juunpp

No? The point is to keep the user's system free of non-free dependencies. As a user, I don't want to audit the several hundred packages that a single Rust application might decide to pull in; I'd prefer if such a thing were enforced instead. Otherwise, you might as well go use any of the hundreds of non-free distributions out there.

The Rust/Cargo license is also terrible grounds on which to build a free system anyway.

The FSF's stance is still a WIP. Per this update: https://www.fsf.org/news/fsf-is-working-on-freedom-in-machin...

> All software included in a free ML application has to offer every user the four freedoms that define free software. This applies to both the software that processes training data, and the software that interprets model parameters as context for prompts to produce human-usable output. This is necessary but not sufficient. Additionally, given our current understanding of ML applications, we believe that we cannot say a ML application is free unless all its training data and the related scripts for processing it respect all users, following the four freedoms.

You still don't need the unwieldy blog post to explain that. The SIMD section is unnecessary. Comparing the naive dot product on CPU vs GPU (+round-trip transfer) would have sufficed.

Terrible post, really. Did they need 5 pages to say that a silly dot product micro-bench that is PCIE-bound loses to a CPU implementation? Why are they even comparing computation vs computation + memory transfer?

Yeah, you're quite literally in a bubble.

The significance is that this has been posted on HN if you hadn't noticed.

Stonks

I guess we'll soon find out how well the NSA normalizes its databases. Bring on that schema, folks.

The real question is: who calls their company "Snowflake"? It's just crying to get stomped on.

I thought it was going to be about duck typing.

Never trust a corporate dentist / dental chain in the US. Look for dental offices named after the actual person doing the work.

Your first sentence is exactly what the US has done since the Cold War through recent history. Why is it different when China does it, which it also hasn't to the scale that the US has?

If you want to see how much the US cares about democracy, read Noam Chomsky's How The World Works. Or just look down south to Latin America.

Yeah, I was being generous in the argument :)

I'm not sad about Google ad-driven blogs disappearing, good riddance.

I'm not positive about the new web either. I'm sure it'll be worse and surveillance will only increase.

Seems like a good thing to me.

- The clickbait, SEO-optimized garbage that today fills 95% of search results could entirely disappear as a business model because they have nothing interesting to offer and the LLM company won't pay for low quality content.

- The average Joe blogging on their website won't go anywhere because they aren't profiting from it to begin with. And the LLM linking back to the page with a reference would be a nice touch. Same logic applies to things like Open Libra and projects that are fundamentally about open information and not about driving ad revenue.

But, on the other hand, I don't think LLM-based search will fundamentally change anything. Ad revenue will get in the way as always and the LLM-based search will start injecting advertisements in its results. How other companies manage to advertise on this new platform will be figured out. What LLM-based search does is give Microsoft and others the opportunity to take down Google as the canonical search engine. A paradigm shift, but not one that benefits the end user.

The anti-cheat also goes hand in hand with the predatory business models of "always online" and micro transactions. Those things sell because of advantage over other players or just social factors in the case of cosmetics. Wouldn't be as relevant in an offline game. But now, since the game is online (for business, not technical, reasons), we need some way to keep everyone honest.

I'm just hoping this entire business model dies, along with the anti-cheat and everything else with it.

Let's widen the scope to adtech.

Nobody questions that the impact of those changes can be large. That still does not take away from the fact that the genetic makeup of humans is by and large nearly identical. My neighbour is still an homo sapiens and genetically near-identical to me even though he's Chinese and I am not. Whether he considers himself a descendant of the emperor Qin and, for that reason, deserves to be in a socially distinct category, is entirely a different matter.

pvaldes is saying that biologically/genetically, the difference is irrelevant. And it is because we're >99% identical.

https://www.genome.gov/dna-day/15-ways/human-genomic-variati...

Not to take from your earlier point, but the evangelisms were not written by him. His teaching was oral and experiential, not written.

And the fact that this pseudo-science was broadcasted on national television is a disgrace for Spain and embarrassing for the Spaniards quoted in the article who are trying to do actual science.

We've been spoiled, walking over the puddle isn't particularly interesting anymore :)

But in all seriousness, things like electricity or the atom are more interesting discoveries than a guy misjudging the size of the Earth and being lucky enough to not die halfway through his voyage paid for by two monarchs who just so happened to be looking for new enterprises to invest in.

Thanks for adding.

7M tainos by the hand of Columbus and his crew?

I don't question that what the Spanish accomplished was a massacre. I just question whether that can be attributed to Columbus himself. He did 3 trips to the Americas, none of which lasted very long:

1st Voyage - 1492-1493

2nd Voyage - 1493-1496

3rd Voyage - 1498-1500

And you're disregarding the entire point of the article and the historians that contradict what you just said.

You kind of cherry-picked two paragraphs and butchered the article. The article's point is that Reconquista, with capital R, is not a good designation for the historical events that took place. It does use the term throughout the article, though, which maybe is a bit confusing. But if you read a couple paragraphs past the one you quoted, you'll see it restated that the term Reconquista is a 20th century invention. "The idea of Reconquista" is talking about the idea, specifically, not the term; the term, and mysticism surrounding it (like the originating battle that actually never took place as such), part of which is debunked also in the article, is modern propaganda.

I did provide the evidence, but it was in a different sub-thread:

https://www.lavanguardia.com/historiayvida/20191208/47205574...

This just confirms the point I made above about naming. What's your point exactly?

Why?