There's the Khadas Mind series of mini pcs. They have a proprietary docking interface though. Agree that it would be great if this form-factor was more common.
The weight and reinforcement of trees, poles, deer, etc. are difficult to change. Single-vehicle crashes cause more than half the crash deaths in the US[1].
I don't think the safety record of a motorcycle is a standard to aim for -- but even then a kei truck is at least twice the weight and likely has significantly less sophisticated brakes.
It's not mentioned in the original paper, but DiskANN also supports PQ at build-time via `--build_PQ_bytes`, though it's a tradeoff with the graph quality as you mention.
One interesting property in benchmarking is that the distance comparison implementations for full-dim vectors can often be more efficient than those for PQ-compressed vectors (straight-line SIMD execution vs table lookups), so on some systems cluster-and-merge is relatively competitive in terms of build performance.
I think you might be right that encouraging curious discussion of these topics is important to the mission of HN.
However, if the moderation approach is going to change, I think it would be better to do so explicitly through changes to the site guidelines rather than in an ad-hoc way. I don't think that this article is covering an 'interesting _new_ phenomenon' (emph. mine) as discussed in the guidelines, and indeed most of the comments are talking about moderation policy or the conflict in general as opposed to the details presented in the article. Perhaps it would be better to have a thread explicitly focused on members of the community engaging with each other as individuals, such as a hypothetical 'Ask HN: How has conflict personally affected you?' or 'Ask HN: How/why have your views on this conflict changed over time?'
The stories that the article has to tell are important, but they aren't the thing that people are discussing here. And moderating submissions instead of explicitly discussion-focused posts invites some of the concerns about sourcing and bias that have been raised in other comments.
Something I don't fully understand, from [1], Altman was an employee of the for-profit entity. So to fire him, wouldn't the non-profit board be acting in it's capacity as a director of the for-profit entity (and thus have a fiduciary duty to all shareholders of the for-profit entity)? Non-profit governance is traditionally lax, but would the other shareholders have a case against the members of the non-profit board for acting recklessly w/ respect to shareholder interests in their capacity as directors of the for-profit?
This corporate structure is so convoluted that it's difficult to figure out what the actual powers/obligations of the individual agents involved are.
Altman has claimed before that he doesn't hold equity in OpenAI. He could have some kind of more opaque arrangement that gives him a material stake in the financial success of OpenAI, and downplayed it or didn't disclose it to the board.
Who knows, though -- I'm sure we'll find out more in the next few weeks, but it's fun to guess.