I think it is supposed to be stacks in the general sense of the data structure, not the literal `sp` register. I imagine they could be arbitrarily sized up to physical limits if you do some mmap magic. I'm still a bit fuzzy about how you could make useful programs with that, but it seems interesting.
I have a RX 9070 also. I run llama-swap with a fill-in-middle 7B model, local 9B model, and it proxies up to OpenRouter for the bigger stuff. I think that's where the sweet spot is right now.
I've spent $2 in the last 2 weeks on OpenRouter. I've been trying to only use the medium sized models that I would otherwise be able to run on a nice local setup. That nice local setup would cost ~$4k. I don't know what the operating cost would be, but I would be concerned that my home electricity would cost more than at a datacenter. It just doesn't make sense right now except for privacy reasons.
I'm probably going to hoarde open weights models in the ~31B range until memory costs fall in a few years. Then, I'll buy some hardware to run at home just so I feel more sovereign over my stack regardless the cost/token speed.
For Windows CMD+R menu, run it by pressing CTRL+SHIFT+Enter (elevates to admin). You may have to do it twice for some unknown reasons after reinstalling the OS.
Had to learn this recently when my wife’s computer refused to register requests to boot into bios despite spamming F12 / Del many different times across many different USB ports. Such a pain in the ass.
Network monitoring for unauthorized/unusual access, reading more into how this works I don't think this would actually change anything, you can probably still discern scripted vs manual shells it would just be a bit harder.
Is there a market for publishing the retrospective of the process which resulted in a "late found flaw"? I would expect uninteresting data would still be published if only to prevent someone from going down that rabbit hole in the future.
I don't see them drawing any distinctions from C++ or Rust there either. It really sounds to me like most of their low-level experience is in C, where the contrasts they appear to be drawing really do apply.
I don't understand. Isn't this already the case in America with Section 230? (The original post is about the Netherlands, so this is now tangenting.) It's just that no one actually acts as a platform.
I'll daydream with you except mine is different. The optimal social media in my view is one tied to your real identity. Moderation would only be applied under court order by the relevant jurisdiction for the view of the content within that jurisdiction. i.e.:
1) American posts content critical of Indian officials. That content is restricted by order of an Indian court and no such order is additionally given by an American court. It would be hidden from view within India but not from within America. The inverse would be true.
2) Indian posts content critical of Indian officials. That content is restricted by order of an Indian court. America (or any other nation) has no duty to protect that speech and thus no claim over it. That content is censored everywhere.
Additionally, everyone would have client-side filters which may be published. Emphasis on "published" because the publisher would be accountable for their words just as much as a newspaper within their jurisdiction. Though they wouldn't need to say much (i.e.: list of people I [dis]like). Unique identity and nationality are the only ones I can think of right now. More complex examples:
1) An American publishes a list of politicians who have made inflammatory public statements. They have evidence of this for each person on the list and make no additional assertions about their behavior. People not interested in such content could subscribe to the filter. (I guess people interested in chaos could view the inverse.) No court is willing to censor this list because their statements are protected speech.
2) An American publishes a list of men who have committed sexual crimes (such as in the original post). They assert it as fact not alleged crimes. They include someone who has not been proven in a court of law to have committed that crime. They can be sued for libel and possibly forced to remove the person from the list or reword the list description.
Anonymity between the user and the social media service wouldn't exist, but it might between users. The service could be mandated by the jurisdiction to unmask or otherwise ensure the accused does not fall within the jurisdiction.
> Isn't this already the case in America with Section 230?
IMO, Section 230 is too relaxed for large scale social media, but not relaxed enough for some other applications. It basically allowed big tech to mod the public square like modding a game, for it to be much larger, to move people around into biased groups, and to keep a record of all conversations, and train autocomplete bots on them..
I do not want more restrictions on existing apps. My point was that I wanted every local community to have their own online forum that's only accessible locally (through a RSA cert that rotates monthly, perhaps). They can even build minigames and cute events for themselves, and that would boost local morals and economy.
I think your thoughts on real online identities are interesting but I do not believe in either Censorship or total free speech. It's like the halting problem: I don't think there is a fixed list of rules that can always tell you the correct answer (To censor or not).
That's also why it's important for local communities to make their own decisions.
reply