Merit should always consider strictly value.

Good question. Their POWER series of CPUs were not insignificant in capability, their chip designers were clearly technically sophisticated, and GPUs are just specialised vector processors with a few extra bells and whistles - stuff IBM is extremely familiar with.

It would not have been difficult to release a GPU or other LLM-specific processor to go along with the POWER11. They'd been working on the POWER11 for 4 years, they knew in 2020 that LLMs had a strong potential to be significant for Big Data processing - an area you use big iron for, they're not rank amateurs, they have plenty of reserve, they could have assembled an emergency team to build a vector processor that was custom-designed for just LLM work, and released an LLM processor card that could run circles around nVidia.

They didn't. Because, as has happened before, their management is simply too stupid and too slow.

I keep hearing things like "my grandmother got so confused, I set her up on Zorin/Mint and she couldn't tell the difference."

The more people just use their PC's to get on websites the less they seem to notice if they use Windows or Linux.

Which is why this is suspicious. Just how do they intend to make up for the revenue losses? What fresh hell will the next "update" do to us?

Yes, Windows is slowed down mightily by the constant telemetry feeds, the ad campaigns and sheer bad code sloth.

They are not benevolent, and so their intentions are entirely suspect.

Most of the world is not Northern Canada, which must be where they got that number from. Maine averages 4.55 peak sun hours per day, and is the northereasternmost state in the continental United States. Even Washington state is at 3.95.

Solar panels: The roof of a trailer is about 450 square feet. In the northeastern U.S., you would average only 3.5 hours of full sun, so you'd get only a little over 13 kW per day.

So the solar generation function of a panel is no sun, no power, partial sun, no power, peak sun hours, full power.

Well, I guess that you're the expert.

So in an entire day, covering the entire roof of a trailer with solar panels would add a whopping 7 miles of range

Maybe that's enough to get you over a time zone or so so that you get an extra hour of "full sun"? ;)

After all, it's not like trailers are ever sitting idle during loading, unloading, or waiting for loads. Always moving, doncha know.

Once and for all people: "it's" (with an apostrophe) is a contraction of "it is." "its" is the possessive pronoun, which was intended here.

Yes, it is. Now think of the rule for possessives with every other type of noun (ordinary and proper) - " 's ". It's like the "i" before "e" except after "c" (and sometimes "y") rule, irregular verbs, and a host of other landmines in writing down the English language.

It doesn't help that there's a group of people actively miseducating kids about pronouns and demonizing references to them. His, hers, its, yours, theirs, and ours are all bricks paving the shoulder of the road to hell.

It doesn't matter if it's bad - if China and Russia agree it's bad you have to be for it.

You can never agree with China because they have a totalitarian AI Surveillance Police State there so you must support a totalitarian AI Surveillance Police State here.

If you are against techo-feudalism you must be one of them Putin Lovers.

- The New York Times / Langley, apparently.

I'm amazed to find your comment is an isolated example of reading comprehension and critical thinking.

Many others are 'accepting the premise' and 'entering the frame' of the LA Times weirdos.

Didn't expect that today.

What if...

Someone (say someone who was familiar with doxygen and GCC) developed number of comment types, where some stipulated preconditions that must be true for the function to run correctly, postconditions that must be true once the function has run, kernel facilities that the function definitely needs, and kernel facilities that the function definitely doesn't need. These would all be optional for any given function.

A static checker could then validate if the code meets the behaviour expected by the programmer. This is precisely what is done in SPARK, a fork of Ada for high-reliability code. Combined with existing static checker capabilities, this would greatly increase the number of bugs that could be caught with all kinds of tools, AI included.

It could ALSO build a full fine-grained mapping for any fine-grained mandatory access controls system. You'd also want includes that you could import for precompiled libraries. This would allow someone to verify if the code was making unanticipated/undesirable calls but would also make SELinux possible to develop for at the application level.

It would not be trivial. If it was trivial, it would have been done simply because it already IS done in other languages and that makes it "obvious" to anyone who has been programming for a while. However, it should not be massively complicated, simply because you can use AI as the static checker. Once it has a definite set of bounda that must be satisfied, it should be much more capable of knowing what paths would violate those bounds. Which means that the checker stage essentially is trivial today, leaving only the markup stage.

Just be careful; a few old IBM sites had toxic waste problems. It sounds like they were just turning off the lights and water and walking away from these.

One woild hope everything was remediated but I wouldn't bet my own safety on it.

Yeah, that's why they mentioned the ancient Sony camera he lifted.

"Crime with a gun" is a separate crime according to NY.

SCOTUS will strike those down eventually. It's like saying "crime while praying" if it's a right.

Obviously he wasn't using the gun to jack a Betacam. He was probably worried about crackheads in there for the copper.

If the argument can be proved that they ruined the minds of an entire generation using a massive AI/Big Data model running at n terraflops by deliberately addicting children during the crucial neuronal pruning period of their lives, that is at a minimum going to cost the society tens of trillions of dollars and restitution would be far more than the proposed fines.

Nobody gets a second chance at that pruning stage, at least in this lifetime.

Their profits may be far lower than the damage they caused, but that characteristic is always true of parasitic entities.

This is basically the whole point of the Island of Pleasure warning in Pinocchio.

It remains to be seen what can be proved in Courts but the DSM-6 won't be kind to their arguments as outlined in TFS.

The idea is probably from 1950's comic books but the tech seems brand new since they don't need any landing legs and use a net-on-frame architecture.

People should pay attention because they didn't have orbital technology thirty years ago and now they have a space station, reusable rockets, and are about to have a Moon base.

And possibly ultra-long flighttime 'drones' that can fly over Picatinny Arsenal unimpeded; that much is uncertain. We have no explanation for their energy budget (at least white-world).

Having a country run by engineers rather than professional thieves who hire engineers to justify pillage has certain advantages (and disadvantages).

Let's not get too overconfident.

Is to set coursework and exams that are specifically crafted to exploit where AI is weak or prone to hallucinate.

You do not ban cheating, because those who cheat will inevitably find ways to circumvent the ban.

Rather, you exploit the properties of the mechanisms of cheating to ensure that those who actually understand the ideas are marked relatively highly (regardless of whether they reach the textbook conclusion) and whose who do not understand the ideas cannot do well even if they give what is in the textbook.

The interest should not be in precise answers, but in precise use of tools of reasoning and analysis, because this is what actually matters when it comes to understanding. Yes, it means you can't standardise so easily, and you have to devise things in ways that don't penalise intuitive thinkers over methodical thinkers, but you cannot teach a subject properly if you are only concerned about the surface.