Not talking about VRAM or unified memory. Regular DRAM.

There's been a lot of advancement recently on how to best manage MoE expert swapping (FreeToken is just one example).

How are you connecting to Slashdot from the year 2024?

If you have ~128 GB of RAM, consider Qwen 3.8 Flash + Freetoken. You'll only get half the tok/s as 27B but the quality is significantly higher than 27B - it beats it solidly in all compared benchmarks (for example, DeepSWE 1.1: 42,2% vs 58.7%).

Grok is a "discount model". It's cheaper than Claude Sonnet yet better than it. Doesn't compare to Fable or Opus, but then again, they're way more expensive models.

Note: I avoid using Grok - not just for the Musk factor, but because there are better options, e.g. GLM-5.3 and Qwen-3.8. Also, if you really want to save money, GLM-5.3 Flash and Qwen-3.8 Flash are amazingly good for their price range.

a doozie to debug

[ConfusedMathLady.gif]

Ed Zitron is a moron who has predicted the past nine out of zero AI crashes, who simultaneously gets paid to hate on AI while also getting paid to promote AI (DoNotPay).

The funny thing is that he openly acknowledges that inference is very profitable (~40% margins) for all parties - he just argues that you should count training. But that argument makes no sense, because if capital tightens across the AI industry, then everyone will cut back on training and scaleup, and... then what? Where's the implosion? Everyone is profitable then. You may lose certain players in competition against others (their as-mentioned profitable assets being gobbled up by others), but the industry remains healthy.

There are more dramatic types of possible contagion risk, but they all end up with *someone* holding onto the high-profit-generating inference assets, even if it's high-seniority investors, leaving the the low seniority investoors high and dry.

The enshittification of Cursor continues.

Maybe this will force them to support more open models.

I do recall HP (before the trailing 'e') having some... specifically their top end Itanium systems had hot swap CPU in the hardware. It was developed to compete with the big iron mainframes so that sort of functionality was needed. I remember standing up one of these systems, and because I never actually used that functionality I don't know how it worked or how well it worked but it was definitely a feature I remember the HP touting when we purchased them.

For all its warts, if you ran native code on them they were pretty good processors. Not notably faster than x86 equivalents of the time but definitely did have a small edge in certain compute tasks and could support massive (for the time) memory spaces. Incredibly handy for crunching huge datasets which is exactly what we bought them for. The company was still running those things when I left a few years later and I believe ran their last one up to around 2018 and they just did their jobs.

Where Itanic sunk is because Intel were heavily pushing the x86 compatibility of the processor which people then used and found it almost unbearably slow compared to much cheaper commodity x86 CPU's.

Meanwhile, what those evil liberals think should happen to YOU is... that you be given healthcare and a general social safety net.

They've been launching dummysats from Starship for a number of launches now, so I'm not sure why you think they're "forever away". The only reasons they've been using dummysats and not actual satellites is 1) Not wanting to risk more valuable payloads thusfar, and 2) wanting to keep Starship suborbital (e.g. trajectory that reintersects the atmosphere) at just under orbital velocity until they can verify deorbit reliability (failure to do so would leave that massive ship falling onto a random point on Earth).

If they were to choose to, they could start launching payloads on all subsequent Starship missions, even if they're not yet ready for reliable recovery or quick reuse. In fact, given the killing off of Falcon 9 in Florida, one can presume that's the plan (if not immediately, then soon).

Um... no they're not?

Further reading: Musk's other unstated reasons for shutting down Falcon 9 in Florida (Behind The Black)

TL/DR, the author thinks that SpaceX shutting down Falcon 9 launches from Florida was secretly a magnanimous gesture by a charitable Elon Musk to boost the competition:

I therefore honestly believe that SpaceX’s decision was not entirely based on its own internal needs. Those needs certainly were the main motive, but based on Elon Musk’s passionate dream of making the human race multi-planetary, as well as his repeated willingness to help his competitors when they needed SpaceX to launch their satellites, I believe he recognized that SpaceX’s dominance could be hurting the rest of the rocket industry, and that the instant it made business sense to clear the field for these competitors, he was quite willing to do so.

LOL.

Yes, I remember way back when Mike Pence had nearly absolute unchecked authoritarian power.

CAIS: Male or female?

Swyer Syndrome: Male or female?

