1. There are a lot of empty seats; a lot.

2. The demo wasn't live, likely due to the huge failure of an event that the Meta one was.

3. They noted that you do all of this 'hands-free', likely an intentional knock at Meta's offering.

4. The examples were...odd. Who the fuck is going to be using this to shop for a fucking rug? Come on; give some real-life examples that are IMPORTANT. None of these were.

5. The entire presentation's style, across multiple different presenters, was...exhausting...halting...jarring...and...really undergraduate level. It was almost as if they were being fed what to say in their earpieces, not from memory and not in a fluid and practiced way.

---

Personally? I love the idea of AR glasses that work well. I want to have live subtitles for humans talking to me as I'm hard of hearing and hearing aids do not work well for me, particularly in public spaces.

I want it to give me important information, respond to my environment in ways that are useful (telling me where I am really isn't that; I know where the fuck I am--tell me what I should be doing or where I should be going next, perhaps?)

I know these are early adopter level devices, but they're just fucking ugly due to their bulk.

I strongly prefer this option to Meta's simply because I don't have to do stupid fucking mime-style hand gestures, but I want this technology to be useful, now, not in 5 years. We're going to see this largely flop just like so many other AR/VR toys out there unless they make this something more than a gimmicky piece of shit.

After Meta announced its earnings on Wednesday, and presumably this announcement was part of the earnings call, Meta's stock dropped, erasing $237 billion in value.

As the article relates, "Meta's spending is hard to rationalize, some analysts say, as it's uncertain whether heavy investments in AI will generate compelling returns"

Further down in the article, "Significant investment in Superintelligence despite unknown revenue opportunity mirrors 2021/2022 metaverse spending," Oppenheimer analysts said, referring to Meta's recently formed Superintelligence Labs focused on AI that would surpass human knowledge. After Wall Street panned earlier metaverse-spending plans, Meta went through a "year of efficiency" focused on cost cuts.

Take this as you will.

Another solution would be to compost the body. The mercury would still be in the ground, but either stay there or be dispersed among the tree and vegetation.

He tracked their children's locations, counted their screen minutes and demanded they account for them, and imposed draconian limits during Kate's custody days while lifting them on his own [...] After they separated, Kate's ex refused to disband the family group.

He sounds like such a pleasant person.

You clearly do not live in the US. The legal system does NOT do anything about anything (other than child support and alimony) as outlined in a divorce decree.

And, even if they MIGHT do something, you have to wait 12+ months to get on the court's docket, paying thousands of dollars to glorified expensive secretaries in the process while you wait.

The entire system is fucking broken.

You could stopped at 'Windows is the Problem'. Everyone would understand. No need to say anything more.

China offered a U.S. Nobel Prize winner whatever he wanted after the U.S. froze grant money for research. He declined to take up the offer, but it is guaranteed others will and have done so, whether to China or somewhere in Europe.

Guess what happens to a country where people like this are no longer around.

Unfortuantely, no. There are many "doctors" who don't believe in vaccines or were touting quack products to "cure" covid. Look who heads the Florida Department of Health and his stance on vaccines. Essentially, they're not needed.

As well there are people with law degress who don't know the law. One need only look at the Supreme Court Justices who supposedly have law degrees but don't even know what the Constitution is about.

And let's not get into Flat Earthers who have degrees in astronomy.

This would do little in the U.S. to limit morons from spouting nonsense. If anything, it would make things worse because now people could use the appeal to authority when letting loose their conspriacy theories or outright lies by saying, "See! See! Dr. Combobulitz said it and since they're an expert it must be true."

Agreed. I didn't buy in nearly early enough, but my money is growing so that's all that matters. Even if the stock drops precipitously, I'm up far enough I'll still make out.

The next two years should be interesting to see where things go from here.

The problem is when an answer is long and involves nuance, and that doesn't work in debates.

The problem with not engaging, however, is that if you don't engage with an issue, you'll just get endlessly sniped on it. And the alternative approach - embrace the opposite side's positions to shut them up - also doesn't work, because you get the worst of both worlds (you tick off your side, while not winning over votes from the opposite side). It's a strategic error to run from difficult conversations.

