This somewhat validates a fear I've had (but hadn't tested) of codemode with smaller models. It works fantastically with Opus and Sol but I've always wondered how well it scales down.
I wonder if increased reliance on VPPs increases the difficulty of a black start. Especially since these things are internet controlled, I can't help but feel like there's a bit of a circular dependency. Can't coordinate the VPP without internet, can't have internet without power, can we black start without coordinating the VPP?
You can't do a black start from the lowest potential part of the grid anyways. Synchronization isn't the hardest part. You could solve this with GPS and cellular telecommunications. Fault current handling is where things fall apart. You have to start the grid from the top. Fault current has to flow in the right direction or none of the existing equipment will function correctly.
The power walls can help to stabilize islands once they're back online, but they can't meaningfully participate in the initial phase.
That's an interesting question. I would think that it depends on what generation the batteries are replacing. As far as I know VPPs are relying on domestic inverters that do not have grid forming functionality required for black start. So you essentially have less plant capable of black start which I would think makes your black start capability worse.
Is that a local question for Vermont, a nation question for the US, or a global question?
If the question is global, then yes, there are, although as renewable energy has increased globally so has the need for peaker plants to handle the variance in the grid, thus plants that historically has only been used for seasonal variance are now used all year round to handle weather variance. An example of that is the oil power plant in south of Sweden.
I think what he was saying is that with a peaker plant you have an extra source of power. So if you have a low wind/low irradiance period - you can rely on peaker to provide more power, but by this stage batteries are long gone.
> The same can be said of Linux, it can be a real PITA finding and configuring drivers for something that should not take more than a few seconds.
If you value your own dignity you should see that these scenarios are worlds apart. In one case you have a trillion-dollar company actively working against your own interests. On the other hand, you had some trouble finding drivers for a volunteer-driven project, which is a problem that you are actually empowered to fix.
The domain is code analysis, all languages and frameworks. It’s b2b SaaS, so total volume is not incredibly high. And many customers have contract clauses that we don’t train on their data.
I’m not convinced we could train easily here, or that it’s worth the investment compared to (previously) spending fractional cents on Luna, or now paying even less on Jev. Especially given that these numbers are not meaningful to our margins.
If we were talking about speed instead of size, i think it would be perfectly reasonable to say 9x faster. I'm not sure I agree that 9x smaller is unintuitive. It makes sense to me.
"Nine times" literally means multiplied by nine, but here we're dividing by nine. It's not unintelligible (because the corrupted verbiage is so commonplace) but it is needlessly awkward. Like saying "resulted in a size reduction increase of 10 megabytes."
Rather, "nine times larger" means multiplied by nine, and "nine times smaller" means divided by nine. This is basic and not particularly awkward, certainly not more so than e.g. positive/negative correlation, or many much more awkward and more common linguistic constructions, IMO.
If you have to edit out words (i.e. context) to argue a phrase doesn't make sense... I am not sure what mental model you have for natural language, exactly, but it certainly isn't a very robust one.
Saying something is 9 times bigger is also a shorthand because “times” is a shorthand for repeated addition. You are adding a number “9 times” to make it “9 times larger”. But we don’t say the “adding” part.
Likewise if I repeatedly subtract a number 9 times to make it “9 times smaller” I can omit the subtracted bit.
That interpretation doesn’t make sense. Repeated subtraction does not correspond to division in the way repeated addition corresponds to multiplication.
This isn’t analogous to repeated addition giving multiplication. You’ve switched from applying an operation nine times to counting how many times an operation can be applied.
You chose 81 because it’s the one number that makes your argument appear to work. Try the same reasoning with 80 ÷ 9.
"faster" relates to speed. Speed is related to time and speed of a thing is usually defined by time. 9x faster speed translates to time/9. There is an extra step of related conversion there.
Conversely, 9x [filesize/natural number] is bigger. Every time. At least in the basic maths used by most people. There is no conversion into other units.
Therefore "9x smaller" when talking about a natural number like filesize is a nonsense statement in logic terms. If you strive for unambiguous phrasing - which is a significant part of the programming experience - this logical nonsense might well perturb you.
But english language is a flexible thing and if the phrase communicates your intent to your audience then that's fine by me.
I think more intuitively for speed - you are multiplying the things per period. If I’m making widgets 9x faster I have 9 x the previous number of units per period of time. To get the amount of time, you invert the ratio to period over units.
Multiplying some scale by units per period makes sense and is both linguistically and mathematically sound.
And what a lot of people seem to miss is that with AI, there is going to be (already is?) orders of magnitude more software in this world. I'm sure a lot of jobs will be eliminated, but new jobs will be created as well. Hopefully enough to balance things out, but we'll see.
How are you backing up 100TB of data? Have you factored the consequences of catastrophic data loss into the economics? How much value would you lose if all your data was gone?
There's no way you are consuming this much content actively. You could store all of it in S3 deep archive for $200/m (100TB) and maintain a tiny fraction in the standard resource pool.
