Posts by doublelayer

Raspberry Pi not affected by Trump tariffs yet while China-tied rivals feel the heat

Except that "original" varies depending on your perspective. Really, it just means "manufacturer that isn't me". The manufacturer that builds something around the Pi was the original manufacturer of the bit with the interface and probably the power management. From the Pi's perspective, the other company is the OEM because they make the boards the Pi has to connect to. From that company's perspective, Raspberry Pi is the OEM because that's what they must interact with.

From my perspective, the place I'm most likely to call the OEM is the place that manufactured the thing last. I would categorize manufacturers before them in the chain as component manufacturers. So I think the version in the article is correct from the reader's perspective as well as RPi's, but your comment is correct from the other side.

Nvidia’s AI suite may get a whole lot pricier, thanks to Jensen’s GPU math mistake

Re: Nvidia rules the market

A monopoly can be created or maintained by unethical means, E.G. by paying to damage the competition. A monopoly can be created or maintained by external control, E.G. one company given the license to use wireless spectrum and nobody else gets it. But a monopoly can exist without either of those. A company could just produce the product that people want to buy so frequently that their competitors can't get the business. That's not illegal, it's not impossible, and it can still lead to monopoly. Having become one, the company concerned may act in any way it likes, whether that is embracing their dominant position to radically increase prices or still trying to improve and acting ethically. All that's required to be one is having almost all of a market, however that came to pass.

Nvidia is not a monopoly in GPUs of all kinds. People still select AMD for many use cases. However, they may have one for some cases if the software concerned requires CUDA. Markets can get very specific and where you divide them depends a lot on your perspective. Consider a parallel: Windows isn't a monopoly and has never been in the sense that there has always been some other operating system you could install on your computer, but it is a monopoly in areas where no other operating system will run the software the buyer needs. It can act like a monopoly in that market while not acting like one for all OSes if it can create a separate strategy for the two submarkets. If a lot of AI people or people doing work would not consider an AMD chip, then Nvidia has the opportunity to act as a monopoly on them until they change their minds. I am not among that set, but from discussions with some who are, AMD is not usually considered because the software they intend to run may not work if CUDA isn't available.

LLM providers on the cusp of an 'extinction' phase as capex realities bite

Maybe you have indeed found something the LLM can manage well enough and a way of using it that extracts that quality. It is an unpopular opinion with me because I've heard several people say it and most of them have generated bad results and their version of "as good" means there's text in the file that looks like what they were supposed to do. I do not know how to generate consistently good results with LLMs, and neither do most of the people I've seen use them, but some of them are convinced that it probably is, or that if it isn't they're going to pretend it is to get their work "done" faster. Without knowing you, I do not know whether you've allowed quality to slip and would justify this or whether the doc is as well-written, and importantly accurate, as you would have done by hand.

Re: Canary in a coal mine or the ramblings of a dead parrot ?

Read more comments from the same source and you'll see a lot more of them. It's something in the weights for whatever generates the associated word salad along with "methinks" and the username on whatever it replies to.

Re: Conclusion probably right, comparison probably wrong

The question in the report was whether it could sustain more than three players, which is what I was responding to. My conclusion was that it could, but possibly not long from now, demand might decline so much that even those shut down. However, I doubt that will happen either. There are enough people who use the models that have already been generated that I expect some people will still continue this long after the bubble has popped. The big companies may no longer get massive server clusters to build another model, but for a lot less money, you can still build more and more wrappers around the models you have. They cost less to run than they do to build, and if you make them small enough, you can make the users run them and still charge them for doing so.

I've seen plenty of negative uses of LLMs. It can be tempting to think that maybe one day the investors will pull the plug and they'll all stop, but this is not very likely. As long as people are still willing to pay for that, someone will still charge them for running it. I don't expect people who are already running LLMs in their workloads to stop until those LLMs cause single, very big problems that are publicly linked to the use of that model, rather than the numerous but small problems we get today. I'd like the shortcut out of that, but I don't see it and I'm pretty sure loss of investor confidence won't be enough.

Conclusion probably right, comparison probably wrong

The comparison they've made is that the cloud market could only sustain three players, and the LLM market is similarly costly. That comparison is faulty for the simple reason that there are a lot more than three cloud companies. They're the big three, not the only three of importance. There are other large, international ones. Those three might not worry too much about the likes of Oracle, IBM, and Alibaba as competitors, and they're probably right, but those three are quite large in themselves. There are a lot more medium-sized cloud providers out there, many of them also profitable. They probably won't rise up and overtake the big three any time soon, but they don't have to, meaning that if those companies stumble, competitors will be there to change the market.

So if their comparison is so flawed, does that mean that LLM companies will follow the same trend? I don't think so. A cloud provider can be a place with a couple of datacenters and some automation, probably mostly open source. They can scale slowly if need be, and they can relatively easily merge their business with another provider to grow their user base. None of those apply to LLMs: you can't build a tiny one and expect any users, you can't make small improvements to a model and expect it will get much better, and two small models added together won't make anything. In the end, their conclusion that a lot of companies might run out of funds seems reasonable.

Except that might not give them the same result. The prediction that models are just too expensive to build was made less clear when DeepSeek announced their cheaper approach. It's not clear how honest they were about how cheap that really was. It does mean smaller companies have a way of building a model of their own without raising OpenAI levels of investment to do so. So, after all, I don't think the bubble will pop for the reason this report suggests. I think it will pop when investors eventually come to the realization that lots of companies can really make new models, but no matter how many new models they make, they never make one that doesn't make mistakes and they can't find enough people to pay for the ones they already have.

