That's right. It wasn't. It was for trade between Canada and other nations to whom it wanted to sell oil, not to sell it to us. The pipeline did not benefit the USA ongoing, and it was a massive drawback because it would have allowed Canada to pollute the USA for profit without it even being for trade with the USA. It was a shitty deal that never should have been, it was Canada fucking the USA, and fuck you and fuck Canada.

That conflicts with zero things I said if you take it from the viewpoint of an American or America. IDGAF about Canada being able to make money through my country and spill a bunch of oil here, sorry eh.

It is from my understanding, but if you put it on lesser GPUs, then you'd be processing bound again. Also, the GPU has to support higher-bandwidth memory to move the needle there, not just have more VRAM, because as you quote the memory bandwidth is a factor.

This. There flatly should not be a camp there, period.

I blame federal flood relief for this. As a society we are used to the government paying for things to be rebuilt in the very same place where they were destroyed by a flood. I'm not against flood relief, but I am completely against the government paying for rebuilding in the same place which is definitely going to flood again. Relief funds should be only for relocation, and part of getting them should be giving up the land, which should become national Park land. (Or for state based flood relief funds, a state park.)

"The people who blamed the person who cut the NOAA before actually checking out if it's true have done almost as much damage as the people who failed in this particular situation."

You, sir, are smoking tiny orange dick.

"What's stopping Intel from putting 128G/256G RAM into their comparatively slow GPUs?"

Lack of demand and high memory prices.

Large memory alone is okay for running the LLMs, but not for training.

Irony is when an anonymous coward calls someone else a troll.

Thank you for knowing what troll means.

"And the restrictions you're against aren't on the GPL code itself."

Yes, they effectively are, since they pertain to resharing the code.

That's part of my point. Although the penalty for failure is low in your use case, the AI won't be able to hallucinate consistently because that's not how hallucinations work. Therefore the output won't be consistent even to itself, and you will still have to doctor it. As you say, this is not a big problem for you, but it does illustrate the fundamental limitations of the technology.

I agree, this is absolutely true. Long copyright terms underpin multiple multi-billion dollar industries, let alone specific companies. There is simply too much money opposing rational IP law.

So, we have your vote, and it is yes.

I wonder if intelligent has an opinion on this.

No, it doesn't. Slower but cheaper isn't actually cheaper, because it means you need a bigger building and more electrical power to get the same result.

TSMC is ahead of Intel in every way that matters for a fab.

Intel has failed at 18A, which we know because they claimed they were going to offer foundry services with that node and aren't. The only plausible reason for why is that it wouldn't be cost effective, either due to how much support they would have to provide, how poor yields are, or both. Now we're supposed to wait for their next process step to see how great they are.

Well, they aren't, and they haven't been for a long time. Intel's only secret sauce was superior process technology, which they haven't had for quite some years now. They don't have better hardware engineers, they don't have better software engineers, and their process technology is inferior. They are bad at working with partners, they give them bad or no information (e.g. on power levels for their defective processors) which makes the partners look bad.

We had one of those. It was called copyright with the original period. We extended the period repeatedly without doing anything to mitigate the impact. This was done deliberately on behalf of media conglomerates and related holding companies. Now most people have no respect for copyright, which is as it should be, since it's used to harm humans for profit.

The best solution is to return copyright terms to what they were originally, then discuss whether they should be even shorter.

You misspelled "lunch"