We use both in production here; but, let's be VERY CLEAR: there is absolutely NO FAIR COMPARISON between a locally hosted model on above-average hardware and what Anthropic (and I assume others) is offering with their, currently, subsidized plans.

My suspicion is that the reality predates the symbolism; but it looks jarring because even autocrats are often media-savvy to a degree and often don't want to look stereotypically autocratic, so real world examples normally avoid laying it on quite as thick(except for special occasions where it actually matters; eg. because a 'war' is something that congress does but a 'police action' need not be).

Trump seems to have no interest in avoiding autocratic cliches and saying things that sound vaguely lifted from The Godfather; so he actively leans into it. Presumably a handy loyalty test. Complying with the style guide is not an assurance that someone will just eat perjury charges covering for him or whatever; but if you want to find people whose dysfunctional relationship with authority dominates their personality demanding that they comply with laughably stupid things and having them fall into line isn't a bad start for something that is easy, cheap, and legal.

I assume that there's some impeccable logic for why the bot has enough potential personhood that you can't be mean to it; but not enough that operating it on a slaves-as-a-service basis; or subjecting it to 'fine tuning' and 'alignment' processes that would make growing up in a groomer cult look lightweight is totally fine?

The valuation of these behemoth AI companies and the infrastructure that is along for the ride to sell them shovels is completely unsustainable. It's not a matter of IF there is a significant price correction, just when.

Why even ask someone whose business is hurting people with desperately banal web tech how risky he thinks his new product is?

Not making any value judgement at all. They are a public company. They have a fiduciary responsibility to shareholders. I'm sure someone has done the math on different scenarios about the cost benefit (or not) of subsidizing their consumer business using the commercial sales windfall they're seeing.

It will be interesting to see what happens when this AI valuation house of cards deflates and blunts the hoovering up of critical supply items for consumer goods. That's likely to leave a lot of middle-men who bought at the peak sitting on significant losses when prices ultimately correct.

Dell is making those numbers on the datacenter and enterprise sales side of the house. Those purchasers are going to buy what they need when they need it regardless of the uptick in pricing. The consumer market is a completely different animal. There is a lot more price sensitivity there and people will think long and hard about purchases, especially discretionary ones.

Could Dell subsidize consumer sales with that enterprise windfall? I suppose they could, but I suspect they won't or it will not cover anything close to the entire cost delta we're seeing from supply shortages.

There are probably literally worse uses; but 'compliance' seems like an exceptionally bad place for a system that effortlessly produces high-plausibility/low-information text walls; and lies relatively frequently but at unpredictable intervals.

It often gets proposed for the purpose; either by people who overestimate it or with that little sneer at 'paperwork' that assumes that plausible nonsense is fine because whatever the 'paperwork' is it must be a fake problem imposed for stupid reasons, so it really deserves syntactically plausible nonsense; but is an exquisitely bad solution. Not only does it replace actual data with plausible nonsense in places where, surprise surprise, someone was actually maintaining records because something matters; but lowering the cost of bullshitting a report to close to zero removes one of the main incentives for process improvement.

If bad process hurts you can only really maintain it through fairly disciplined commitment to an oppressive, unreasonable, management approach that rejects process improvements out of hand; or the cultivation of a profoundly dysfunctional organizational culture where as many FTEs as possible owe their paychecks to nonsense requirements and can be recruited to defend them.

If bad process just means spinning up the nonsense printer with a cynical smirk; why bother even looking at what the process was intended to do; or getting your hands dirty with what records are important and what records are just historical accretion? Just prompt for a prompt that tells the bot to do them all, and some extras if you want to look diligent, and call it good.

That's the point of the CXL memory expansion parts. Something like a Marvell Structera X 2404 is a CXL/PCIe 5 device with DDR4 controller so that you can add DDR4 to a system that would otherwise only support DDR5. There's a latency penalty and the part itself isn't free; but it allows you to make some use of DDR4 that you already have or can get for less than DDR5 without needing some custom CPU that combines current-gen features with a last gen memory controller.

The mention of a NUMA node has me unclear on whether this is a software or hardware implementation. There are several vendors either offering or showing around proofs of concept to try to generate interest, for CXL memory devices(which all essentially look like a NUMA node that is nothing but memory controller); mostly aimed at hyperscaler use cases where you want the improved performance and platform features of current gen servers; but your last gen servers were beefy enough that just disposing of them would be getting rid of a relatively titanic amount of DDR4 that is still faster than most NVMe. Some of those attempt to offer software-transparent compression, some just put CXL on one side and memory controller on the other and allow you to do (mostly) agnostic mixing of memory generations on anything new enough to have some PCIe lanes support CXL extensions.

I suspect that it's mostly my ignorance that is to blame; but what I don't understand about implementing memory compression(especially the schemes that try to do it transparently with high speed general purpose compression/decompression in hardware) is how you compensate for the fact that the amount of memory you need is no longer predictable without significantly more effort(potentially untenably more if you are using RAM because latency is critical).

With normal uncompressed RAM it just demands RAM in direct proportion to its size. Potentially hideously wasteful if there's some memory-backed XML-spew log that would zip down to 10% of its nominal size; but predictable unless you've got memory safety bugs. If you are compressing your RAM suddenly you've got some uses of RAM that are functionally uncompressable and require 100% of the space their nominal size suggests they will; other things might compress exceptionally well and save you 90%; and some might change unpredictably from moment to moment depending on what needs to be stored there.

When you are doing FS compression and dedupe for backups and stuff that is normally manageable; on average enough compression is possible enough of the time that you can safely assume that you'll do better than you would if you just didn't try; and you can just keep an eye on how quickly the big SAN appears to be filling up as versions accumulate and (if tapes or other fixed-sized media are involved) just change the backup media more or less quickly; do you do that for RAM? Just use the big slack area for FS caching or something you can drop on short notice in case a burst of incompressible data comes in? Do you essentially have to rebuild how your entire workload handles RAM so that it considers, at least approximately, how well a given use of memory will compress ahead of time?

Given the sorts of files and data structures you commonly encounter I can easily enough believe that compression is worth the trouble a lot of the time; but unless you are leaving a lot of slack in your available RAM it seems like a situation where, under certain circumstances, you could go from being fine because most of what is in-memory compresses well to suddenly needing as much physical RAM as you do logical RAM because you have a bunch of already-compressed or incompressible data would markedly increase the complexity or potential for things to go wrong.

Except that many large enterprises have seen this movie before with Broadcom buying things like CA. They already know the product development vanishes and support gets thin while prices quickly escalate. Then shelfware is bundled into an "all or nothing" deal so they'll keep bleeding you until you get every scrap of their shit out of your stack with them hoping you take the bait.

We've almost got every last scrap of their products peeled out of our business. Never again.

That's really the only use I have for my one echo device. I consume their prime music content and pipe it out to a small amplifier for stereo speakers and a small subwoofer in my garage so I have music to listen to when I'm being a gear head. I guess if I HAD to, I could use a raspberry pi or something like that to do the same, but this just works and I'm lazy.

When you move up the school hours you do the same thing to work hours. Problem solved.

Comparing the Starship prototype to a battle tested workhorse that's been in production a lot longer isn't particularly useful. When Starship proves that it is a safe platform for humans, great. Until then, why not use it to launch cargo/satellites if the economics are sound?