Intel's latest CEO Lip Bu Tan: 'You deserve better'

Not exactly. If you want to run an LLM of that size, that's probably going to be your best bet. However, that is normal RAM that the GPU can access. It's LPDDR5X, not the GDDR7 that you get with the latest NVIDIA cards. That's going to run better than a normal CPU because the GPU is able to access it, but it is still not the same.

Also, it isn't only Apple that can manage that. AMD has the same thing available.

If running a 500b parameter model is what you want to do with your machine, the CPU you need is different from the CPUs anyone else needs, or maybe it's irrelevant. The most limiting factor trying to do that on typical consumer kit is that you need lots of RAM. Even if you quantize it to FP4, that's 125 GB of RAM, not exactly the typical amount included in the average desktop. But Intel isn't making that, so ignoring that elephant for the moment. GPUs are faster than CPUs at running these models, but I assume you're not considering that for the RAM shortage since, while I can get 128 GB of RAM into a desktop if I pay enough, getting 128 GB of VRAM is not very likely. NPUs may eventually bridge this gap, and AMD's tend to be faster than Intel's right now.

That means that the CPU you want is exactly what you said you didn't, low performance per core and lots of them. Running an LLM benefits a lot from parallelism, meaning that the more raw compute the CPU can put out in total, the faster you'll get your results. There are a lot of tasks that don't get that, either by intractable problems with the algorithms involved or because they weren't written that way. That's why a lot of things benefit from having a smaller number of cores that can obtain much nicer single-thread benchmarks. LLMs are not among these uses. As increases in single-thread performance slow down, both Intel and AMD have been finding ways to increase their core counts, and in many cases, you get higher benchmarks on both from Intel processors with faster performance cores and more numerous efficiency cores at the cost of much higher power and heat levels, whereas AMD often gets higher numbers for performance per watt but has been doing some power inflation of their own recently. In both cases, running such a large LLM is not something a lot of buyers are looking for, so most consumer chips are designed for what they are doing with their hardware.

RISC OS Open plots great escape from 32-bit purgatory

I'm not sure it would have real PR benefit. Most of the people who are gong to license their designs aren't going to care. As nice as it would be to see them fund another OS, I think it would be very hard to sell it to their finance department. I'm interested to see it happen, but I think it would take a lot of effort to make it functional and stable. That difficulty would probably also make it hard to sell as a PR exercise, because if it doesn't happen, ARM has to choose between adding more money and hoping that does it or having the less PR-friendly article about how ARM spent a lot on something that doesn't boot or falls over often.

Congress takes another swing at Uncle Sam's software licensing mess

Of course the managers can track what software they bought licenses for. The problem is that there are thousands of managers who bought some thing, and they sometimes didn't have to because the manager above them already bought it but they didn't know that. Alternatively, they did need it, the managers above them didn't buy it, but it would have been more efficient had they bought it in bulk with several other managers they don't speak with, but trying to set that up would have taken a lot of time and paperwork whereas applying for budget approval for just the few licenses they needed was easy. Or they bought it, but they could have done just fine with something cheaper or free. Or they couldn't have managed with something open source because they have no developers, but if you add up all the people who are in that situation, it suddenly becomes profitable to have some developers employed centrally to fix or improve that software if only everyone could use it and send their suggestions.

It's not surprising that most of these things go unnoticed in general operation given how big the institution is. Unless you proactively search for inefficiencies like that, they'll just build up tiny ones at a time, and it happens all the time, at least from my experience, in sufficiently large private companies. In fact, I've seen similar things at surprisingly small companies as well, for example the company where one person was buying new laptops for their reports while another person was having me erase some laptops and put them in a closet because they had extras, in a company that had about fifteen employees. Fortunately, the person who was buying them asked me to recommend specifications, and I was able to take some out of the closet and suggest them.

Re: DOGE is the one FINDING this!

LibreOffice would save even more if all you need Microsoft or Google for is a word processor or a spreadsheet. If you need other things that are included in those subscriptions, you'll need more open source software. Your confident assertion of simplicity shows the problem with it. A lot of improvement can be made by shifting to open source software, and it's likely that it exists for almost all the things the various departments and agencies need, but if you try to do it on a simplistic, single approach without considering what specifically the needs are, everyone is going to hate it and Microsoft will be back as soon as they can get rid of you.

I've seen attempted migrations to open source software be torpedoed, not by the software, which was perfectly able to do everything the users needed, but by adherents of open source who refused to see problems with it, even when those problems could have been worked around. If you need to replace Office365, you need to ask the people which parts they're using and which parts they don't, and only then can you even give them the list of things they need to do the same thing.

Malware in Lisp? Now you're just being cruel

Re: More a failure of anti virus software, I feel ?

There were some malware that cleaned themselves up after doing something, but it wasn't that common because it wasn't very useful. After all, most of the reasons to install malware somewhere benefited from staying there for a while, whether it's ransomware, a botnet member, looking for bank passwords, or messing with users. Even those that just scanned once for something interesting would probably stay around to increase the chance of spreading. The most likely versions to self-delete would be things targeted at a specific victim that didn't need to spread, but even those were unlikely to do so because, if you were targeting someone specifically, you probably wanted to do plenty of things to them.

China cracks down on personal information collection. No, seriously

Re: Just for a change

Oh, those are illegal in the US too. Just as they're illegal in the EU. Now they're illegal in China, except they were already illegal in China years ago. Like the other countries mentioned, the problem was that enforcement was very spotty. A few abusers got investigated and a few of them paid tiny fines, and everyone else continued to act with impunity. China's said several times that they were going to get real serious about this, trust us. They've been saying that about a bunch of other things. They've yet to get very serious about any of them.

