One major difference, assuming you've got full platform support(should be the case on any server or workstation that isn't an utter joke; but can be a problem with some desktop boards that 'support' ECC in the sense that AMD didn't laser it off the way Intel does; but don't really care); is that ECC RAM can (and should) report even correctable errors; so you get considerably more warning than you do with non-ECC RAM.

If you pay no attention to error reports ECC or non-ECC are both rolling the dice; though ECC has better odds; but 'proper' ECC and Linux-EDAC support will allow you to keep an eye on worrisome events(normally with something like rasdaemon, not sure what other options and preferences there are in terms of aggregating the kernel-provided data) and, unless the RAM fails particularly dramatically and thoroughly, will give you much better odds of knowing that you have a hardware problem while that problem is still at correctable levels; so you can take appropriate action(either replacement, or on the really fancy server systems, some 'chipkill'-like arrangement where the specific piece of DRAM that is failing gets cut out of use when deeemed unreliable without having to bring the system down.

Sometimes you'd get a BSOD that was a fairly clear call to action; when the error called out something recognizable as the name of part of a driver; but that is mostly just a special case of the "did you change any hardware or update any drivers recently?" troubleshooting steps that people have been doing more or less blind since forever; admittedly slightly more helpful in cases where as far as you know the answer to those questions is 'no'; but windows update did slip you a driver update; or a change in OS behavior means that a driver that used to work is now troublesome.

Realistically, as long as the OS provides suitable support for being configured to collect actual crash dump material if you want it; it's hard to object too strongly to the idea that just rebooting fairly quickly is probably the better choice vs. trying to make the BSOD a genuinely useful debugging resource; especially given how rare it is for the person with useful debugging ability to happen to be at the console at the time of crash(rather than just an end user who is ill equipped to make sense of it; or a system that mostly does server stuff, quite likely not on actual physical hardware, where nobody has even touched the physical console in months or years; and it's more or less entirely useless to display a message there; rather than rebooting and hoping that things come up enough that management software can grab the dump files; or giving up and leaving the system in EMS so that someone can attach to that console.

Yeah, it's not even worth considering for something like 15-20kg. A full pallet in this case is 464kg :) Years worth of supply for me.

The current "AI" is a predictive engine.

And *you* are a predictive engine as well; prediction is where the error metric for learning comes from. (I removed the word "search" from both because neither work by "search". Neither you nor LLMs are databases)

It looks at something and analyzes what it thinks the result should be.

And that's not AI why?

AI is, and has always been, the field of tasks that are traditionally hard for computers but easy for humans. There is no question that these are a massive leap forward in AI, as it has always been defined.

It is absolutely crazy that we are all very very soon going to lose access to electricity

Calm down. Total AI power consumption (all forms of AL, both training and inference) for 2025 will be in the ballpark of 50-60TWh. Video gaming consumes about 350TWh/year, and growing. The world consumes ~25000 TWh/yr in electricity. And electricity is only 1/5th of global energy consumption.

AI datacentres are certainly a big deal to the local grid where they're located - in the same way that any major industry is a big deal where it's located. But "big at a local scale" is not the same thing as "big at a global scale." Just across the fjord from me there's an aluminum smelter that uses half a gigawatt of power. Such is industry.

That "ruler study" was ancient. It's mentioned in peer review at least as early as 2018, and might be even older.

Believe it or not, people in the field are familiar with these sorts of things that you just read about.

Most of these new AI tools have gained their new levels of performance by incorporating Transformers in some form or another, in part or in whole. Transformers is the backend of LLMs.

Even in cases where Transformers isn't used these days, often it's imitated. For example, the top leaderboards in vision models are a mix of ViTs (Vision Transformers) and hybrids (CNN + transformers), but there are still some "pure CNNs" that are high up. But the best performing "pure CNNs" these days use techniques modeled after what Transformers is doing, e.g. filtering data with an equivalent of attention and the like.

The simple fact is that what enabled LLMs is enabling most of this other stuff too.

Jevons Intensifies

I've done my first test of buying a whole pallet of filament straight from a Chinese manufacturer. It's a risk - it could be all junk - but if it's usable, the price advantage is insane. Like $3/kg for PETG at the factory gate (like $5/kg after sea freight and our 24% VAT). Versus local stores which sell for like $30/kg.

I'd love to see someone try to 3d print with a filament that melts at 162K. Where do you even buy xenon filament? ;)

Yeah, if you had injected moulded PLA, it would have been just as terrible

Early on, I was overdoing chamber heating, and later discovered that was part of my problem. A blanket and a duvet can get a P1S's chamber over 70C. But if you do that, in my experience, like half an hour or so into the print you'll get heat creep problems and the filament will split & the extruder will just dance around in the air as though it were clogged (though maybe my filament was just garbage... it certainly was *wound* terribly). I ended up using a meat thermometer stuck in through one of the holes to measure temperatures, and then I'dadjust the positioning of one small blanket over the chamber to try to keep it in the mid to upper 50s, and was able to finish big prints that way.

But yeah, whatever means you use, you need some sort of raft and very strong reinforcements.

As was mentioned earlier, this isn't talking about a turbine blade, it's talking about an air intake. Also, "millimeter level"? This isn't the early 2000s. I usually print with a layer thickness of 100 microns, and the printer's control of the Z axis is well finer than that.

The problem is that they made an insane choice of a material for the intake. It was supposed to be ABS-CF, but instead it was apparently PLA. Corn plastic. The stuff people make Warhammer figures and the like out of.

I mean, the fact that PLA's chain is vulnerable to scission by water is in a way nice - not just from a compostability perspective, but from a health perspective too. I don't mind sanding PLA, for example, because PLA microplastics aren't going to build up in your body the way that, say, PETG or ABS might. At 60C, PLA microparticles decompose fully in just 10h. It's significantly slower at lower temperatures, but still, they don't persist. Also, a lot of people like that it's made out of corn rather than petroleum (personally, I don't care).

But yeah, it's pretty insane to use a PLA part on a plane.

It's pretty counterintuitive for those used to working with macroscopic fibre composites. For example, glass fibre fill adds more strength than CF fibre fill (CF fibre fill adds more stiffness). Because it's not so much about the strength of the fibres themselves, but rather how well the polymer matrix grips the fibres.