bArray

> With just 32 MiB of embedded pSRAM memory and 16 MiB of flash, and 128 KiB ROM storage, the specs may sound meagre – although in the current AI climate, generous – but this is an embedded device not a full-blown PC hiding in an aroma diffuser1.

It somewhat reminds me of the PineCube, which had 128MB DDR3. Once the Linux tax was paid it was basically unusable.

> Factory shipped firmware is open-source and provides Wyoming Satellite, compatible with assistence platforms such as Home Assistant.

They are at least supposed to be able to show it working with some factory software [1]. I would have just liked to have seen some edge compute capability.

[1] https://pine64.org/documentation/PineVoice/

I think page 4 is a little disingenuous, I'm pretty sure you could pick lots of windows and show the mag 7 deviating negatively, but then later trends positive. I believe this whole thing will pop, but I'm not quite convinced it is just yet.

Page 8 for Oracle's free cash flow trending negative is really quite impactful. The Bloomberg AI bubble diagram [1] shows how this could really blow up. If Oracle falls they could take the whole market with them. We're just waiting on the mag 7 or any closely linked companies to fail to raise investment.

Page 16 really outlines how insane these evaluations are. I think most countries see it, hence aggressive selloffs of US bonds [2]. But everybody is just too insanely heavily exposed to it all now, it's going to wipe out everything. It's going to be a very awful time when heavily debt strapped countries can't issue debt anymore.

I think what we're going to see is some insane moves to keep these companies afloat longer in some desperate attempt to delay the pop, which will just make a bigger bubble. I could see Nvidia for example issuing bonds in excess of $100bn soon if the market has appetite for it [3].

[1] https://archive.is/0bYLS

[2] https://sg.finance.yahoo.com/news/china-japan-uae-india-sell...

[3] https://uk.finance.yahoo.com/news/nvidia-raises-over-21-5bn-...

I don't think people should be down voting this without at least providing some context.

I know Aus and NZ are quite authoritarian when it comes to this stuff - I have seen it directly for myself. I was at the Christchurch Call public engagement meeting [1] when they were planning some of these things.

[1] https://www.christchurchcall.org/

Our environment contains harms. Vehicles are several tonnes traveling 60+ mph, they make guns look safe. The calculation is a risk-reward one.

The question we have to ask ourselves is whether these "protect the children" laws are worth the internet freedoms they are about to erode. I would argue not.

1. It is not the state's responsibility to raise your children. They should ensure that safety is available, they should have some ability to deal with clear cases of abuse - but otherwise you're on your own. Anybody who thinks they want a nanny state just has to imagine the worst possible government abusing this power.

2. On the basis of providing safety, it would be enough for example for mobile phone OSes to provide parent restrictions (as they currently do). Kids can't afford to buy phones, so it's the parents in almost all cases giving them unfiltered access. If you really really want to ensure that all children have filtered access on phones, just spot check kid's phones and confiscate them if they do not have the locks enabled.

It seems insane to me that so many parents believe they have zero responsibility for their children's access to the internet, despite being the source of that access. I'm sorry, parents need to step up.

Even then, AI smart glasses are now making an appearance in classrooms [1]. The situation is getting really quite ridiculous.

[1] https://www.evenrealities.com/en-GB/blogs/buyers-guide/ai-mo...

Thank you for sharing. 1.5TB of streamed data at 12 seconds per token on a high end consumer laptop is a pretty high requirement - I can only imagine how much that cost to train. I don't know how running this model could be cost effective for anybody.

Anybody else think it is weird that suddenly all Western countries suddenly want to lockdown the internet to "protect the children"? There is surely an international special interest group lobbying for this?

Not sure, but the code is quite dense and lacking in comments. `nanoeuler` & `nanoeuler_check` is itself the binary checked straight into git with the `.log` file? All of the commit messages are "Add files via upload" and happened in quick succession.

I suspect this is LLM generated, which is cool, but shouldn't then have the claim "forward and backward passes are written and verified by hand" unless it is true.

Regarding the data, old texts from Gutenberg probably lowers the performance - especially as many texts are on purpose whimsical. Shakespeare for example made up words to be theatrical. You have a mix of different old English styles in the corpus - it's a terrible way to learn modern English. I had some success using .ZIM data archives from Kiwix as a source, you should get a more stable output using that data.

Apparently GLM 5.2 is 753B parameters [1], what kind of hardware are people using to run this locally?

[1] https://huggingface.co/zai-org/GLM-5.2

Paying into the legal pot makes sense, as does paying into a medical pot. But its not clear to me that mixing politics and unions is a good idea, especially as their typical support base have politically drifted from them.

I understand why there is that relationship, but it appears the people that make the main membership and the leadership in the unions/Labour party have drifted apart. So now you have this weird situation where the unions and the Labour party are funded by people that are largely ideologically opposed.

The only real reason for me in the UK to join a union would be for legal representation, otherwise I can represent my own interests.

At least here in the UK our unions are heavily involved in politics - which is a massive issue. Currently, the leadership of the unions and the people in them are literally opposite sides of the political spectrum.