Microsoft walking away from datacenter leases (probably) isn't a sign the AI bubble is bursting

Re: "gigawatts" capacity ?

Not necessarily. You may want to be able to change the output frequently. For example, I might specify a team of five programmers who I intend to migrate between projects. Their productivity may be different from project to project, but that will depend on the specific people and tasks involved. If instead I try to assess the price for completion of the project, I just have to guess what function of X programmers and Y days will arrive at that result and how difficult, expensive, and every other input it will be for each point along that curve. I can know what the intended output is without being able to exactly compute what inputs are needed to obtain it, which is the unfortunate reality for managers everywhere.

With DC capacity, it makes a lot of sense. If you know the power and heat capacity of your build, but it turns out that nobody wants to train LLMs by the time you've built it, then you know how much normal compute you can pack in there. You may now lose money on the build because you had planned on people renting more GPUs, and maybe you even bought the GPUs and now can't successfully rent all of them, but you have the number you need to figure out what else you can put in there and still make money from it. You also know how much you can scale most of the time. If NVIDIA produces a new GPU that's twice as efficient, you can probably about double the amount of compute coming from that DC. There can eventually be other limiting factors, and you'd have to calculate overhead from other boxes, and maybe you don't want to do that anyway, but it is so often the limiting factor that it is often the number you need to calculate everything else.

Re: "gigawatts" capacity ?

"And comparing my 2013 CPU to the leading CPUs today, it IS clear that POWER does the work. My 3220 2-core is 53 Watts, I see faster CPUs sucking 90 130 190 Watts."

There are those, but there were those in 2015 as well. There are CPUs that are much faster while maintaining the same TDP. For example, the Intel Core Ultra 9 285T has an official TDP of 35 W and benchmarks 179% above yours on single-core performance, which isn't far from your 3x requirement. It benchmarks much higher on multicore, but because it has 24 cores instead of your 2, so that may not count. You could argue that this is because it can burst up to 112 W, which is fair, but it won't stay there very long as heat comes up, and the performance wasn't only measured at that peak when it could operate that high.

But if you're particular about that point, let's instead use the AMD Ryzen AI 9 HX PRO 370. Not quite as fast, only benchmarking 147% higher, and it only has 12 cores. However, the default TDP is 28 W and it can only go to 54 W, so no bursting and probably more efficient than your Pentium most of the time. Single core performance may not have stuck to doubling every eighteen months, but it was obvious it wasn't going to, and performance per watt if you can use multiple cores has maintained that rate so far.

EU OS drafts a locked-down Linux blueprint for Eurocrats

Re: Monocultures are vulnerable

"The default behaviour is that data is securely contained to the application and authorised users, exporting to standalone files that can be emailed around or copied to a USB stick needs to be specifically implemented by the system, instead of being something you have to try and block on a case by case basis."

And, as a result, means it now has to be managed on an app-by-app basis, which is much more complex and annoying than on a system basis. IT departments already do things to manage things like forbidding USB access. You don't need each application to do it for you, and if you do it at that level, the result is annoyance if you want to run two applications on the same file because application number one won't let you access the file outside of it.

Re: Why even have a local disk?

So email is persistent, but the rest of my files aren't? I do not understand why this is an improvement. If email wasn't persistent, then you couldn't read any if you had local access. If files were, you could work on them too.

I think this is the problem that Chrome OS, and every Chrome OS-like system will always run into. At a different scale, it's the problem that every cloud-based application runs into. There are some minor advantages possible with everything on a server, and there are some much larger ones possible if everything is local, but some local things and some remote things often gives you the downsides of both and the benefits of neither. Many of the advantages of remote data only work in specific scenarios that not every user is in, so these systems tend to evolve to having local options anyway, moving you into the both downsides area.

Re: Why even have a local disk?

What are you going to put on the local disk that helps if you're at home or on the road? On my work computer, I can do some work without a network connection because my code and my text editor and my plans are on there, but it sounds like all of those are supposed to be remote. I can work efficiently from a mobile hotspot because most of the big data is already on my disk and I just have to pull modifications, but again, it sounds like that would be remote too.

Unless you just want the OS to be immutable and the user would otherwise be able to install applications and store data freely, I'm not understanding what the disk does for you. If you are planning to have that, then your immutable system isn't much different than existing ones. I can replace my kernel, and if malware did it, it would be a problem, but malware capable of doing it is capable of doing anything else it wants already and the malware that I'm most likely to get will not bother to replace it.

If my original idea was correct, then having a disk won't help at all. You'd still need one because your terminal OS has a browser in it and those need updating frequently. It would be prohibitive to replace ROMs for that or to pull updates from a server every time it turns on, so some persistent storage would be required. But having one that the user can't use at all wouldn't change the situation. I'm still not convinced it's a good idea except in some narrow use cases. If you need a computer which is blank when investigated, then it could be useful, but there are other ways of having a clean computer that may be more reliable.

Re: Perfect for running the Laundy

My problem with the idea is that all-remote data often makes the data fragile. For example, let's say I need a bunch of credentials to access things because my employer hasn't got a full SSO setup. They want me to use random passwords and a password manager. Where are my passwords? Options:

1. On my computer: then it's not stateless, because at least some information is stored there.

2. On their servers, and I have to authenticate to get to it, which makes it easier to attack because the attacker does not need access to my computer.

