I think the name is meaningless to the average layman, therefore useless. Something like "(private) chat police" would probably transmit what this is about but is not as catchy.
That's almost like saying that with 2 registers you can only do additions with 2 operands. True, but missing the picture. The number of segments is not limited by the number of segment registers, or even (gasp!) by the number of segment descriptors.
I think you are missing the entire point of the article (which I kinda agree with), and just repeating the popular wisdom.
In the era a machine with "object addressing" sounded like a perfectly valid futuristic design (what a Lisp machine strived to be; I guess today you would call it tagged memory of some kind). The 8086 is not that, but the original design would have allowed to evolve it into something like that.
The article's point is that since programmers simply treated it as a sliding window (instead of an opaque object handle), the plan could not be implemented, and the half-assed thing became stuck.
Having seen other Intel RISC designs, I fully agree with the premise.
I'll note that OpenSuse also has Packman which a shitton of people enable (for codecs), has also 'one namespace only' an looser policies than the main distro.
I do not think this something you can escape by switching distro.
I am using 10G over an ~15m 4 twisted pair phone cable (PTT, common in France even decades ago for ISDN, but no cat cable at all) and don't remember seeing a frame lost in quite some years.
No, the transceivers get hot. This is because of plenty of small metal surfaces, so even if they do not consume too much they will immediately get warm to the touch.
"High power consumption" is debatable, since even these hot transceivers are consuming about 3W, and the replacement ones are closer to 1W. At 1W per port, the switch you'll put them in likely has higher overhead...
It is difficult, but possible, to find a SFP+-capable switch where idle consumption scales at around 1W/port, but less than that I have not found.
Your very message is already showing that indeed it is limited, so dunno where you get that "that's where most of the value is". It is definitely not , and your very own link is showing that the the limit is there. This is not to say that there is _no_ value whatsoever, but that the value is negligible compared to what someone with _the real source_ could do. See the Rio model for another example.
> If you want to complain about something not being open source, complain about the lack of good open source RL environments (Prime Intellect excepted).
This is implicitly included when I was emphasizing "AND the software used to build the model", which I did for a reason.
The analogy falls apart very quickly. Without the training data, your modifications amount to virtually nothing compared to what these "versions" are, and the idea that you can maintain and improve on these models without the continual support of the company that owns the training data AND harnesses AND in general build instructions is not very credible. This is why it's not rare that they "dump" old versions as freeware but at some point switch to not distributing them, and mostly get away with it. As this is really not open, and the threat of an effective fork is therefore non-existent, the pressure for any one who has released freeware models to "go SaaS" is too high.
While if "Open Office" switches to a more problematic license at some point, the existing source has all you need for an organization to support the project without regard to the original company (this has happened already!). If Qwen decides to stop distributing models for download, you're basically stuck, _even_ if you have unlimited resources, it's not clear how the released weights help you; your best bet is to start almost from scratch. This has also happened...
These models are not "Open" by any definition of the word. It is just freely redistributable. You can justify yourself in whatever way you want re a cowboy approach to copyright, but this doesn't change the fact that this is not open, and has almost none of the benefits of open, and therefore it is a huge abuse of the word "Open".
Ironically about the only thing that is copyrightable here is the sum of the training data (possibly) _AND_ the software used to build the model (most definitely). The model itself most likely isn't (databases are not copyrightable), which makes it even more pointless to abuse the word "open" for it. All the value is in the former two.
On this very thread you already have people talking about "open weights" and similar nonsense. What is open about them? They're free to download, but that hardly qualifies as open. Where is the source? Where are the instructions to modify and build your own?
I'd never though I'd have to utter the expression "open as in beer".
The blatant attempt at manipulating vocabulary here is... quite blatant.