My view is still relatively classical, significant unsanctioned violence used for political means. I would also be interested to see how other people are now defining this.

This article is quite dishonest.

> Let’s be clear: a few of the protesters were out of bounds.

"out of bounds" is a nice way of putting it. Terrorism is an accurate description.

> But these sentences far outstrip anything that’s been given to anyone on the right wing: the leader of the Proud Boys, as this article notes, was sentenced to 22 years in prison.

I think the difference here is the planned terrorist activity, and condolence of violence. If the Proud Boys were doing to same sort of thing, then fair - but I cannot find in a Google search that they did.

> One protester wasn’t even present, but was sentenced to 30 years for moving some zines

> The ninth defendant, Daniel Sanchez-Estrada was not at the protest, but was convicted of corruptly concealing a document or record after prosecutors said he moved leftwing zines and other materials at the request of Rueda, his wife, after she was arrested.

Clearly it was not just "moving some vines", it was knowingly concealing evidence and attempting to prevent the course of justice.

> Instead, other “evidence” was used to infer that they planned violence, including this specific argument that should give everyone pause

An argument can be made there, all are innocent unless proven guilty. But I suspect they admitted to being fully aware and supportive of the terrorist activities. The prosecution can claim all they like, the important thing is what ends up being considered.

> This is certainly not the case in other product areas and for specifically for something that uses the Google name.

Sure, but it's a slap on the wrists. It seems like an extreme reaction.

> The OP also notes that they had a competing product in the process of development when they "launched" theirs, likely leading to significant internal confusion, and is something that would've been caught during a review.

Again, they could have just asked them to retire theirs in favour of the official one. Rather than be a problem, it could have been an opportunity.

> In the name of “online safety”, the fundamental rights of both freedom of expression and privacy appear to be under imminent threat.

The current UK government don't actually care about children, if they did then they would actually investigate the child SA gangs, or holding people to account on the Epstein lists. We have seen other countries such as Australia [1] "magically" have the same idea at the same time, so this is likely a global group influencing this push.

> The current proposal to ban people under 16 - who also have the rights to freedom of expression and privacy - from some (as yet not fully delineated) social media services is likely to result in wide-spread verification.

This is the real objective, it will be just like the UK porn verification [2]. To express yourself online, you will soon need to associate your activity with your real identity. With the discussion of clamping down on VPNs, it won't be long before you need to verify your ID just to connect to the internet.

This has been a long time coming. Years ago you could buy a sim card with money already on it, use it, and then throw it away. Now you need to associate some credit card or ID with the sim card and perform some verification process.

> And so, for the first time, I am considering locating something (perhaps a WireGuard node, or a SOCKS proxy, or a recursive DNS server / DNS proxy, or perhaps all of them) somewhere on the Internet outside the UK, so that I can route some traffic through that, as needed, to maintain my access to the web.

It won't be enough. At some point the UK government will just mandate that they should be allowed to perform deep packet inspection, and then there will be nowhere left to hide. These changes are also being rolled out everywhere - which Country do you trust to run your data through?

I remember the New Zealand Christchurch attack on a mosque, and how multiple governments around the world pressured Facebook to remove it entirely [3]. They were more worried about people seeing and sharing the attack, than the attack itself. The manifesto was entirely banned [4], and people were left entirely dependent on the state to convey a narrative about the attack.

I have a feeling that this all fell out of the "Christchurch Call" [5]. I don't think this recent push spearheaded by them, but I believe it had a large influence on the efforts now ongoing.

[1] https://www.bbc.com/news/articles/cwyp9d3ddqyo

[2] https://www.ofcom.org.uk/online-safety/protecting-children/a...

[3] https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/business-47620519

[4] https://www.theguardian.com/world/2019/mar/24/censor-bans-ma...

[5] https://www.christchurchcall.org/

I'm in the middle of building my own based on LiquidAI/LFM2.5-1.2B-Instruct [1]. I run it on the CPU locally and get reasonable performance. I'm currently using it to solve small problems - but expanding it daily.

[1] https://huggingface.co/LiquidAI/LFM2.5-1.2B-Instruct

I agree. Yes, these are not foolproof, but damn does it make it harder. It means that a random lone wolf using some random AI is not going to find it easy.

I would add a few more measures:

* Keys are regenerated for each device in the charging dock and are only valid until next recharge or a timeout.

* There is a sign-out process for the cameras that ties them to the operator.

* Police officers have no control over when the camera is recording, the camera instead controls this.

* Lower resolution data is streamed and synced to a cloud in real time, along with interesting data such as GPS, local BT/WiFi devices, etc.

As for privacy, British police are using more and more evasive camera technology out in public spaces, it's about time they were forced to wear it themselves. I want even the pencil pushers in the offices to be forced to wear it.

Yes it has been in practice for a long time, but it's now being used to push clear fail cases into passing grades just to meet quotas. Prior it was used to adjust for particularly difficult assessments, and was closely monitored.

> Less competition for me, and "educators" are being punished HARD for their abrogation of their actual responsibilities, which was to teach and give exams.