There's a reason why many businesses prefer number 1. Having a dumbish terminal also leaves you with a dependency on the network. You might be in the admittedly large camp that always has network access or can't do much work without it anyway, though not everyone is, but one major problem even in that situation is that some things are sensitive to latency. There are tasks that aren't well handled by such a device.

Top Trump officials text secret Yemen airstrike plans to journo in Signal SNAFU

Re: Oops

The US should not claim any credit about ending slavery, as they allowed it to continue for a very long time. This, however, was the opposite, someone trying to claim credit for Europe ending slavery when it really didn't. All the powerful European countries had slavery at the time, it took decades after US independence for them to abolish it on paper, it took a few more for them to stop trading people with countries that hadn't, and in most cases, it took until the 1900s to end the "it's not slavery, honest, we just make them work and don't pay them and it's only in the colonies" approach, not that the US can claim they avoided that either but the quantity was less because they didn't have as many colonies. If a US person claims they were the vanguard of ending slavery, they are making an incorrect and offensive statement. So is someone saying the same thing about the UK.

Raspberry Pi Power-over-Ethernet Injector zaps life into networks lacking spark

Admittedly, most USB-PD adapters will only supply 3A at 5V. To get higher power, they increase the voltage. The Pi can't take that, so 15 W is all you get. 5V at 5A is just not a normal kind of power to get from a USB-C cable, but it's what the Pi needs. POE would probably have the same problem except they must be designing their POE injector to convert the voltage, so it might work better.

Microsoft tastes the unexpected consequences of tariffs on time

Re: Just out of interest..

It depends where we're drawing the line, but very occasionally. Generally, I think it's where the thing being demonstrated is in something very complex but is a small task, bypassing most of the complex stuff. For example, to show you how to get to and replace one component in something with a lot of them. You could do the same with a very long sequence of steps and diagrams showing each part of the process, but that could be harder to follow than watching someone perform the action. Someone intending to learn everything about the process would be better served by a manual, but someone trying to accomplish the one task might find the video more useful.

In most cases, the video is much less useful, even when it actually shows someone doing a task. When it's a video of someone reading instructions, it's often entirely useless even when the instructions are not.

Re: Computers have screen recorders you know?

Bug: When a serial device is connected over USB and sends a certain string, data can be injected into protected memory. This probably allows command injection, but so far, all I've achieved is causing a kernel-level crash.

Video through screen recorder: The video shows the desktop, then cuts out because the kernel crashed. How useful is that?

Video through external camera: It shows me plug in a USB cable, then the BSOD appears. How useful is that? For example, if I'm wrong and it's not what the device sent but a driver is wrong, how would the video help you identify this?

String to be submitted through serial port: You can test it for yourself and see whether it works and what conditions apply.

This was just one case. Many cases of security vulnerabilities either have no significant results that a video demonstrates or the video would just show the user doing obvious things already shown in their report. There is a reason why most bug reports have reproduction steps in them. A video could be useful in cases where reproduction steps are complicated, where the case requires things the person checking doesn't have, or when the results are hard to explain. If these conditions apply, the reporter may provide a video for extra data or the reviewer may have a good reason to request one in a follow-up. If those don't apply, making the video wastes the time of the reporter and the reviewer.

Re: It is unclear.. what problem the video was intended to fix

Having dealt with bug bounty reporting systems, the flood of low-quality submissions in several ways is a major problem, but a video would almost never help.

There are always a lot of terrible submissions when the possibility of money is on the line. I would get things along the lines of "your web server is running Nginx, Nginx has this CVE", which often was a different version or we had already patched it, but even when it wasn't, you don't get credit for discovering something someone else discovered. Maybe if it was something we had failed to update in a while, but if the CVE came out yesterday and we haven't patched yet, that doesn't count. Or we'd get something like "If you enter a bunch of junk in a query parameter, the page looks weird" which would count as insufficient input validation in the client-side script on that page, but that isn't a security issue and a lot of people would argue that it's not a bug worth solving. Crucially, those people are the people I'd have to go to with it and I have actual security problems to shout about.

In none of these cases would making them submit a video help. Someone in the hopes of a payout who doesn't understand what counts will have no problem showing the output of curl -I to say "look, Nginx, just like I said". They will find it easy to record their screen to show how typing gibberish into their browser causes the UI to go wrong. Neither video provides any more information than a proper report would. I suggested trying to reduce this by adding a box for possible consequences of exploitation, but AI can easily generate a few generic paragraphs on that topic, so that probably won't work either. At the end, there's little that can be done other than have someone do the boring slog through the submissions to find if there are legitimate ones in there, and if you're unwilling to do it, just take away the payment commitment; that will drop a lot of quantity right away.

OTF, which backs Tor, Let's Encrypt and more, sues to save its funding from Trump cuts

Re: Open Source has a USGov achilles heel

It's as open as it ever is: anyone who wants can access the source and modify it freely. The people who maintain it now will still be doing it. Open source is difficult to fund, and when it gets support indirectly from government action, that adds to the instability of funding, but it doesn't diminish the openness.

Now, in both the cases mentioned in the headline, these systems aren't just open source projects. Both use plenty of open source code, and those codebases are truly open, but both maintain large systems that they run themselves. Let's Encrypt is mostly the certificate authority itself, not the software used to implement it. Tor has a higher proportion of code in it, but the Tor-operated network is the major one, and forking the code but not operating in that network would be less useful. In both those cases, the resulting system's openness or lack thereof* is not the responsibility of those delivering funds to the project.

