credit_guy

7 ms·

61.
by credit_guy 4mo ago
> to be fair, we already had the GPUs Most businesses don't have the GPUs, or the knowledge necessary to do self-hosted inference. So, they'd have to rely on OpenRouter, or Ollama, or some other inference provider, but there ar
62.
by credit_guy 4mo ago
The doubt you are expressing was very justified until this week. But on June 1st, Microsoft changed the pricing for business and enterprise Copilot, and people started paying real money for using AI. Until that day, Github Copilot was charg
63.
by credit_guy 4mo ago
No. If you read 2-3 articles about the war in Iran per day, be sure they read 20 or 30, and they probably use LLMs to summarize 3000. For us, it's only the feel-good of being smart. For them it's money.
64.
by credit_guy 4mo ago
I don't think it's a bold assumption, but I also don't think the assumption would lead to the conclusion. 1. Why it's not a bold assumption: it's a bit shocking now. But in two years or so, many/most companies
65.
by credit_guy 4mo ago
So you'd ban stock markets? Or ban people from investing in companies where one shareholder is a billionaire?
66.
by credit_guy 4mo ago
> so no need to disproportionally allocate resources to them. Maybe I'm squinting too hard, but it seems to me you are talking about Musk here. We are not allocating any resources to him. He took some risks, started some ventures, s
67.
by credit_guy 4mo ago
Success creates jobs, failure at best maintains them, and in general destroys jobs.
68.
by credit_guy 5mo ago
It is a safe bet that the first applications will be missiles and there won't be any passengers to worry about.
69.
by credit_guy 5mo ago
Exactly. You can ask many things, like you can ask for world peace, and you can ask for universal brotherly love. If the ask has no chance to result in the outcome you desire, it's purely wishful thinking. It feels to me you are asking
70.
by credit_guy 5mo ago
This is wishful thinking. Billionaires can vote with their feet, or can pay expensive lawyers and accountants to find all the possible loopholes to not pay those taxes. California wants to tax Elon Musk for his trillion dollars. But how muc
71.
by credit_guy 5mo ago
Sure, the government has that goal too. But the government has many tools, and using taxes for that is using the wrong tool. Or maybe you think that billionaires owe us not only to pay taxes, but also to play nice, and pay those taxes with
72.
by credit_guy 5mo ago
That's not all that matters. The main reason to have taxes is to fund the government, not to make society a more just society. And thinking that billionaires will just take a wealth tax as served, and perhaps will ask "can I have
73.
by credit_guy 5mo ago
Being "too expensive to operate to be profitable" is a technical problem.
74.
by credit_guy 5mo ago
People who work at Meta are paid very well. I think the majority of them would prefer to be paid very well and have the danger of being laid off, than to be paid at European levels and have more job security. Being laid off from Meta is not
75.
by credit_guy 5mo ago
> his $2 billion bill will cost the state’s consumers an extra $1.6 billion in the next ten years alone — that means an extra $823 million for residential (approx. $345 per customer) The customers will see their monthly bill go up by $2.
76.
by credit_guy 5mo ago
I think the OP is saying that it's ok to blame , but it is not ok to just blame . It is preferable to also act in some sort.
77.
by credit_guy 5mo ago
I don't think so. About 20% of the crude oil and natural gas used to come via the Strait of Hormuz. That's out now, and some oil drills will need to be shut down, and it will take 3 months to 2 years to restart them. But about hal
78.
by credit_guy 5mo ago
That's not how people intend to colonize Mars. Nobody is thinking of building rockets on Mars for a very long time. A few decades, maybe a century or more. The idea is to only refuel the rocket on Mars. You land the rocket (which comes
79.
by credit_guy 5mo ago
Just in case anyone is wondering how this was possible, the short story: Novo Nordisk did file for a patent in Canada and obtained it. But, by negligence or intentionally, they stopped paying the annual fee in 2018, and did not pay it since
80.
by credit_guy 6mo ago
The problem with that school of thought is that nobody explains how you get from the balloons to orbit. The low Venus orbit velocity is about 7.3 km/s (similar to the LEO velocity), you need Falcon-size rockets to go from 0 to 7.3 km&#
81.
by credit_guy 6mo ago
The A-10s can absolutely play a role in the Pacific. They can roam the skies above Taiwan and shoot whatever long range drones happen to come from China. It's not very glamorous, but war is not always glamorous.
82.
by credit_guy 6mo ago
Until they get those shipments, they should do what the Gulf states did, and get anti-drone systems from Ukraine.
83.
by credit_guy 6mo ago
Here’s the answer to your queation (from the article) > The Anthropic deal specifically covers Trainium2 through Trainium4 chips, even though Trainium4 chips are not currently available. The latest chip, Trainium3, was released in Decemb
84.
by credit_guy 6mo ago
I was answering to your comment in the current thread, where you explicitly said "long-range" drones. Long-range drones will always be more expensive than short range drones, and not in a linear way, in an exponential way. Thousan
85.
by credit_guy 6mo ago
I think the opposite. Drones are subject to the tyrany of the rocket equation: they need fuel (or batteries) to fly, then fuel (or batteries) to carry the fuel, etc, in a compounded way. Which makes long range drone inherently more expensiv
86.
by credit_guy 6mo ago
Some costs scale down more than linearly, some less. For example, because of the square-cube law, you lose more neutrons through the walls of the reactor, so you often times need a higher level of uranium enrichment, and you produce less en
87.
by credit_guy 6mo ago
This almost brought tears to my eyes. I can only imagine how people felt when the first astronauts got to the Moon, and then when they got back to Earth in one piece.
88.
by credit_guy 7mo ago
That is not a war crime. First, there is no way to know that a naval vessel is unarmed. Second, even if unarmed, it does not mean it has safe passage. Once it gets back to its base, it can load with munitions and then come and fight. Put it
89.
by credit_guy 7mo ago
My guess is that both those tankers and the oil they carry belong to owners other than Iran at that point. If the US seizes such a tanker, it could be perceived as sn act of aggression by China, for example, if they are the ones who bought
90.
by credit_guy 7mo ago
If you read what I said, it was that "most people won't do it", not that nobody will do it. From the point of view of worldwide oil supply, what most tanker captains do matters more than what a few exceptions do.

More ›