Universities consist of a wide range of people with different incentives, the lecturers typically (in my experience) have very pure motives. It's the management parts that put pressure to pass students, meet metrics, etc.

> The moment you pull up a powerpoint and start reading off of it, or start assigning homework, you've already failed to implement the traditional liberal arts education that the humanities seems to fawn over so much.

Homework is essentially dead post-LLMs. The lecturer's responsibility is to provide guided learning, but also most importantly to assess each student's attempt to learn.

> There's ACTUALLY no solution to blooms two sigma problem (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bloom%27s_2_sigma_problem) except for teachers to fundamentally change their responsibilities. More time needs to be spent being intention to every individual student. If that means we need fewer students in universities, so be it. AI will kill the impenitence for higher education anyway.

You'd be surprised how much 1:1 with students there are. One example I'm aware of is CS students getting 4 hours 1:1 for one module per semester - that's a hell of a lot.

What you're ultimately up against is cost per student. The overheads in Universities are enormous. It's usually 40:60:+, so £40k pay, £60k overhead plus research and investment (conference paper, travel, journals, new tools, etc).

This article tackles the issue from a job opportunity perspective, but a bigger problem is the quality of students completing CS degrees is declining. UC Berkley are seeing it in their STEM departments [1] and I have seen the raw data for other Universities delivering CS degrees that is unpublished.

Currently the only method to stop students from cheating is to run strictly controlled paper-based exams, and with smart glasses with built in LLMs, this is becoming more and more problematic. Anything not run under strict conditions is entirely untrustworthy.

Management is slow to catch-up or react and the lecturers running these degree courses are under significant pressure to increase the results. I'm aware that many are doing class-wide weighted adjustments just to keep the numbers of passing students up. The quality of students graduating with CS degrees is declining rapidly.

[1] https://www.dailycal.org/news/campus/academics/failing-grade...

I think Google will win out in the end. They are concentrating on what matters, performance per watt, and performance per dollar. They are building their own inference hardware and are working towards edge-computing which removes latency and compute overheads. These big LLMs are not yet cost effective, Google is just letting them burn their investment funds to "sell" to consumers at below cost.

After the AI bubble bursts, it will be the likes of Google that come out the other side still wearing their shirts. I think this bubble is out to scalp some giants.

Somewhat ionical.

I'm not making this political. I'm simply stating that they took an action, and they knew what the result of taking that action would be. They then can't get upset that the clear consequence of their protest was an entirely predictable outcome.

That wasn't the argument I made in 2024.

If these people at ADA were now facing a legal battle where somebody was claiming $1bn in damages, and their assets were being sold off to a bidder controlled by Trump, then I would also be claiming foul play. But these people were simply ejected for seemingly not following the rules, which seems like a reasonable action.

I'm surprised nothing more serious happened. There was obviously a serious electrocution risk, but I think that is the easiest bit to deal with. 100kW of radio waves, whilst non-ironising, can still microwave you. With 100kW there could have also been a serious reflection back to the transmitter. This guy cutting the cable is far luckier than he will ever know.

Putting aside there's a good chance that it was written by an LLM...

Whilst I don't personally see myself in this story, I think I see others around me in it. Over the weekend there was some calculations that needed to be done, and the people around me were impressed with how quickly they were done in Libre Calc. They had trusted an LLM to do the calculations for them, which turned out to be wrong - because of some details that an LLM couldn't have possibly have understood.

I see people "generating ideas" which are clearly flawed in ways that I have to explain multiple times. Approximately 40 people were tasked to generate ideas, and somehow they all magically came to the same ~10 ideas, which they claim were originally theirs.

The other day I was in a meeting to discuss one such idea, and the person was explaining it by reading the LLM output from their phone. When I pressed them for more details, they then had to ask the LLM to elaborate. They were completely unable or unwilling to engage in any kind of thought process.

I'm no longer sure if I'm somehow getting smarter, or people around me are getting dumber. The AI bubble crash couldn't come faster.

Why is that so insane? Would you be saying the same when the NHS was originally proposed?

It's entirely possible, the fact that the UK government lacks imagination is at great cost to the tax payer. There is no serious long term investment into UK tech, past building AI datacentres for a bubble economy with some of the worst energy rates in the world.

I understand, but it's why things are desperate to change. I refuse to believe that the UK is fundamentally unable to rise to these challenges, in which can I can only chalk it up to poor government structure and management. These people have a lot to answer for.

> Risk, time, complexity, mismatched skill-sets... "getting a new thing built" didn't work so well with (for example) Fujitsu and the Post Office, or the billions spent to little or no avail on NHS digitalisation. Seems to be a case of "damned if you do, damned if you don't".

These projects are possible, it's just clear the current project management structure of the UK government is not up to the task. I would lean heavily towards a UK-based private sector solution.

> Are there established UK-based payment processors with equivalent abilities?

This is the point, there should be one, and the UK government could heavily put their thumb on the scale to ensure that payments are processed within the UK.

It seems mad to have foreign companies make money on UK government fund raising activities.