* Let's Encrypt is arguably less community-based than Tor is, but it is very difficult to compare them because they do completely different things. In addition, while there are several mostly compatible definitions for open source or synonymous terms, there is basically no definition for open with respect to a distributed system.

Google admits it deleted some customer data after 'technical issue'

Re: Drama's /crime programmed

Unless they have any evidence saying you weren't in the same place your phone says you were, and instead of eliminating location evidence as unreliable, they spin it as you deliberately leaving your phone behind to create an alibi. That would work against you. Not tracking the location at all might be the more reliable, because lack of evidence is harder to spin against you.

China bans compulsory facial recognition and its use in private spaces like hotel rooms

Re: Duh, wut?

"The Party wants to prevent its citizens to go after each other as this leads to unrest. But the state has no restriction on any behavior, any behavior at all."

I don't think they've even got that far. The party has total control, yes, but I don't think this law will be enforced against companies. I think it's more policy as scenery. For example, China has a lot of strong worker rights and privacy legislation, and their environmental laws aren't bad on paper. They look quite progressive if you just look at what they allow. If you look at their pollution levels, how most people are working, and how private data is actually held there, they don't look so strong. The reason: they don't enforce most of the legislation they pass. If they're otherwise angry with someone, they can use those laws against them. Otherwise, just because the law says so doesn't mean anyone cares.

I don't know why they bother passing such laws. Originally, this was a propaganda technique, one that many communist countries engaged in. The Soviet Union, for example, put a lot of effort into proclaiming that they were big on equality and human rights, which let them attack the west for its many violations of both, except that they were no better and often worse with their own records. However, while China does use these as propaganda, I'm not sure anyone is paying enough attention to notice. Maybe there is another reason they do it, but I don't know what it is.

Re: In other news, today's Times >

We're not decrying the Chinese government for bringing in this law. I, and at least some others here, are reacting to the fact that they violate the law they passed themselves all the time and will continue to do so. I, unlike some of those posts, also don't think they have any intention of enforcing this, even on private companies that don't work for their government.

Now take a guess whether I'm pleased when countries I support more often do the same thing. Do you think I'd praise the action? In case you're unaware, no, I don't and I want them to stop. I will do what little I can to get them to stop. Most of the time, they do not bother listening to me.

Asahi Linux loses another prominent dev as GPU guru calls it quits

Re: Don't buy closed hardware in the first place

You have several justified criticisms of Framework. You go on to harm your point by faulting them for not doing something that no manufacturer could do, E.G. allowing you to use the same RAM when using a CPU that uses a different type. Now, you are quibbling with definitions of standard when the original issue is that you faulted them for doing things with a battery which they have not done and are deliberately avoiding. You stated the situation incorrectly, i don't know why, but as I think you entirely understand how their batteries work, I'm not sure elucidating further is helping either of us.

Re: Don't buy closed hardware in the first place

"Yes, I could start out on a lower end CPU in a given family and then upgrade to a better one in the future, in the same family...e.g. start out on something i3 class (because for some reason my budget might be tight) then move to an i7 in 6 months to a years time...rather than being stuck on the i3 until I can afford a whole new laptop...that's the difference socketing makes."

And that is exactly what Framework provides. From the context of the previous comments, the discussion was whether you have to replace the RAM if you do that. For your use case, no, you don't, because the same generation uses the same type. If, however, you replace the old I5 using DDR4 with this year's Ryzen which uses DDR5, then you do have to change the RAM but you would have to with sockets.

"They aren't all standard. Whilst the variance isn't massive, it is there...and connectors are even worse. There are laptops that use standard size batteries, but they don't use standardised connectors. Connectors are where laptops tend to differ the most."

And Framework's laptop uses one battery with one connector, hence standard. They've made a few generations of boards, including Intel and AMD boards, and they use the same battery and the same battery connector. How did we get derailed from this? This thread is entirely about what Framework does to be upgradeable or not. Using the same battery connector is one of the advantages I see in it because it means I don't have to search to identify what connector I have and hope I can find a battery using it eight years from now; if Framework's still around, then I can get one from them, and if they're not, the connector design is at least available to others.

Re: Don't buy closed hardware in the first place

Your critiques are falling into either obvious or obviously impossible categories. For example:

"Some of those items aren't a given either...a new board might require different RAM...": Yes, it might, based on what RAM type the CPU uses. Would socketed CPUs do anything different? No, they would not. Thus, that does nothing to argue that the mainboard approach is any less upgradable than the unavailable alternative with which you're comparing it.

"a battery with a different voltage": What part of standard design makes you think that's an option? The board is responsible for converting the voltage from the battery to whatever the CPU needs, which is likely the same voltage the other CPU needed, but just in case it isn't, that's what the other components are for. The battery will stay the same.

Also, the main reason I bought one isn't to upgrade the board inside it. The main reason I chose it is that I am often content to run the same old processor for a while, but some other parts are more likely to fail while I'm doing it. I've had the experience of looking for parts for an old machine and finding that they're not easily located or the replacement process involves dismantling everything. I wouldn't be surprised if, when the one I'm using eventually gets discarded, the mainboard is among the original parts whereas other consumables aren't.

I agree with you that these aren't the most cost-efficient models out there. I could have gotten the same performance for less money. I could have even gotten more of some specs for less money, although most of that "more" consists of things like touchscreens which I don't care about. I've dealt with computers, mostly others' but sometimes mine, that lost things like charging ports or keyboards that were too tightly integrated, and the computer this one replaced was replaced because things like that had happened to it, not because the CPU was too old for me. Since I expect to be replacing some parts and keeping this one for a while, I am gambling that the parts availability will allow this one to last longer than the cheaper alternative. We'll see if I am right. I am not a Framework apologist; they've done some things I'm not a fan of, but my experiences with the competition haven't been very good.

