- Is there less regulatory oversight when purchasing assets instead of the company, or do Nvidia really believe the FTC/DOJ are that blind? (Or doesn’t it matter in the current climate?)
The near exclusive global provider of AI chips taking key employees from and “licensing” the technology of the only serious competitor while quite specifically describing it as “not acquiring Groq as a company” seems quite obviously anti-competitive, and quite clearly an attempt to frame it as not.
- Is there less regulatory oversight when purchasing assets instead of the company?
The near exclusive global provider of AI chips purchasing the only serious competitors technology while quite spceficially describing it as “not an acquisition” seems a bit…
- Indeed. They have shown (and keep showing via blatant malicious compliance) that they can’t be trusted to play fairly.
- > If Apple knew they would need to expand this feature past their gear, possible they’d never have implemented.
And this is EXACTLY why they need to open up more core access to their devices. So someone else can innovate.
- That depends on the interpretation of a market, which is why laws like the DMA establish a market based on its size. In the iOS market, apple have a monopoly.
EDIT: Downvotes for what? That’s literally what the DMA is for. If you don’t like it, take it up with your representatives - it’s nothing to do with me.
- Regardless of the content itself, naive redaction of a high profile PDF still exposing the text contents is something that seems relevant to the community. Maybe you are in the wrong place?
- That movement is effectively “consuming” the differential.
- What is the max token throughput when batching. Lots of agentic workflows (not just vibe coding) are running many inferences in parallel.
It seems like every time someone does an AI hardware “review” we end up with figures for just a single instance, which simply isn’t how the target demographic for a 40k cluster are going to be using it.
Jeff, I love reading your reviews, but can’t help but feel this was a wasted opportunity for some serious benchmarking of LLM performance.
- Im not sure how the depth estimation alone translates into the view synthesis, but the current implementation on-device is definitely not convincing for literally any portrait photographs I have seen.
True stereoscopic captures are convincing statically, but don't provide the parallax.
- I note the lack of human portraits in the example cases.
My experience with all these solutions to date (including whatever apple are currently using) is that when viewed stereoscopically the people end up looking like 2d cutouts against the background.
I haven't seen this particular model in use stereoscopically so I can't comment as to its effectiveness, but the lack of a human face in the example set is likely a bit of a tell.
Granted they do call it "Monocular View Synthesis", but i'm unclear as to what its accuracy or real-world use would be if you cant combine 2 views to form a convincing stereo pair.
- > You cannot censor Nostr.
Sure you can. A relay operator absolutely can censor what goes through their relay. More to the point, you cant even prove that such censorship has occurred.
Nostr is censorship resistant in that you can publish to multiple relays, but that is far from censorship-proof.
- The problem is that (to use the comparisons given in the article) Nostr is a statically peered superpeer.
All the "downsides" of a superpeer (as the article says - "centralisation with extra steps") but without the benefit of dynamic peering thereby resulting in incomplete routing.
i.e. by its nature Nostr results in a fragmented network, which ends up looking very much like the federated network, albeit more interconnected.
Thats not necessarily a bad thing, but its a bit of a confused article, IMHO.
- Don't worry about it - clearly I am not explaining it well enough for you to understand. It is a well documented security concern, so feel free to do your own research on why as we are just going in circles here.
- A registrar isn't going to keep your domain active if you don't renew.
Maybe you are confused about what I mean by email service provider.
I am referring to an email provider that uses its own domain, and provides you with an email account - like gmail, live, hey (the examples I have given). I thought I made that clear when I said: "It would be nice to have a memorable user-part, so nothing oversubscribed would be ideal."
- And you will introduce a centralised dependency by using wireguard too - at least one of the nodes needs to be accessible from the other(s).
- > am I missing something?
I believe so? A domain can not get renewed for many reasons - such as the death of the registrant. The domain can then get reregistered and the email addresses effectively "hijacked", leading to impersonation of the original owners.
A reliable email provider with a policy of never recycling an email address would mean that scenario wont happen. Obviously they can change policy, but if that happens while I am able then obviously I can inform everyone to migrate to a new email then.
This is an attempt to protect against a legitimate security concern.
You are literally buying a whole new laptop because the keyboard is broken and too difficult to replace, instead of a €65 euro replacement part with framework.
With framework, you are paying a 30% premium for the modularity and upgrade potential.
If that’s not important to you then why would you even buy a framework laptop?