Sparkyte

Exactly it is all expressive.

Animals will probably evolve to speak well before AI figures out what animals are saying.

It think it is every sci-fiction dreamer to teach a robot to love.

I don't think AI will think conventionally. It isn't thinking to begin with. It is weighing options. Those options permutate and that is why every response is different.

After playing with and using AI for almost two years now it is not getting better from both a cost perspective and performance.

So the higher the cost the better the performance. While models and hardware can be improved the curve is still steep.

The big answer is what are people using it for? We'll they are using lightweight simplistic models to do targeted tasks. To do many smaller and easier to process tasks.

Most of the news on AI is just there to promote a product to earn more cash.

Network hop isn't needed if you're deploying your microservices correctly. So you can make pod groups inside of kubernetes and application that depends on another can call that lightweight container contained in that pod group. Pods inherently know the other is there in their group it has some or like network call without traversing hardware.

I know microservices and monoliths are a heated topic. However breaking up complicated code to preserve user experience is sometimes essential. However you can have machines that contain many services and that interact with each for performance if needed. You would put them into pod groups while deploying to kubernetes and have them call their service inside of the pod. This can increase performance and through put.

Sounds like a process problem. 2024 development cycles should be able to handle multiple lanes of development and deployments. Also why things moved to microservices so you can deploy with minimal impact as long as you don't tightly couple your dependencies.

Kinda expensive though.

Fund utility is good in addition as well. Plenty of well funded schools fail. Sometimes it is what those funds are being used for that actually drive down education.

This is where the Goverment should practice what it teaches. I understand that this data is interesting but it is utterly useless. Useless because race isn't as important as the geographical location and economic situation. Race is what you can use once you've narrowed down the demographics to the specific location and socio-economical impact, but it provides little substance without more contextual data.

If a poor neighborhood in a major city is failing math it is the a combination of the neighborhood being poor as opposed to race.

Race is never a good demographic period.

You don't need TSA precheck at PDX because the airport is sooooooooooooo fast.

It is a little different, so you get to see the machine work. It actually does a 3D rendering of all the contents in the bag and the person running the scan can pull out the items without even opening the bag. It is wildly crazy futuristic tech.

I saw them look at my tiny notebook and go what is that then swiped it to the side and spun it around in a 3D space.

2 billion dollars to upgrade the airport wasn't just for the looks.

It's a lot like Frieza or a battle with Gandondorf. We got more phases before it shows it's real form.

I believe the other improvement people don't pay attention to is the new TSA scanners you don't have to take your laptop out.

It isn't, but it should be illegal to repair or modify something you do not own without the consent of the owner. You wouldn't rent an apartment only to put 10k renovations into it? I mean lets be real that is practically illegal.

Nope it doesn't that is 12 channels 2 modules per channel each module at 2GB is the largest the chip gets and the cost of those drastically increase the cost.

The problem you experience with GDDR6 and channels is width. You get higher in size but you'll never be able to fill the memory fast enough to be cost effective. Also why HBM exists. Lets say the top is 960GB/s for an A6000 for GPU memory. HBM3 is 3.35 TB/s.

If Intel wanted to make better GPUs it needs to switch to HBM.

In terms of efficiency having mixed cores would be excellent. You can rely on ARM for lightweight system operations and where advanced instructions come to play like AVX-512 use x86-64. The problem as it was told to me was that you run into the different relationships they have with memory and hardware. I would love the boundary to be torn away. To idle at 5 watts while streaming and use 20watts while gaming ( a serious non-mobile game ).

Because you can't stack that much ram on a GPU without sufficient channels to do so. You could probably do 64GB on GDDR6 but you can't do 128GB on GDDR6 without more memory channels. 2GB per chip per channel is the current limit for GDDR6 this is why HBM was invented.

It is why you can only see GPUs with 24GB of memory at the moment.

HBM2 can handle 64GB ( 4 x 8GB Stack ) ( Total capacity 128GB )

HBM3 can handle 192GB ( 4 x 24GB Stack ) ( Total capacity 384GB )

You can not do this with GDDR6.

Intel over there with two spears in the knees looking puzzled and in pain.

Yep and most of these large industry leaders are dying not because of the engineers but the quality of the management orchestrating the success and failures of the engineers rather than letting them work their magic.

True, but if they matured this wouldn't be an issue. I think Intel should be acquired by the government fixed up and remanaged. Then sold off again or given the opportunity to buy itself back. If a government gives out money year after year for grants and fails to meet the mark or even go bankrupt it needs to become federally managed like a bank. Especially in this sector.

I would love IBM Power to return.

My belief on this is that if a business received grants before the Government itself should take acquisition of the company almost like PBS thing and get it back to a functional state. The Government can later sell it off. I think grants don't solve problems they enable them unless threatened with a Government take over.

I would prefer some other competitor enters the market. Oh wait Intel killed them before they could be rivals like AMD.

- VIA

- IBM

- Cyrix

I mean IBM is around but I doubt they'll touch x86 ever again.

do not disagree with* late night typing and auto correct...

That I do now disagree with. It is a portal to something and data.

Right, but the problem with most arguments supporting the break up of Chrome from Google are really not looking at the bigger picture. YouTube is more of a monopolistic threat than Chrome will ever be. If it was sold off it would mean most browsers could monetize and we'd be back to the AOL age. I don't dislike that era but it is 10 steps back. While Google isn't great applying simple policies would be easier to address monopolistic practices than just telling Google to sell it off.

You can walk into the store and see the store across the street. Chrome is akin to a loss leader like hotdogs CostCo.

The problem isn't the Browser it is the other services it has that makes it a monopoly.

Don't let, "Oh we sell off our loss leader so we are not a monopoly." fool you. It has YouTube, office solutions and even every other software under the sun.

Without Chrome being managed or maintain it becomes vulnerable exposing customers to viruses or attacks. It is a service because it stores passwords and manages bookmarks in a secure location for Google products. It is ingrained.

To me this sound like Edge wants to be king, but oh wait Edge is also part of a monopoly. So should not Microsoft experience this too?

Monopolistic practices are not necessarily monopolies, but rather require regulation to encourage fairness.

This is too complicated Chrome couldn't survive on its own without Google. Chrome is fundamentally a way for users to interface with their products. However it would be better to give regulation to Goolge about information handling.

Chrome is like a service not a product it is effectively Google installing a window so you can see it's fresh baked goods. It isn't something they should break up because it isn't something that inherently makes money and nor should it.