Re: Don't buy closed hardware in the first place

Most of that is correct, but some of it is exaggerated. For example, when upgrading motherboards, the chassis is not all you keep, unless by chassis you mean literally everything except the processor and the board it's attached to. The battery, the screen, the keyboard, the storage, the wireless card, all the other little bits in there stay there. The processor isn't on a socket, but it's not like the board it's on has a lot of other replaceable components that you'd normally find. You do have to buy new USB-C ports and M.2 connector with the new CPU, but those things are not very expensive compared to the parts that stay. That is what other laptops cannot do. One of the main reasons that is an advantage though is, by having standard form factors, it becomes possible for others to make a board. Some company could produce a board that, for example, could take a Raspberry Pi compute module. Expose some USB-C ports and connect to documented and open sockets* and their board can be dropped into laptops with all the rest of the components built in. That is what isn't easy to do with any other laptop because you'd have to reverse-engineer the internal connections and because that model might be designed completely differently next year and all the effort is wasted.

The ports are dongles, true, and they're not anything special. The important part is that they're dongles that are designed into the computer, making them fit as if they were integral. I chose only USB connectors, meaning that I have what looks like a normal computer and I will use dongles when I need other ports, but if I wanted an HDMI connector, I would have one that fit just as nicely. The problem with dongles is that they are separate, meaning that people leave them behind, they stick out and have to be disconnected when traveling, and all the small inconveniences that come along with that. The "dongle" approach also helps in that they're replaceable. I've known people with computers with broken USB and HDMI ports, but if that happened to a Framework, they'd simply be removed and replaced. I would have liked if they could build them differently, for example if I could put more than four of them into my computer because I often find that more ports is usually better. Still, your comparison seems to miss why that's been done.

* If someone did make a Raspberry Pi CM board, the largest challenge would probably be connecting it to the screen, because I don't think it is an HDMI one. You might need extra hardware to connect those up.

Re: An Interesting Article in IEEE Spectrum not entirely irrelevant...

I have read that article, and while the points are basically correct, I find them rather simple. Basically, they point out that it isn't easy to identify or prove who is the absolute best at what they do, if there is such a big distinction in the first place, and that you can't guarantee to keep them. Therefore, you must not assume that you will always be able to find and attract some and must plan for more normal levels of productivity and skill. Most businesses already know this because they don't always find and hire people who are perfect at generating code or whatever else they're generating, as much as they might want to. Most aren't even trying, because all the very knowledgeable programmers I know are uninterested in going to work for the kind of company that builds the necessary but boring applications that are most common; there's no way for them to use their unusual knowledge in a place like that and that's what they enjoy.

Other than that, though, the article seems to run out of ideas. I would think that the most important element is how to improve individual productivity if it matters so much, but that's not mentioned. Team performance is great, but there are a lot of tasks in programming, and I'm sticking with programming not because it's the only job where this applies but because it's what the article talked about and what I know, that are not easily parallelizeable. The article is wrong about this, claiming that:

Everyone uses the same software delivery pipeline. If it takes the slowest engineer at your company five hours to ship a single line of code, it’s going to take the fastest engineer at your company five hours to ship a single line of code. The time spent writing code is typically dwarfed by the time spent on every other part of the software development lifecycle.

No, if the slowest engineer takes that long, then they'll produce less code. Maybe they'll turn out to be great reviewers, testers, organizers, or maybe they're just dead weight. The fastest engineer will produce code faster, and as long as the simplest amount of separation has been put in place, they'll be able to do that without waiting on the slowest engineer because the two bits they're writing should be independent of or compatible with one another. You often can't speed up development of a small module by having three people write it, but you can speed up development of three modules by having one person write each of them as long as you can be pretty sure that the modules can be written without coordination. If they don't recognize that, they may be arguing against looking for 10x engineers for a bad reason, "they aren't useful", rather than the many correct ones, only some of which they mention.

Show top LLMs some code and they'll merrily add in the bugs they saw in training

Re: Obvious result, bad methodology

"It takes real intelligence to decide that the code needs fixing. likely to succeed... or to fail. It takes intelligence to decide which one it did, so what's the point?"

What's the point of telling it to, or what's the point of my criticism? I did not try to answer the former, which I will handle below, but the point of my criticism is that their paper leaves open an option for an AI adherent to claim that they mistated it:

Researcher: We put in some code which has bugs in it, and the AI put in those bugs. AI is unreliable.

Adherent: I told it to fix the bugs, and it fixed them without having to be told what the bugs were. AI is great.

AI isn't great. It's success at patching a bug that's described right next to the bug doesn't prove that it can fix other bugs. It's generation of buggy code in a preexisting example doesn't demonstrate that it will generate buggy code when actually used. In both cases, prompting it to generate new code will prove how good it is: it will produce buggy code on its own, it will not fix them automatically, it will not consistently fix them when told to. That demonstrates a problem that this paper does not. That makes other papers better than this one.

And what's the point in telling an LLM to fix bugs? There isn't a lot of point. It might work, it might not, and chances are that if you're intelligent enough to figure which one it is, you could have fixed the bugs yourself. I suppose it could be a random thing to try if you're having one of those annoying "there's a bug in this but I can't see it" situations, but if you're writing code professionally or with a lot of experience, the chance is good that the bug you're not seeing is not going to be as simple as the obvious typos in this set, and thus the LLM is unlikely to find and fix it. But there is a situation where there is a very good reason to tell an LLM to fix bugs: you're trying to prove that the LLM is better than it is. Thus, I expect that those with a financial incentive to see it used will use plenty of cases of that and I don't encourage giving them the setup for flawed defenses of flawed technology.

