cthalupa

Another is that they help stabilize plaque - by calcifying it. Which sounds like a bad thing, until you realize some of the greatest risks here come from plaque breaking off, which soft plaque is way more likely to do. Calcified plaque restricts bloodflow, but doesn't throw bits of it off to cause even bigger issues.

If anything, the data we have is suggesting we've gotten wrong what the upper limits should be for what is considered OK.

https://www.lipidjournal.com/article/S1933-2874(25)00317-4/f...

This is correct, but not in the way you mean it. We know people can effectively produce no LDL cholesterol in their liver and have positive health impacts - these MR studies are a big part of what drove this entire class of cholesterol medications. And the monoclonal antibody versions of PCSK9 inhibitors have shown basically the same results.

Virtually all human cells can produce cholesterol locally de novo, including your brain.

I mostly run them clustered for DS4 and am quite happy with the performance, and the cost isn’t that much more for two than the MBP while giving me double the unified memory.

I’ll probably pick up a third to run multiple smaller models. I don’t understand why people would buy a halo over a spark at comparable prices, particularly because if you want to cluster, the cx7 be beats the shit out of them when it comes to latency and throughput

Rising supply from China will impact prices even in countries where there are tariffs.

Anywhere where you might have a large backlog of data to work with can end up in this sort of situation.

Perhaps in theory, but for the gb10 stuff the memory is all on the CPU die and connected to the GPU die via nvlink-c2c

So I would expect the mini PCs to come in less than the sparks. Laptops I assume will be close in price with the addition of all the other laptop stuff.

Same model, same quant, same query, as close to as matched settings as I can get from vllm, and for workloads with large prompts + low cacheability, one of my sparks will often be done responding before the mbp is done with prefill.

My M5 Max 128gb MBP decodes faster than one of my Sparks, but the Spark's prefill is so much faster it can often answer the same query before the mac's prefill is finished. If you have large prompts, low cacheability, etc., a spark might be a very good options.

Not to mention you get can get two sparks and the MBP will be 85%+ of the cost at half the RAM.

I'm kind of tempted to pick one up. Leave running big models to my dual dgx setup, and all the misc. random stuff on an rtx.

Except the author did write it. https://github.com/RsyncProject/rsync/issues/959#issuecommen...

Which is part of the problem with all of this nonsense right now - everyone is running off of emotion and not looking to see if what is being said is actually true. Which is somewhat ironic, considering the message of the article.

There are a whole lot of ways to quantize models in general.

That thing Didn't Work more than it Worked, but options were slim. Eventually it fully died about 14 months in. I didn't even bother checking to see what the warranty terms were. TS3 Plus, back in 17 or 18. What a piece of shit.

Sounds like it's a good thing I didn't bother trying again in the early 2020s and only recently bought a new dock.

If you are building a follow-the-sun support organization for a technology company, would you really avoid building a support team in India? Seems like it's the country most likely to have a large enough number of people with the expertise and language skills to staff for the need, even if you were paying them the same as their US counterparts.

But even as an AI believer and thinking it's great for this sort of thing, I also think if it's good enough for this sort of work, it should be good enough to identify when it's not capable of providing value, too.

Zero was already part of the territory. Lack of something is a very normal state in the universe. Once we added it to our understanding of math, we were discovering it, not creating it. Of course people who are scientific or structural realists would agree it didn't change reality - because reality already had it, whether we knew it or not.

So, more properly phrased, we created some operations.

We're not comparing math to reality (though there's a strong argument to be made that reality has a structure that is mathematical in nature - structural realism didn't die a scientific philosophy just because someone came up with a pithy saying), we're talking about if math is discovered or invented.

Most mathematicians would argue both - math is a language, we have created operations, axioms are proposed based on human creativity, etc., but the actual laws, patterns, etc. are discovered. Pi is going to be pi no matter if you're a human or someone else - we might represent it differently with some other number system or whatever, but that's a matter of representation, not mathematical truth.

You might be the correct person here, but you're not going to convince anyone like this.

Valkey has some of the (formerly) most prolific Redis contributors for the era in which it was forked.

Avoidant behavior is basically universally agreed to be a maladaptive behavior to ptsd.

Well, there has been. From multiple angles. One, avoiding content because it might trigger you is just... avoidant behavior. Which is pretty much universally considered a bad thing. There's a big difference from seeking out exposure because you want to do your own exposure therapy (bad thing) and just letting yourself be exposed to things in a more organic fashion (good thing).

Two, most research indicates that TW do not actually reduce the consumption of content. Not all of the studies are on "did they help people process content they watched," as a lot of them are "did the TW make people not watch the content to begin with." Mostly it seems to haven no impact. A smaller subset of studies showed effects in other directions - both reduction and increase of content viewing after TW. If they reduce viewing I'd argue this is bad because it's avoidant behavior, and I suspect that the 'forbidden fruit' effect is also not positive because it's now giving you pre-viewing anxiety and is no longer the more organic 'let exposure happen naturally, don't just stop watching the news because it might contain stories about war.'

> A combat Veteran may stop watching the news or using social media because of stories or posts about war or current military events.

https://www.verywellmind.com/ptsd-and-emotional-avoidance-27...

> The avoidance cluster of PTSD symptoms involves efforts to avoid distressing memories, thoughts, or feelings, and external reminders like discussions about the traumatic event or encounters with people or places associated with it.

I don't see how specifically avoiding content that contains triggers is anything but avoidance behavior as discussed above - avoiding the news or discussions about war is pretty explicitly facilitated by TW - before the clip plays on the news, by people posting it at the top of their social media content, etc. And media with the content would fall in line pretty explicitly as an "external reminder"

Like, I don't think someone who has been physically tortured and dealing with PTSD should watch Hostel or other torture porn, and I don't think a vet with PTSD should watch a compilation video of some of the worst horrors of war. So I'm not arguing for massive exposure or intentional forced exposure, etc. But the fundamental issue is that going out of your way to prevent yourself from being exposed to it at all, which is what TW facilitate if they were to work, is pretty definitionally avoidant behavior.