What is "sex" (let alone gender)? Of the numerous axes, each with their subaxes:

1. Genetic:

* Karyotype (including mosaicism and chimericism)
* SRY presence / absence
* Gene presence, expression, and functionality (SOX9, RSPO1, WNT4, DMRT1, FOXL2, WT1, SF1, DHH, CBX2, AR, SRD5A2, HSD17B3, CYP19A1, etc)
* Müllerian inhibiting factor (AMH/AMHR2) expression and reception
* Epigenetic regulation (imprinting, methylation, chromatin remodeling)
* Androgen expression and reception

2. Gonadal

* Gonadal Type (ovaries, testes, ovotestes, streak gonads, dysgenetic gonads)
* Gonadal Function (steroidogenic capacity, gametogenic potential)
* Gonadal Position (abdominal, inguinal, scrotal/labial, absent)
* Germ Cell Presence/Absence (oocytes, spermatogonia, none)
* Gonadal Hormone Secretion (androgens, estrogens, AMH, inhibin)

3. Hormonal Axes

* Androgen levels (testosterone, DHT, androstenedione)
* Estrogen levels (estradiol, estrone)
* Progestogen levels (progesterone)
* Gonadotropin levels (LH, FSH)
* AMH levels (high in males, low in females)
* Adrenal androgens (DHEA, DHEAS in CAH)
* Hormone sensitivity (AR mutations, ER mutations)

4. Internal Reproductive Structures

* Vaginal Canal (depth, presence of cervix)
* Ejaculatory Ducts (patent, atretic)
* Wolffian Duct Derivatives (epididymis, vas deferens, seminal vesicles) - present, absent, or partially developed
* Müllerian Duct Derivatives (uterus, fallopian tubes, upper vagina) - present, absent, or partially regressed
* Prostate/Skene’s glands (size, functionality)

5. External Genitalia Axes

* Phallus structure (clitoris, penis, or intermediate)
* Size (micropenis, clitoromegaly)
* Urethral position (hypospadias, normal)
* Labioscrotal folding (labia majora, scrotum, bifid scrotum, fused labia)
* Vaginal opening (present, absent, urogenital sinus)
* Perineal configuration (distance from anus, midline fusion)

6. Secondary Sex Characteristics (e.g. post-pubertal)

* Breast development (Tanner stages, gynecomastia, absent)
* Body hair distribution (androgenic vs. non-androgenic patterns)
* Voice pitch (androgen-dependent deepening)
* Muscle/fat distribution (male vs. female typical)
* Bone structure (pelvic width, shoulder breadth)
* Larynx size (Adam’s apple prominence)

7. Reproductive Functional Axes

* Fertility status (fertile, subfertile, infertile)
* Gamete production (spermatozoa, ova, none)
* Menstrual status (eumenorrheic, amenorrheic, dysmenorrheic)
* Spermatogenic capacity (azoospermia, oligospermia, normal)
* Ovarian reserve (normal, diminished, premature failure)

8. Neurological & Behavioral Axes

* Brain sexual dimorphism (SDN-POA, BSTc, corpus callosum)
* Gender identity (congruent or incongruent with anatomy)
* Sexual orientation (androphilic, gynephilic, bisexual, asexual)
* Prenatal androgen exposure effects (CAH-related behavioral shifts)

There is no "single thing called sex". It is a vastly multidimensional space. The parameters in this space are *correlated* but not inherently causal. If you define purely based on any one factor, you come up with ludicrous consequences like pregnant women being classed as men or whatnot.

Furthermore, each subaxis has varying degrees of (A) malleability, and (B) impact on daily life. Some are highly malleable, others not at all with current technology. But it just so happens that the subaxes that impact daily life the most tend to be the most malleable, while the ones that impact it the least tend to be the least malleable. For example, the presence of SRY is not at all malleable, and yet it's also entirely irrelevant to a person's daily life. Yet curiously, "sex essentialists" always try to come up with their definitions based on subaxes that fall into the latter category, not the former category.

For the concept of "other sexes" (your words) to exist, you have to be able to have an essentialist definition of what one's immutable sex is (otherwise, the concept of there being some immutable "other sex" is incoherent). So what is your balance of the above axes, how did you reach that as being the most logical conclusion, and how would you respond to someone raising the case of someone who fits one sex within your definition but is flipped on most / all of the other axes?