Defaults to Netherlands; no problem, defaults are arbitrary.
Go to location box, type in "Berlin".
All cities of that name in the US are listed before the largest city in the EU, clearly not even trying to GeoIP me.
And then it also lists Berlin Germany separately from Berlin Berlin Germany*, and then also has all the districts of Berlin.
And yup, the same exact problem with search that LinkedIn has, because just liked LinkedIn there's this specific job listed under "Berlin" when the body of the job description says "This is a fully onsite position, based at our office in Lisbon": https://hiring.cafe/job/ios-engineer-air-apps-berlin-berlin-...
* Die Stadt, die so gut ist, dass wir sie zweimal nennen mussten. If you'll excuse a joke done through mere B1 German.
If one is capable of managing one's finances (and paying the card off in full every month), credit cards are a useful tool. They're a problem if one can't manage one's finances.
It is interesting that both options of either not using CC entirely or using CC but paying it off by the end of the month are equivalent, but you’ve somehow reframe the second ine as some virtuous skill one have to master (I’m not just buying bread, I’m also managing my finances by repaying the value of it in full by the end of the month to avoid being charged for interest and simultaneously improving my credit score).
Business model of banks in regard to CC are preying on people not paying it all in full for various reasons.
Financially, they're not equivalent. If you buy your bread on credit, you get an interest-free loan, and benefit from the time value of the money that you otherwise would have paid immediately. As you correctly point out, this value comes from those fleeced by the arrangement. If my comment attributed any moral valence to the two options, that was unintentional.
That only works if you keep less money than your monthly spend in high interest accounts. I always have a cushion on the account linked to the card. The only benefit of credit in the US is rewards cards that transfer wealth from those with poor discipline and financial illiteracy.
You are of course free to extrapolate your experience from a single European country to the whole continent, but it's still not a coherent argument for or against anything.
I'm not certain (never did hardware), but I thought the transistor switching cost was one of the bigger sources of energy loss, not internal conductor resistance between transistors?
The shorter connections could lead to faster rise times though, right? I.e. less capacitance or inductance interfering with getting the field gate charged up?
And the main loss with switching transistors is in the intermediate switching states where it has less than its "full" resistance.
I've been naively assuming they are now making high quality vias, so that circuit characteristics would be similar in either vertical or horizontal direction.
You're correct. Dynamic power consumption depends heavily on frequency, but it's definitely more of a limiting factor than static power consumption which as I understand it (I'm also not an expert) is mainly important for things like low power microcontrollers.
> A prominent feature of US politics (and indeed culture) is constantly setting such targets and then chickening out and moving the target back as the time approaches.
I'm not an American, so I want to check with this: this is normal for the broader culture? Not just Musk?
Musk is an extreme case but the general pattern is pretty common. See for instance rules passed in various jurisdictions to the effect of "a budget must be passed by date X", which then is circumvented via loopholes or changing the law so that deadline no longer applies.
While this can be the case, in my experience nerves are always attached to self-image. This means one can hit a nerve not only by saying the emperor has no clothes, but also with actual defamation.
Disagree. @lionkor compared them to a hammer, and @ragequittah is saying they're not like a hammer.
The narrow gap between downloadable and frontier models is tangential to this. If you want to expand on the "hammer" metaphor, the downloadable models are a small construction/demolitions firm, and the frontier models are a big construction/demolitions firm.
In this analogy, there's no training school or certifications for the staff either of them hire, and society is still working out what public liability requirements and planning permission laws are even though both companies are being hired all over the place, because everything they do was only invented a few years ago.
> Or I guess the inverse question: why aren't they allowed that audit?
There's undeniably a lot of unsecured software in the world.
Given that ID verification is hard and these companies are clearly new at it (or don't understand the implications of it, cough Worldcoin's eye-scanning orbs cough), which is worse:
(1) sufficiently good AI* is released to everyone: critical infrastructure and open source projects gets better hacking tools to white-hack their own code at exactly the same time as black hat hackers
(2) sufficiently good AI* is released to critical infrastructure and open source projects first: everyone else, the average paying customer has to wait but so too do the black hats
Because (2) is either the status quo or better depending on if you have access or not; and because (1) seems to me to lead to an acceleration of zero-days, I lean towards (1) being the worse.
* having no experience of pen-testing, I take no position on if this is "it" or not
1 assumes that some "private entity" gets to decide what is crucial infrastructure and what is not, what gets the opportunity to be patched and what doesn't.
I'm not ok with that and don't know why anyone would be.
Because it's their property. Now you can try to make an argument that it's stolen IP and that matters in some way, but that's just more likely to ensure no one has access.
Even more so they are getting push back from the government (good job electing idiots) that said models are a security risks.
But until then the company can charge/give access to whoever they want for however much they want except in the cases the law says no.
And if you don't like it raise a trillion dollars and make your own.
> Because it's their property. Now you can try to make an argument that it's stolen IP and that matters in some way, but that's just more likely to ensure no one has access
The knowledge of the world is their property? Or is it the model weights? Or is it the natural resources they are subsuming by buying politicians and political power and leaving residents with high bills (while securing cheap energy costs for themselves). Perhaps it's the equipment they lease causing drastic price spikes in RAM and GPU's for everyday normal people.
> And if you don't like it raise a trillion dollars and make your own.
> Or is it the natural resources they are subsuming by buying politicians and political power and leaving residents with high bills (while securing cheap energy costs for themselves). Perhaps it's the equipment they lease causing drastic price spikes in RAM and GPU's for everyday normal people.
Yes to both. That is how free markets work and also why people object to free markets.
The owner of a thing deciding to whom they wish to provide access to the thing they own, is a necessary consequence of the concept of private property.
The only two alternative to a private entity making this decision are a government making this decision, or nobody making this decision, the latter of which is equivalent to both government and a private entity making the decision to do (1).
Consortium are entities, and the CEOs of Anthropic and OpenAI at least are openly begging for feedback with all their efforts to handle this, openly asking everyone else to figure out what the rules ought to be. Even if you think that too is a cynical ploy, they're asking.
