. Bribes are already illegal. political donations and super-pacs can give politicians the juice they need to get their messaging out, but getting the message across isn't enough to win an election. The people need to vote. Billionaires can spend as much money as they want to support candidates, but a billionaire still only has one vote to cast.
My point is, billionaires can pay for all the political campaigns in the world, but the electorate gets the final say. It's up to us to A) run for office and B) vote for the best candidate (but tell that to the 64% turnout in the 2024 presidential election)
How much do we believe the current administration values "intelligence"? For the most part, the truth is trump's enemy. as far as he can control it, it's better for his to be the only authoritative voice. If he says Australia is full of muslims and bad hombres, he doesn't need the CIA contradicting him.
If a good leader is somebody who consistently sets a good example, and is willing to sacrifice personally for their team, I don't think there are very many out there. The problem is that companies still need "leaders" the same way TV stations need programming.
If an company decides to invest some money in the pursuit of an opportunity, some managers might get hired or promoted, and the company isn't going to scour the earth for genuinely good leaders. They'll post a job, take a few interviews then promote the person who was going to get it anyway, or hire somebody who looks the part. Generally, one shouldn't take middle-managers seriously.
I don't know if it's fair to call this a dead-internet thing. Most comments on social media are nothing or misdirection. You might say "well that's easy if you're paying for fake activity from bots" but I've seen plenty of real people have transactional, nothing-exchanges in real life. I mean, the internet isn't the only place where people are fake/lazy.
The author assumes that he's talking to legitimate vote-riggers, and not just people who will screenshot successful posts, say it was their doing, pocket his money and block him.
Looking at your post comment history, you've posted the same roles since June, and had a 60 person team for 3 months. Why are you posting if you're not hiring?
It looks like you copy/pasted this from the post you made in last month's thread. You're still hiring for the same positions? Are you actually hiring? Why haven't you filled any of these roles? Why are you posting if you're not actually hiring?
> Obvious and dead horse beaten issue. I’m working on solving this and will report here when I’ve got a prototype.
Surprising insights arise from pondering the philosophy of show and tell-specifically how listening is involved in order to “earn” your turn to speak.
Do you ever look at what you've written and ask yourself: "Would somebody else understand this"? Could you say it again, but using enough words this time?