Some thing I've learned, but rarely seen explained anywhere: Storing the vectors is most likely not an issue, mostly likely you're having a problem with the indexes on top of them in which case you can use quantized vector indexes[0] (handled by pgvector) which will get past the limits imposed by PostgreSQL.
I had to switch off pgvecto.rs at some point and figured that out.
I don't have specific experience with the Azure environment here, but this probably applies if you have access to pgvector.
My main reason is that nft applies configs atomically. It also has very good tracing/debugging features for figuring out how and why things aren't working as expected.
That said, I think many distros are shipping `iptables` as the wrapper/compatibility layer over nft now anyways.
Agreed. NixOS + Tailscale is 99% there for me. Using Claude Code to deal with whatever other package I need built with nix while I'm working on $day_job things helps get me to a fully working system. Besides the fact that running containers via podman or docker (your choice) is super easy via a NixOS config.
Combine that with deploy-rs or similar and you have a very very stable way to deploy software with solid rollback support and easy to debug config issues (it's just files in the ./result symlink!)
I challenge anyone to try building a C compiler without a big suite of tests. Zig is the most recent attempt and they had an extensive test suite. I don't see how that is disqualifying.
If you're testing a model I think it's reasonable that "clean room" have an exception for the model itself. They kept it offline and gave it a sandbox to avoid letting it find the answers for itself.
Yes the compression and storage happened during the training. Before it still didn't work; now it does much better.
I didn't personally experience it (I was too young), but I think that was part of "the mission" since pre-9/11. The point of the ID check is to make sure the boarding ticket and ID match.
Ah yes, and convincing friends/family/partners to use Signal instead of Whatsapp clearly what will convince them is that they need to setup, acquire, and use cryptocurrency to register or connect with me on the encrypted messaging service. "No thanks, I just use Whatsapp/iMessage. I heard they're actually e2e encrypted too, so what's the problem?"
Management then cared that their one chance would work. Today management just wants it to mostly work.
Incentives and goals are very different between the two. We could very much build even more incredible things today; and would argue that we actually do. Just only in the places that seem to matter enough to do that type of special effort for.
I get it, but part of the reason they're on motorcycles is cars are too expensive for them. Would making it safer and costing $20-30k base like it does in America be more or less ethical?
I don't think there is a clear answer. Safer car means owners of the car survive more and more often: which is unequivocally great. Making it cheaper means there are more people in a safer vehicle than before which can reduce their likelihood of getting hurt/dying, but they're not as protected as they could be. This is, on the whole, also really good.
It just so happens car makers pick to make it cheaper. It's good for business and good for those who couldn't afford it before. It is bad for those who encounter the situations where additional protection would have saved them.
Unfortunately it simply is true. The "same car" in another country is made cheaper. There are a variety of ways to do it and often it's justified as better than the alternative. For instance in India the goal is getting people off of motorcycles as that is a huge cause of driving deaths. To do that they remove various airbag systems, auto braking systems, and etc. which are not required in India... but are required in America or the EU.
Even between the EU and America there are differences in regulation with the EU often getting the stronger regulation first.
I'm sure models which replace characters in realtime will also become popular. I would imagine some company thinking it would be cool if the main character looked slightly more like whatever main audience it's being shown to and it's done on their playback devices (so, of course, it can be customized or turned off).
I find the idea fun, kinda like using snapchat filters on characters, but in practice I'm sure it'll be used to cut corners and prevent the actual creative vision from being shown which saddens me.
I didn't even realize this could be a problem despite the next paragraph implying it's very well known.