A lot of people misunderstand the market for the DGX Spark.

If you want to run a small model at home, or create a LoRA for a tiny model, you don't want to do it on this - you want to do it on gaming GPUs.

If you want to create a large foundation model, or run commercial inference, you don't want to do it on this - you want to do this on high-end AI servers.

This fits the middle ground between these two things. It gives you a far larger memory than you can get on gaming GPUs (allowing you to do inference on / tune / train much larger models, esp. when you combine two Sparks). It sacrifices some memory bandwidth and FLOPs and costs somewhat more, but it lets you do things that you simply can't do in any meaningful way on gaming GPUs, that you'd normally have to buy / rent big expensive servers to do.

The closest current alternative is Mac Studio M2 or M3 Ultras. You get better bandwidth on the macs, but way worse TOPS. The balance of these factors depends greatly on what sort of application you're running, but in most cases they'll be in the ballpark of each other. For example, one $7,5k Mac M3 Ultra with 256GB is said to run Qwen 3 235B GGUF at 16 tok/s, while two linked $4,2k DGX Sparks with the same total 256GB are said to do it at 12 tok/s, with similar quantization. Your mileage may vary depending on what you're doing.

Either way, you're not going to be training a big foundation model or serving commercial inference on either, at least not economically. But if you want something that can work with large models at home, these are the sort of solutions that you want. The Spark is the sort of system that you train your toy and small models on before renting out a cluster for a YOLO run, or to run inference a large open model for your personal or office internal use.

Agreed. My interest in this product has nothing whatsoever to do with its small size. It could be 10x larger and I'd still want one.

It happens so easily to these snowflakes.

Let's look at the very DEI policy in question in the article you're responding to, the one that caused them to have to miss out on a government grant, and go through it line by line. You tell me which part is racism and some horrific thing.

"he Python Software Foundation and the global Python community welcome and encourage participation by everyone." - Is this racism? Is this horrific?
"Our community is based on mutual respect, tolerance, and encouragement, and we are working to help each other live up to these principles." - Is this racism? Is this horrific?
"We want our community to be more diverse: whoever you are, and whatever your background, we welcome you." - Is this racism? Is this horrific?
"We have created this diversity statement because we believe that a diverse Python community is stronger and more vibrant." - Is this racism? Is this horrific?
"A diverse community where people treat each other with respect has more potential contributors and more sources for ideas." - Is this racism? Is this horrific?
"Although we have phrased the formal diversity statement generically to make it all-inclusive, we recognize that there are specific attributes that are used to discriminate against people. In alphabetical order, some of these attributes include (but are not limited to): age, culture, ethnicity, gender identity or expression, national origin, physical or mental difference, politics, race, religion, sex, sexual orientation, socio-economic status, and subculture. We welcome people regardless of the values of these or other attributes." - Is this racism? Is this horrific?
"The Python community welcomes people no matter what languages they are fluent in. (Although core Python development is done in English.)" - Is this racism? Is this horrific?
" The Python community encourages the creation of user groups in all locales, and many of them are listed at http://wiki.python.org/moin/Lo..." - Is this racism? Is this horrific?
"Many of these user groups also have mailing lists in the locally preferred language." - Is this racism? Is this horrific?

This is what DEI is. What the living hell is wrong with you if you think this is some horrible thing that warrants massive government censorship to fight against it?

This. It's just amazing how much they project. The one thing that drives me crazy is how they keep saying "Democrats keep taking about identity and 'social issues" (*cough* trans people *cough*) rather than things that matter like the economy and healthcare!". When the reality is that Democratic politicians keep trying like hell to not have to talk about identity and trans people, to talk ONLY about things like the economy and healthcare (and abortion, and other "strong suits"), but with conservatives constantly talking about identity and trans people, as their primary sources of rage. Seriously, pull up a random Harris speech and count how much time she spent on "identity" or (ahem) "social issues" vs. other things. It will be "little to literally-zero".