Obvious result, bad methodology

We have all seen the code produced by LMMs, and it's not good. It's not surprising that this would happen. However, the paper made some rudimentary mistakes which mean it doesn't do a great job of proving it. All they did here was give it some code from data it was almost certainly already trained on. As we know, these models are quite good at completing the quote, or even quoting without any seeding at all. It is not surprising that, when given several lines of code that don't appear elsewhere and are followed by a bug, they are likely to reproduce that bug. Someone who wanted to prove the opposite could give it several lines of something without a bug and use its reproduction of the verbatim lines that followed to suggest that it wouldn't. Neither would be very useful in understanding what it was likely to do in a new situation.

A lot of papers have already been written demonstrating that, when asked to write code, LMMs do not write it well. They often tested it by giving it specifications and evaluating its output, not priming it with something and seeing whether it fixed it. The former much more closely matches what people who are going to use them are doing. In defense of the LMM, and if you've seen other comments of mine you'll know how little I like to do that, you could probably give it the buggy code from these examples with a prompt like "Fix the bugs in this code" and it is likely to succeed. Not because it understands anything about the code, but it will find the fixed lines in its training data and insert them. If we are to prove how bad it is at generating new code, we cannot use methods that, in the hands of someone trying to claim it is great, could easily show the opposite.

Dept of Defense engineer took home top-secret docs, booked a fishing trip to Mexico – then the FBI showed up

Re: Maybe...

Because connecting an SD card is a very fast notice sent to the monitoring software which is probably configured to block that anyway. They occasionally need to print things, so that's still an allowed, though logged, method of getting files out of the computer. To me, the solution would seem to be either not letting paper go in or out of the place where the data is available or just not using printers and requiring everyone to read it on a screen, but there are probably people who are used to using paper copies and won't accept that being taken away, whereas nobody was able to just copy what they wanted onto USB or SD cards and so it's not hard to deny it to them.

M4 MacBook Air keeps ports modular, locks tight – still a headache to repair

Re: You can lock and unlock software locks at will

Do "digital handcuffs" and "software locks" sound very different to you? Well, of course, since that's the point of your post, but why is that a point of your post? The important factor is the lock, which is how handcuffs work anyway, and there is definitely a lock here, a lock to which neither you nor I have the key, so why is this terminology debate relevant to you or anyone?

HP Inc settles printer toner lockout lawsuit with a promise to make firmware updates optional

Which, from a trustworthy company, would look reasonable because I'm sure the stuff degrades eventually* and, if used, could cause problems. However, every printer company in existence seems to be untrustworthy, so I assume they stop working on any possible excuse that will send you to buy another cartridge.

* I know this is a problem with inkjet printers. I'm not sure how toner ages. I print so infrequently that I don't have a printer, though that means I have to occasionally commandeer the office printer.

Re: HP

Remember that this is the person who invented time travel yesterday. I'd plan to wait a while for this, unless the plans can be sent backward to today using that ansible.

Political poker? Tariff hunger games? Trump creates havoc for PC industry

Re: "President Trump's ongoing trade war ..."

While the people who pay the most are US residents, it does hurt others. Canada didn't put retaliatory tariffs in place just because they don't like the 51st state thing. A lot of Canadian businesses that used to sell to the US are going to suffer somewhat as a result of this. The problem is that Trump thinks three things which are all only partially true and probably better described as mostly false:

1. Punishing Canadian businesses will mean more US businesses will make what the Canadian ones used to make. It isn't that easy.

2. The pain is mostly felt by the Canadians. It's not. They get less demand, which isn't fun, but the US gets less supply and higher prices, which is generally less popular.

3. This tactic is likely to cause more problems for the Canadian businesses than US ones. It's the other way around because of retaliatory tariffs, meaning that China, and soon, EU countries are virtually guaranteed to buy from the Canadian business over the US one if they were otherwise identical pre-tariff.

Still, with actions going back and forth, I think multiparty conflict is an appropriate description.

CISA fires, now rehires and immediately benches security crew on full pay

Re: Rehired. On full pay.

"Clearly not a cost savings/efficiency measure then."

They don't have a choice. The court said it was illegal to fire them that way, and if they want to comply, they have no choice but to continue to employ them at the same pay levels as before. They can choose whether they work or not, but they couldn't hire them back on less pay without violating that court order.

Of course, it is easy to question whether the original firings were intended as a cost-saving measure as claimed, and there are plenty of reasons suggesting that was not at all what they had in mind. Hiring them back was not what those people wanted to do though, so you can't really show the costs as a failure of the plan since it's exactly the opposite of what they had planned.

Re: Why do you assume that CISA are happy with the DOGE developments?

CISA can't be happy or unhappy about any of this. People who work there are probably unhappy with their colleagues being fired. The people deciding what it does mostly include the directing staff of the Department of Homeland Security who were appointed by Trump, so they're probably willing to carry out his orders and annoyed that the courts have blocked this one. Ordinarily, they'd have a director to do this, but the previous one resigned and they haven't put in another yet, hence the increased involvement from its parent department. I wouldn't read pleasure into cooperating with this order any more than you should read it in their cooperation with the previous order; they have no control either way what happens here and simply do what the last person to rule says.

