Yeah, but it's going to be quite a hunt to find an ETF that does NOT include any of the current obvious-cash-out IPOs.

But that's kinda the point. What future earnings, given that so far they have none? To make a profit, they would have to dramatically change their fees. As in: Quadruple at least. That's going to destroy the user base really quickly. And as Altavista found out: Once you are no longer synonymous with a service, you are easily replaced.

That seems to be the goal of all these massive IPOs recently. For early investors to cash out before the bubble bursts.

My best results in intelligence and speed in my MacBook Pro 2019 with an i7-9750H and 32GB RAM are with Qwen3.6 MoE version. I use it for my Hermes Agent:

llama-server \
  --hf-repo majentik/Qwen3.6-35B-A3B-RotorQuant-GGUF-Q2_K \
  --hf-file Qwen3.6-35B-A3B-Q2_K.gguf \
    --host 0.0.0.0 \
    --port 8080 \
    --threads 4 \
    -tb 4 \
    -b 2048 \
    -ub 2048 \
    --ctx-size 65536 \
    --n-gpu-layers 0 \
    --flash-attn on \
    --cache-type-k q8_0 \
    --cache-type-v q8_0 \
    --reasoning off \
    --batch-size 2048

It takes around 20 minutes for Hermes to start using this as a local model. But after that it is quite good.

Imagine if the EU start demanding electric cars batteries to be of a standard size, Current and Voltage. Something like 0.5m wide, 0.5m long and 0.1m tall, less that 40 Kg with a standard C13 plug, 480V and 10A. I don't care about the chemistry you use inside. As new chemistries get released, you can replace your old battery for newer with more range, without throwing the car away.

The word "capitalism" wasn't coined until much later. That means two things: One, it doesn't uphold capitalism and Two, it doesn't disparage it. What is in the Constitution is fundamental rights. Capitalism is a consequence of individuals exercising those rights, up to the point where it infringes on the rights of others. Recognizing that is one of the things that made Theodore Roosevelt a great president. There is nothing un-American about wanting to reign in capitalism, but there is something decidedly un-American about wanting to destroy it wholesale, since as mentioned previously it arises from the exercise of natural rights. This is the much-hated nuance, particularly despised by the left, who seek to abolish capitalism; but also some on the right who have an agenda to give free reign to robber-barons and undo the works of T.R. and others.

More importantly: Capitalism is an ECONOMY and market system. It is NOT a blueprint for a society. You can run your commerce and trade as capitalism, when you run your SOCIETY along capitalism principles you end up... essentially with the USA.

This is the part that is constantly forgotten. As a society, we have values that are not represented well within capitalism. But for some reason, we dumb shits think that we can treat everything as a market and apply capitalism to it and that will magically solve problems. But in education, just as one random example, the goal of it all is educated adults as output. It is not maximizing profit. Same for the prison system, the healthcare system and two dozen others.

It's greed, pure and simple.

Making a good product is possible. KEEPING making good products for decades is hard. Even more importantly: You will have hits and misses. Which, for a quarterly-result-bonus oriented manager is a no-no. Subscription models mean plannable revenue streams. Then all you need to do is negotiate your bonus package so that the already existing subscriptions will provide and you're home free and can already order your 2nd yacht.

Which is, of course, nonsense. Nothing stops you from making a copy of encrypted data. What sucks is that for a backup, you likely can't do incremental.

Oh, Windows will love that.

Thanks for explaining to Slashdot what a proxy is. I had no idea.

In your case it might simply be that there was not enough of this kind of tasks in the training data.

I agree in general, but not with this strong phrasing. I've let AI build a good amount of non-trivial code. But my consistent experience is that it works best when guided by an experienced coder who can correct it, and when implementing well-known algorithms rather than coming up with novel solutions.

Example: I let it write up a quadtree implementation in a language for which there was no ready solution online. It took 2-3 correcting prompts to get a good result. I could've done it myself but it would've likely taken a few hours to get it all right instead of the half or so hour it took with AI. The important part for me was that there's nothing unknown in how to implement a quadtree. All the AI needs to do is take the 100s of existing implementations and translate them into a different language.

True but too simplified. The Luddites had an entirely different motivation: The fact that factories now employed women and children at very low rates meant that the men lost their status in the family as bread winners and head of household. That was a major social disruption, which we don't have with AI.

I'd compare it more to teamsters or wagoners when cars became common. Your job is threatened by a different way of doing the same thing, a way to which your skills don't cleanly transition. Some choose to pick up the new tech, some want the old ways to persist.

In the end, coachmen became chauffeurs, because rich people prefer to be driven around oder driving themselves, no matter if it's a horse or an engine doing the pulling. But much fewer teamsters and wagoners became truck drivers.

BOTH of them? :-)