I've been thinking about different techniques for making my NAS backup-able to cold storage and... the thing that has given me pause with tape is how closed-down the ecosystem for the LTO drives themselves seems to be. What's your strategy for knowing you'll be able to access your tapes to transfer them forward to the next generation in 10-15 years when the tapes start reaching the end of their dependable life?
Looks like I'm a bit out of date, but older generations of LTO drives were able to read tapes from up to two generations ago, and write tapes from one generation back. Looks like this isn't the case since LTO-8. It looks for 8 and 9 theycan read and write to tapes back one generation. 10 breaks the pattern and can only read LTO-10 tapes.
If you have money for LTO-10 drives and tapes, then backwards compatibility shouldn't really be a problem. The drive alone is $20,000 to $30,000. If you can afford an LTO-10 setup, then an array of lower LTO drives seems affordable.
> is how closed-down the ecosystem for the LTO drives themselves seems to be.
Linear Tape Open is remarkably Open for an enterprise product with Open in the name.
Personally, I feel like archival storage of personal digital data is not really solvable. I feel pretty confident about keeping my online storage going while I'm able. After that, there's nothing effective to preserve it when I'm gone. That's not a huge deal for me, I don't expect my heirs to want or need these things... Photobooks with annotations are more likely to last and have some chance of being apprechiated.
EBay has a bunch of LTO-3 tape drives for sale for <$300. LTO-3 is 22 years old and can read LTO-1, originally released 26 years ago. I expect them to still be for sale 20 years from now, albeit fewer in number. I see no reason why LTO-7/8/9 drives won’t be readily available for the foreseeable future.
Personally, I think it's more that text diffusion is not the ideal driver of an agentic work loop than that text diffusion is a total dead end. I am still hoping to see how it does on authoring and editing with further scaling and optimization. I think the push for AGI has put a bit too much focus on the idea of one general model doing everything.
Honestly, it's an addressable market versus development cost question... How many clients will you lose if you support OIDC but not SAML? Does the delta justify carrying a SAML implementation? If so, do it. But the post is still correct that SAML is a fractal of bad design either way. And it's good to say this openly, and to run this calculus each time you are considering a new SAML implementation.
I can see how it might require an explicit state machine (keep a mutable state number and switch over the inlined bodies of what could be functions), but I'm not seeing how it could require `goto`.
Are there more-complex relationships that might require it?
That's my personal theory too. The model is stuffing its own context with vaguely related tokens, which helps the attention heads retrieve the right tokens.
It's also interesting because in humans the existence of "Aha!" moments that are not preceded by or are only loosely related to a chain of thought is taken as the proof of the fundamental mystery and irreproducibility of human intelligence. Now the same argument is made to deny that LLMs actually think. Go figure.
This seems indeed one obvious hole in the argument of the paper. There is no indication whatsoever that human thinking process is more reliable than LLMs intermediate tokens. Which doesn't make our thinking useless, as messy as it might be. We reorder and explain it after the fact.
I don't think there's anything like that going on. They just word vomit into a secondary area, and then there is an internal prompt that says "clean this up and summarize for the user".
The training methods try not to apply any particular rules to the contents of the thinking text. That's called "optimization pressure on CoT" and is thought to reduce safety by inducing the model to lie (or stop clearly printing its intentions) in the thinking text.
Imo the insistence on 'no NAT' has killed IPv6, as it made talking to legacy IPv4 nodes very awkward. If it could interop well with v4, then the transition wouldn't be all or nothing.
And it turns out the simplicity of 'no NAT' still buys you nothing. It's very common for modern systems to run multiple network interfaces with connections having to be juggled between them. In that case, connection and session management falls to a higher level protocol, often in the application.
Because it wasn’t implemented transparently at the OS. I can’t plug in to my ip6 only network and reach an ip4 address because end user OSes don’t implement clat transparently, even today in 2026, let alone 20 years ago.
I'd argue it has, but that's not the point. IPv4 is pretty much mandatory for most users of the internet. Yes, individual users probably neither know nor core whether they're on IPv4 or IPv6, but it's so difficult to run IPv6-only that you just wouldn't bother.
Trying to teach someone about how to use ULA vs. GUA only leads to headaches. In fact, I'd go so far as to say the reason why the internet became so ubiquitous was because of NAT -- static internal addressing is pretty much fundamental to an easy-to-use experience. Having multiple addresses on a host only makes things far more confusing, so people don't bother, because IPv4 justworks.
So you agree that consumers mostly see the sticker price and don't think much about the quality of the product, therefore there must be protections ensuring that the product is at least fit for purpose.
reply