US tech jobs outlook clouded by DOGE cuts, Trump tariffs

Re: Absolute Fairy Story

That is true, and if you could access the raw data from the government, it would be a much better source. However, most of that is protected quite correctly by privacy legislation. If you are hired for a job that was never advertised, the tax authorities will know, but someone looking at ads wouldn't know that it had happened. For example, they often release numbers of people who lost their jobs and are using unemployment programs, which is a reliable number because they know exactly who that is, but it doesn't give you enough information to know what the people were doing beforehand; they know that too but they don't release it. Therefore, estimating the number of tech people who lost their jobs recently is not very accurate when using public information even though there is a dataset that could tell you. I'm not sure having the more accurate data will produce enough benefits to justify the privacy implications, so I'm fine to live with less accurate research.

Do AI robo-authors qualify for copyright? It's still no, says appeals court

Re: Time and gravity

Deleting a post and reposting it doesn't count as time travel. I see you fixed the line breaks. Well, some of them anyway.

Re: Maybe there's an ulterior motive to this?

This is one reason I'm quite glad for this guy. With every time he brings his case based on the stupidest legal arguments, he puts one more brick in the wall against that argument should someone (I wouldn't put it past anyone who makes LLMs) try to do the same. I'm sure they would if they could, and somehow they would get a lawyer to argue simultaneously that they can use any material, no matter its copyright status, and that they own all the versions of that data after their program has chopped it up and reconstituted some of it.

Re: Of course it's Stephen Thaler again.

Nothing says that his idealistic point is one I agree with (I don't) or logical (it's not). However, there is still a difference between the person who tries to pass this because they stand to gain and someone who does it by being completely deluded, and I have seen enough similar motions to conclude that it is the latter in his case. The patent office has already told him that he can have his program spit out as many patents as he wants and he can own them. If this was a ploy to flood the patent system, he has the power to do it. He isn't doing it. Instead, he is trying over and over to let a program have ownership itself, and he alleges that the programs involved are beings capable of owning and disposing of the intellectual property they'd theoretically own.

Perhaps the problem was my use of the word "idealistic", which suggests a positive element. I meant it in the sense of pursuing a personal ideal, even an illogical and stupid one, without having a pragmatic purpose behind the action. From what I've seen of his court cases so far, he doesn't have a pragmatic purpose, he wouldn't stand to gain if he actually won, he isn't adjusting his tactics at all in order to make it more likely that he will win, and his statements tent to be philosophical and largely nonsensical.

Re: Of course it's Stephen Thaler again.

He seems to be doing this for an idealistic point, since the patent office said that he could patent the thing the program created but he wants the program itself to own it. I wonder if he has a suggestion for how a program would own something and act based on that ownership. If he somehow succeeded, what does he think his program would do? If it doesn't already have code in it to sell or license out the patent it creates, then surely editing it to insert that would make a different program that doesn't own them?

I wonder if this is another case of sci-fi overdose. I find that quite a few people, mostly people who work with or at least around tech, seem to have read a lot of classic science fiction, as I have as well, but have forgotten that it was intended to be fiction. These people do things like grab doomsday scenarios from a story written to be interesting rather than extrapolating to theorize a likely way that our current situation could lead to disaster; invest time or effort into duplicating something that wasn't written as a suggestion; or in this case, ascribe to computers the kind of attributes given to robots or aliens in the stories without realizing that most of those stories were using robots or aliens as analogies to humans or, if they weren't, were describing things that were unquestionably conscious and sapient. Whether it's Zuckerberg not understanding why his VR business doesn't have the same pull that immersive environments do in cyberpunk books, virtually everybody at OpenAI and Anthropic worrying about their AI taking control of nuclear arsenals instead of all the things it's actually going to break without thinking that authors from the 1950s and 1960s might have been thinking a lot about nuke safety, or people who think the point of space travel is to get a human to Mars as soon as possible without considering how much nicer it might be to get lots of probes there before any human is around to mess it up though some authors actually did write about that, they seem to think that plots written for different reasons and often many decades ago are futuristic and visionary thinking.

Re: Who would own that copyright?

That is why this ruling is so important. If the output of AI could be copyrighted, then the creators of the programs, among the most prolific copyright violators in existence, would almost certainly try to automatically copyright anything it spit out. Not so much a problem for people whose work it quotes, because they can prove it was in existence before the model was created, but a big problem for anyone they claimed used their model's output afterward. The hypocrisy would somehow not be obvious enough to automatically cause their suits to fail, though I do think they'd lose a lot of them. A blanket no-copyright stance is very helpful though.

Trump fires Democrat FTC commissioners, presaging big tech policy shifts

Re: Reminds me of the old saying...

The theory is that you hire someone who has few skills but you think is smart enough to learn. You pay them and give them training in something. Now, they have skills and you're hoping that they'll do some work for you, but they choose to leave because they now have skills and can more easily find a different job, meaning the money you spent while training them is wasted. And, to be fair to them, that sometimes happens. The problem, as usual, is that there are limited cases where non-competes make sense, but employers decided to use them for lots of other situations, most of them clearly abusive to the employee and anticompetetive to everyone else. A lot of people misusing something can break it for everybody.

Microsoft isn't fixing 8-year-old shortcut exploit abused for spying

Re: It's not a UI issue. It's an AI issue.

The sanity check being what, exactly? A maximum size? Everyone knows that, as soon as you put a maximum on something, someone finds a reason why they need more than that maximum. 8.3 filenames were too short, 640 KB was not enough RAM, a 2 GB file size limit was not adequate for a filesystem, and on it goes.