Would be nice for oil and gas companies to pay for all the emissions say, starting when they found out about it and decided to lie to the public. Maybe also bring charges against the PR firms they used since given those same PR firms worked for the tobacco industry clearly they won't stop until there are consequences.
It was never necessary to run fibre to any specific individual tower. Microwave backhaul works fine of you have good coveragef the area. Less well if you don't. If cell providers wanted to put up enough towers that's a self solving problem.
I'm fairly sure there are also houses in Australia being built for less than $1m AUD given there are new houses being sold for less than $1m AUD with no indication those developers are making a loss.
I don't think rurp was saying there is no market, just that there was no obvious realistic TAM worth 1.6 trillion (going by the amount given by the S-1). How many people living remotely in an area with no fibre do you really expect there to be?
It's not a strawman. Ruining entire countries is literally what the parent comment said would happen if we do something as outrageous as making ambulances free.
> But those same people, through one false rationalization or another, are more than happy to ruin the entire country.
You may not have agued it yourself but your two sentence comment is rather lacking in alternate arguments, so I can only interpret you as supporting said parent comment and now engaging in a motte-and-bailey now that you realise you don't actually like what they said.
For most nation states "should" in this case also corresponds to a certain treaty they are party to being highly inconsistent with treating health like a racket. Of course, the US is one of the few that never ratified said treaty. Too much like socialism I suppose.
Fairly sure most iGPUs these days are zero-copy and can dynamically allocate memory so what does "unified memory" mean to you exactly? A wider bus would be nice but it's not exactly a groundbreaking new invention.
Steering a single model towards that seems, again, technically challenging, especially if it needs to be obfuscated enough to pass code review (you are doing that for LLM code right?) and especially if targeted towards specific fields of use (e.g. critical infrastructure). I still don't see how the threat model could make sense here.
I think it's rather positive that Wikipedia editorial decisions are entirely independent of the foundation which accepts (and begs for) donations because nobody has to care about your decision not to donate.
It's not as if donations go to editors anyway, and there are plenty of the editor community who are rather more severe in their dislain for how the foundation conducts fundraising (I wouldn't say it's a majority, most probably don't care, but certainly a sizable minority) and would probably prefer you not donate anyway. On the other hand, I do think a majority of the community supports the policy of being resistant towards non-neutral outside coordination used to manipulate and undermine the integrity of internal decision making processes.
That doesn't make any sense. Model weights are literally just numbers you multiply by. To imply that it's any way even remotely comparable to the xzutils build process is...
Well, I would be very technically impressed if someone managed to achieve any form of code execution, especially given unknown levels of quantisation post-release whereas xzutils was interesting mostly due to obfuscation.
I feel like when they decided the model was "too woke" so it would be a good idea to make it "MechaHitler" was when the not making it political ship sailed.
I will not concede that it is at all "subjective" what being disruptive means in the specific case of your intentionally bad-faith trolling. You may choose to categorise that either as an obvious case or refer to my previous comments.
Well, as I understand it, SpaceX intends to continue to raise money from the market. Eventually the true believers will stop having money to give them.
Assuming good faith is not a suicide pact. If you consistently aim to disrupt the project then you obviously should be CBANed. I can't comment on the evidence available in your block discussion, only what you've presented here.
You've openly stated that you were intentionally acting in bad faith, hounding other editors to provoke them and doing so while logged out to evade scrutiny. Retreating to "you can't prove I did anything wrong" is not the defense you think it is.
Unrealistic, I know, but one can dream.