Sure, and we are looking for thing that cannot.

We are? We're talking about somebody using the term "quantum material", not looking for evidence supporting quantum physics.

Even so, you should be able to pretty easily notice deviations from Maxwell. It's a pain in the ass with film but pretty well any modern CCD or CMOS sensor should be able to detect shot noise from a double slit, crossed polarizer or just plain old light source experiment at tabletop scale. If not, add an ND filter.

'd be very careful about interpreting QM as "how it works".

Yeah, I didn't say that. It's pretty easy to show that both quantum mechanics and Maxwell are not how it works. Your claim that a polarizer is not a "quantum material" because you can explain it's behaviour with a classical theory (in very limited circumstances) really is assuming "that's how it works" though.

Or Slashdot will tell you you need 10 terabytes of the fastest VRAM and a few dozen of the very latest processors from Nvidia.

There it is!

You don't need any RAM at all. You can read each weight from an SSD, a hard drive or a stone tablet. If it's an SSD it's not necessarily "incredibly slow" if you're just playing around and aren't ready to spend fifty thousand dollars on your chatbot. There are benchmarks for running big models on Raspberry Pis for example.

The 50 B generally means you're going to be able to do things like hold most or all of the matrices in memory while you multiply them, which is usually a pretty big performance increase.

Convenience comes before the rare occasions when it's actually pleasurable to drive a standard day to day. I do not miss a clutch crawling along in traffic or cruising on the highway. And for the in-between bits my car has both a shift by wire stick and paddle shifters if I want to make vroom vroom noises and pretend I'm in F1.

Nah. Learn Chisanbop, Korean finger math, instead. An abacus you'll always have with you. Hopefully.

It depends what you want to do. Minimum requirement is something able to multiply numbers and with (probably) about 3 terabytes of storage space.

You're probably actually going to want something that can at least hold those 50 billion parameters in some sort of reasonably fast memory. That's probably about 50 GB.

Or Slashdot will tell you you need 10 terabytes of the fastest VRAM and a few dozen of the very latest processors from Nvidia.

Give it a bit though. Whenever an open weight model is released there's a very active community that boils it down to something almost as good in a lot smaller space.

I am talking about a standardized drop in compatible PACK, not the individual base cells.

Yes, and you pointed out yourself that nothing is really standardized like that across cars. When you go to your autoparts store and ask the guy for pretty much anything from transmission fluid to windshield wipers he asks you the make, model and year, then looks up the correct part because none of it is standardized.

Let me just go on rock auto and order a Tesla compatible battery pack - um nope.

https://greentecauto.ca/produc...

https://ingenext.ca/collection...

https://calimotive.com/product...

EV batteries can be made that way

They are. EV batteries are almost always assemblies of pretty standard cells, just like any other modern battery. The Tesla Model S and X use 18650s. That's the AA of the lithium ion world and is the same thing that's in those oh-so-proprietary power tool batteries, some laptops, battery banks, etc.

There's a burgeoning market of battery refurbishers who crack open old batteries and replace bad cells. Or you can just order a third party replacement, just like you can buy aftermarket brakes, tires, windshield wipers, whatever.

The game GPL is playing

There, you nailed it. And that game convinces people, the OP in particular, that something with fewer restrictions is "not free." Not "not as good" but specifically "not free."

This is precisely the same game that let Engels and Lenin convince everyone that a social system based on general anarchy plus a wee bit of democracy where absolutely required that was supposed to come about naturally ACTUALLY required authoritarianism and violent revolution because.

The OP claimed that the BSD license is "not free" and the GPL is.

Having freedom does not mean you can do anything you want.

Yes, it does. It's clearly impossible for everyone to be that free, so reality forces compromises, not redefinition. Not permitting something is not "more free."

You can explain a lot of things, in isolation, with classical physics. That doesn't mean that's how it works. The GP's comment is insightful: WTF is a "quantum material" if it's not literally everything?

What does the free project care about "the market?" What you mean is that the commercial project isn't forced to contribute back to the free one. I also don't like that idea, but claiming that forcing someone to do something they don't want to is "more free" is weird.

It has always seemed a particularly strange argument that a restriction makes something more free. More ethical, maybe. A reasonable limitation in order to maintain some other goal, okay. It's not free if you can do this, no.

Right. The statement "Keeping DST means that the sun rises an hour later in the Winter" is untrue. Even if the entire US congress agreed, it won't make the sun rise earlier or later.

To make it true you have to write out the implicit bit that you meant but didn't say:

Keeping DST means that the sun rises an hour later relative to locally defined civil time. We agree laws can't affect the sun, so what they change is locally defined civil time.

Logically, we can flip the relative relationship to say: "keeping DST means that locally defined civil time is an hour earlier (than it would have been without permanent DST) relative to when the sun rises." Since the sunrise is constant we can drop it from the statement entirely to get "keeping DST means that locally defined civil time is an hour earlier (than it would have been without permanent DST)."

The vast majority of people don't get up much earlier in the morning than they have to to be at work on time. For those people, the last statement is equivalent to mine. It not only "works logically," it is what is actually happening. Ignoring that implicit relative in your statement gives rise to all kinds of silliness like "Sunshine protection act" and even "daylight savings time." No sunshine is being protected, nor daylight saved.

As you point out, DST makes you wake up an hour earlier. The transition to doing that is what people dislike. They tend to like the transition to not doing it in the fall, although some people still complain because they have OCD and they haven't figured out how to set the VCR clock yet. The bit we don't like is getting up earlier, and the proposal is to do that all the time.

When you actually look at it logically you realize something else: pretty much everybody is free to observe permanent DST whenever they want. All they have to do is get up an hour earlier in the winter than they would otherwise, i.e. at the same time they would in the summer. No time changes. Hardly anyone actually does this. Your boss probably isn't going to be mad if you get to work early. They're certainly not going to be mad if you get up early and enjoy an extra hour in the winter to do whatever you want. Yet almost nobody does this. Almost everyone gets up as late as they can and still meet their social obligations. Especially in the winter.

I wonder why?

I don't think the logic really works there

Just to clarify, you think that DST makes the sun rise later rather than than making people get up earlier?