- But this is a CCP model, would it refuse to generate Xi?
- Okay it belongs to Taiwan, and they actually claim it, period.
- China maintain the view that Tibet is part of China since the establishment of PRC, and they make this very explicit. Same for their border disputes with India. China never admitted that they believe it's not theirs. Mea while China does not ever say that Japan or Korea is part of China (and it's the only reason why they keep North Korea from collapsing despite it being super annoying).
So, again, any example of China suddenly started to claim lands?
- SWE Bench doesn't even test bugfixing / feature dev properly after you achieve roughly 70% if you don't benchmaxx it .
- > Do public reports like this one often go deep enough into the weeds to name names
Yes. They often include IoCs, or at the very least, the rationale behind the attribution, like "sharing infrastructure with [name of a known APT effort here]".
For example, here is a proper decade-old report from the most unpopular country right now: https://media.kasperskycontenthub.com/wp-content/uploads/sit...
It established solid technical links between the campaign they are tracking to earlier, already attributed campaigns.
So, even our enemy got this right, ten years ago, there really is no excuse for this slop.
- > Why can't the stock ROMs use these features and be more secure also?
Some of the features may hurt user experience in some way and people made different trade-off.
For example, GrapheneOS disables USB before unlock so that there's no chance that some driver codes in Linux kernel run in response to a device being plugged in, for attack surface reduction. Then, say, if you have a cracked screen, the touchscreen no longer works and you don't want to fix it, if not for this mitigation, you can use an USB-C OTG cable to connect a mouse / keyboard to the phone, unlock it and export all your data. With this mitigation the keyboard won't work so you are forced to fix the screen first just to get your data out.
- If you look you'd notice that it's the same Haoran Wei behind DeepSeek-OCR and GOT-OCR2.0 :p
- I don't think it's weight being different or special inference techniques, more like they are not able to train the model to follow tool schema perfectly yet, and both Moonshot and Groq decided to use something like https://github.com/noamgat/lm-format-enforcer to make sure at least the output format is correct.
- > It's known that such tricks reduce accuracy
AFAIU, speculative decoding (and this fancier version of spec. decoding) does not reduce accuracy.
- If you compare "schema validation error count" plus "Count of Finish Reason others" then SiliconFlow and Infinigence is in the same bucket too. Maybe their API layer detected incorrect tool call and set finish reason to something else?
IMO this likely is what you get from running the model correctly as-is (i.e. using the same weight and activation dtype), so Together is not bad.
Moonshot AI themselves and Groq likely uses some sampler tricks to eliminate schema validation errors.
So really the only thing this shows is: Nebius, Chutes, AtlasCloud could be running something else (for example further quantized model). Or bugs.
- Graphene just made VoLTE / NR / VoNR toggle feature built-in to their OS.
- China knew that chips were security and strategic issues maybe 20 years ago if not more, I wonder why they haven't done building equally capable factories on-shore.
- That's cool. For those who happened to be in China right now, there's the same listing on a Chinese marketplace (idlefish) for only 480 CNY (~68 USD). That's... better than too good to be true. I'm going to have a try.
- > and that's ironically the one feature they bought out and integrated (Supermaven) instead of developing themselves
What? Cursor bought Supermaven last November and I have been using their much superior (compared to GH Copilot) completion since maybe early last year so it does not add up.
- It could be a better draft model than separately trained EAGLE etc for speculative decoding.
- > It still seems strange. A big part of GrapheneOS is to provide a safeguard from Googles data hoarding, yet it works primarily on Google phones.
That's the most confusing part. IMO GrapheneOS is not mainly about "provide a safeguard from Googles data hoarding", instead this is more like a side quest.
GrapheneOS is about creating a mobile OS that is more secure against advanced threats [0] than anything else, including stock Pixel OS and iOS.
[0] Currently my rule of thumb is, anyone who can find and write exploits for new memory corruption bugs for the wanted attack surface, or who can buy such capability, qualifies as advanced threat. Hence Cellebrite qualifies as a borderline "advanced threat".
- Well, anyone with actual root on a secure (locked, verified boot on) Android phone can hard brick it with a single command. Yes, you can yell at the user telling them it's their fault. Still something you usually do not want to support.
I don't think having authorized temporary root is inherently insecure, but on the other hand making sure it is secure could be a huge time sink.
Now, the original request here, modifying user app (I'd assume it's not system app) data, is reasonable. Designing a properly authenticated way to allow doing so would be an interesting challenge.
- Then refresh rate is a problem.
It's just that NVIDIA GPU sucks (relatively) at *single-user* LLM inference and it makes people feel like Apple not so bad.