Also, people think they're so clever when they do this, when they generally don't actually work with modern models anyway. It just makes you look manipulative and unprofessional.

It's over an order of magnitude heavier than the largest of those (Helios).

There's a difference between an aircraft being built to lift itself and perhaps a tiny payload and be paperlight vs. an aircraft designed for actual commercial service carrying passengers.

The feet are needed to accelerate the plane to takeoff velocities in order to conserve battery mass.

Also, the big AI companies get a number of advantages, such as large batch sizes and being able to balance on-peak and off-peak workloads better.

Is most of your daily driving "a race"?

This is a midrange model. This is competitive midrange pricing. For my midrange work I've been using GLM-5.2 - Gemini 3.7 flash is a bit cheaper and a bit better on the benchmarks, so yeah, I'll probably switch so long as the prices stay low.

Sometimes you need a high-end model (Claude Fable, GPT 5.6 Sol, Kimi K3, etc). Sometimes a low-end model is fine (GPT 5.6 Luna, DeepSeek 4 Flash 0731, etc). Usually a midrange model is the best balance.

There are to be three variants of the ES-300: an all-electric 200km version, a hybrid 30-seat 400km version, and a hybrid 25-seat 800km version. And the ES-300 airframe very much is not some existing airframe.

EV fires are rarer than ICE fires (and slower spreading as well), so given that the competition is fuel-based....

It is a perfectly cromulent statement. 1MW = power, $5 = a cost of energy. They are providing both power and (indirectly) energy.

They didn't bother to install a co-pilot, a seat for the co-pilot, passengers, seats for the passengers, the hybrid gen set as you say, fuel for the gen set, and who knows if they installed a full production sized battery or just a smaller one

Are you just learning about the concept of a prototype in this comments section?

That's not correct. There are three modes. All-electric, hybrid-30 passenger, and hybrid-25 passenger, with ranges of 200km, 400km, and 800km, respectively. The airframe is to be certified for 20k feet (FL200), with optimal cruise altitudes from 10-15k feet, but this was explicitly described by the company as a "low-altitude test flight".

And to all the people going, "LOL, that's never going to cross the Pacific!" or similar range comments... and? Long haul flights (over 4000km) are only 5% of commercial flights. Very short / regional flights are 27% of total flights. There's very much a market for puddle jumpers, and airlines very much will buy them if they offer competitive advantages.

1) 30B, dense. Optimized to fit Q4 quantized in a 24GB card with a speculative decoding model as well.

2) Because reporters don't know what weights are and assume you don't know either.

3) Way better than Gemma 4 on text tasks, slightly better on multimodal. Numbers below are all: Benchmark: Muse Glimmer score Gemma 4 31B score difference

Artificial Analysis Intelligence Index: Muse Glimmer: 35 30 +5
MCP Atlas (Public): 75.5 54.2 +21.3
DeepSearch QA: 74.6 61.7 +12.9
SWE-Bench Pro: 51.2 36.9 +14.3
SWE-Bench Verified: 76.0 66.6 +9.4
OSWorld-Verified: 65.9 58.5 +7.4
GAIA2: 43.3 36.4 +6.9
WildClawBench: 47.6 37.6 +10.0
TerminalBench 2.1: 51.7 43.4 +8.3
Tau3-Banking: 23.5 15.1 +8.4
MMMU Pro: 74.0 73.0 +1.0
Charxiv Reasoning: 78.8 77.7 +1.1
OmniDocBench v1.5: 75.8 72.5 +3.3
ScreenSpot Pro: 75.4 75.9 -0.4

4) 128k tokens

5) No, sadly.

What you want is a DGX Spark.

It costs $4000.

And yes, there are fundamental advantages to cloud services, such as large-scale batching, little idle downtime, high speed, and hardware optimized to the specific models / serving needs. That said, one can weigh that off against sovereign control over your server...

Define "tolerable".

The model in question - Muse Glimmer - with DFlash/speculative decoding - will probably get you ~60 to 124 tok/s on a 3090 (a quite dated GPU). For a 5090, it's said to clock in at 233,4 tok/s. On CPU you're looking at maybe 3-5 tok/s.

If you call that "tolerable", I guess you're more patient than me? And as mentioned, you're not just wasting time, but also wasting a lot of power too - CPU is a very power-inefficient way to run ML models.

If you insist on CPU, this isn't the right kind of model anyway. You want to take advantage of the fact that you probably have lots of (comparably cheap) RAM, and compensate for the fact that you have (comparably) terrible memory bandwidth, and for that, you want a MoE with a high total parameters but a low active parameters. Not a dense model like this.

Then I was basically aiming at Mac Minis

That's very much a special case which you didn't mention in your post that I responded to, but still the answer is "meh". You couldn't run it at all on a 16GB Mac Mini, and I think you'd struggle to run it at all on a 24GB (because you have to share the ram with the OS, the inference server, etc). For the base Mini you might get 10-12 tok/s, and for the M2 Pro / M4 Pro, maybe 25-35 tok/s. Still pretty far from a GPU, though.

This model is designed for >= 24GB GPUs.

MoEs don't save RAM (for a given quality), they increase it. You have to store all of the parameters in memory, not just the active params. But inference only uses a subset of the total params for each token, so it reduces the memory bandwidth requirements and improves token generation rate. But this comes at the cost of a higher total param count for a given quality.

Meta has always been releasing open models (Llama was famously the first powerful open model). The change has actually been in the opposite direction, with Muse Spark *not* being open.

Zuck descrbed his motivation way back when, about how they got burned with Facebook on app stores, in that Apple and Google could basically bully them however they wanted, on whatever extractive terms they wanted, and there was nothing Meta could do about it. He's now paranoid about "others controlling the platform", and wanted to make sure that doesn't happen with AI, that they have their own AI base to work with.