Yes, by the same logic manifestos and other statements of intent are also "pure puffery" as they're not yet law either.
Or even proposing new laws by floating bills when they don't already have the guaranteed votes - or even know they'll never pass. I'm sure many here would also want to dismiss that as "pure puffery".
Really why do we let anyone but the current majority party say anything at all? It's just puffery.
Again, you're just dismissing it rather than engaging with any reasoning, and putting a rather arbitrary requirement on "real" signalling - one that has been repeatedly shown to be costly and difficult for the non-majority party to even get out of committee to a vote.
And I generally hope that actually bills have a much higher required level of analysis of details and interactions than more general direction statements. Requiring that for every statement would just put a massive burden on the minority party, as they would have to always do that level of due diligence just to be "allowed" to propose a direction.
> Requiring that for every statement would just put a massive burden on the minority party
It’s the burden of work required to get lawmaking done!
Here are the bills the CPC has actually written or endorsed [1]. They’re the ones that could turn into a law in 2027. This crap won’t because it’s not designed to—non-binding resolutions basically never turn into law, and most laws introduced after the Congress flips aren’t preceded by resolutions.
> I generally hope that actually bills have a much higher required level of analysis of details and interactions
They don’t. They’re introduced all the time and then edited and revised.
And by doing so you have immediately excluded anyone who doesn't have an army of lawyers on the payroll from politics. And massively benefitted the incumbent, an icumbant who has, I should remind you, repeatedly stated they would reject any bill out of hand based on the party it was proposed by rather than any contents. The idea that everyone even considered for politics must have an entire, complete government apparatus ready to slot in with zero warning is crazy - it's why public offices come with funding and staff.
I do somewhat wonder if people's opinions about this would survive the current incumbent changing. From previous experience, I have my doubts.
> They don’t. They’re introduced all the time and then edited and revised.
Trying to claim that revising a bill based on feedback is the same as "no need to consider those specifics yet" is crazy to me.
LCG generators like lrand48 have been understood well enough you could possibly calculate "realistic looking timestamp" input seeds based on intended output characteristics.
Now, do we think that's likely? Probably no more likely than then being "easily broken" for decades without being noticed by the academic cryptography community.
And those rocket drones have a significant proportion of their mass as reaction gas for the thrusters, everything else being designed around lightness, and can still only resist gravity on the order of a few tens of seconds before a full recharge needs to be done. They're very much designed for "small" course corrections outside of atmosphere, or quickly dodging the terminal phase of an interceptor, rather than efficient velocity change.
There's no getting away from the rocket equation - reaction mass is heavy. The sheer number of design compromises that need to be made to allow a cold gas thruster system means I can't see anything but ending up with an awful car for the sake of a few seconds "air time". And the rest of the time you'll still be (at least) doubling the mass of your car from the propellant plus whatever the thrusters, tanks, linkages and everything else weights. I guess you could leave it empty, then only charge it for the "Party Trick", but it still seems a lot of compromises for the occasional "Hey, this looks cool".
And then really only usable in a nice empty, flat, controlled environment - the "real world" driving experience has things like other cars, people, buildings and street surfaces that likly wouldn't appreciate what are effectively localised hurricane-force level winds from the car next to them.
This is a car rigged for a specific stunt. And there's a reason why people don't just drive around rigged stunt cars. They suck as being "cars".
From what I can see they actually started pushing the steam update to stable users before the epic tweet. And has been on the beta channel for weeks.
So I wonder if it's the other way round, Epic rushed out the boast because they knew the window that it would be even remotely correct to most users was closing.
But their goal would be to ensure it only runs on their chips, and not any competitors. I can't see how they could do that if the best models truely were "Open".
I can see one of Nvidia's biggest fears is the inference hardware becoming commoditised.
The existence of inference ASICs has been priced-in to Nvidia's stock since Google started designing TPUs. It's not that new, really.
What Nvidia has the market cornered on is flexible GPU architectures. Nobody else has stepped up to the plate on that, and it's how Nvidia will butter their bread with robotics and future model training efforts.
Tyres are also a massive source of micro plastics in the environment, as another example of one of the "uncounted externalities".
This suggests it may be the source for over a quarter of all environmental micro plastics [0]
Some reports suggest it could be even higher, this article [1] references a pew report suggesting tyres could be the source for over three quarters of the micro plastics found in the ocean.
Though it's not as if they're just driving around for fun (most of the time), but not costing these sort of externalities means the market doesn't realistically consider alternatives even if they "should" be more efficient, so "cheaper" when all the /real/ costs are added up.
From their current balance sheets, well below costs.
Trying to separate out "per token" costs and possible profitibility from public information feels like a exercise in futility, it's too easy to play games with costs by trying to separate things still fundamentally required to actually have anything to /sell/ in the first place, like R&D and training. Even the current "Open Models" are somewhat loss-leaders, often reliant on significant funding and benefits from governments etc.
I think the only time we can /really/ judge the "true" break-even point is if the whole company breaks even.
I think it's still /somewhat/ close to feature size - I think the fin pitch of the "N3" tsmc process was about 5nm, which gives a "minimum feature size" of ~2.5nm to ensure the "gap" between them.
I think one of the big differences is that the "Gate Contact Area" simply isn't the smallest "feature" anymore - but the ITRS that defined those names called it "feature size", not "gate size" from the beginning intentionally.
You probably could make a transitor with a gate size of a similar order to the "feature size", it'll just perform awfully to be completely useless.
I feel part of the "Smart Access Memory" name is actually the driver features and paths to actually make use of it.
It's not like ReBar is a single toggle "Make Things Faster", but a different option in how it can map gpu memory to the cpu. The driver still needs to use it - and decide where it's use vs the "staging buffer" approach would actually be be benefitial.
Or even proposing new laws by floating bills when they don't already have the guaranteed votes - or even know they'll never pass. I'm sure many here would also want to dismiss that as "pure puffery".
Really why do we let anyone but the current majority party say anything at all? It's just puffery.
reply