sonori

sonori , 8 days ago (edited 8 days ago)

“A computer can never be held accountable, therefore a computer must never make a management decision.”

Even more importantly when it comes to assessing properly, machine learning, now referred to as AI, has been continuealy shown to not just repeat the biases in its training data, but to significantly exaggerate them.

Given how significantly and explicitly race has been used to determine and guide so much property and neighborhood development in the training data, I do not look forward to seeing a system that is not only more racist than a post war city council choosing where to build new moterways but which is sold and treated as infallible by the humans operating and litigating it.

Given the deaths and disaster created by the Horizon Post Office Scandel, I also very much do not look forward to the widespread adoption of software which is inherently and provablly far less accurate, reliable, and auditable than the Horizon software. At least that could only ruin your life if you were a Postmaster and not just any member of the general public who isn’t rich enough to have your affairs handled by a human.

But hey, on the bright side, if Horizon set UK legal precedent than any person or property agent is fully and unequivocally legally liable for the output of any software they use, after the first few are found guilty for things the procedural text generator they used wrote people might decide its not worth the risk.

sonori , 8 days ago

But we could have an average of 684 9/11’s a hour, the actual number of car crashes per hour in the US, driven purely by the piloting skills of the average Amarican driver given command of an aircraft, who wouldn’t want to live in that future?

sonori , 17 days ago

Except when it comes to LLM, the fact that the technology fundamentally operates by probabilisticly stringing together the next most likely word to appear in the sentence based on the frequency said words appeared in the training data is a fundamental limitation of the technology.

So long as a model has no regard for the actual you know, meaning of the word, it definitionally cannot create a truly meaningful sentence. Instead, in order to get a coherent output the system must be fed training data that closely mirrors the context, this is why groups like OpenAi have been met with so much success by simplifying the algorithm, but progressively scrapping more and more of the internet into said systems.

I would argue that a similar inherent technological limitation also applies to image generation, and until a generative model can both model a four dimensional space and conceptually understand everything it has created in that space a generated image can only be as meaningful as the parts of the work the tens of thousands of people who do those things effortlessly it has regurgitated.

This is not required to create images that can pass as human made, but it is required to create ones that are truely meaningful on their own merits and not just the merits of the material it was created from, and nothing I have seen said by experts in the field indicates that we have found even a theoretical pathway to get there from here, much less that we are inevitably progressing on that path.

Mathematical models will almost certainly get closer to mimicking the desired parts of the data they were trained on with further instruction, but it is important to understand that is not a pathway to any actual conceptual understanding of the subject.

sonori , 17 days ago

Like say, treating a program that shows you the next most likely word to follow the previous one on the internet like it is capable of understanding a sentence beyond this is the most likely string of words to follow the given input on the internet. Boy it sure is a good thing no one would ever do something so brainless as that in the current wave of hype.

It’s also definitely becuse autocompletes have made massive progress recently, and not just because we’ve fed simpler and simpler transformers more and more data to the point we’ve run out of new text on the internet to feed them. We definitely shouldn’t expect that the field as a whole should be valued what it was say back in 2018, when there were about the same number of practical uses and the foucus was on better programs instead of just throwing more training data at it and calling that progress that will continue to grow rapidly even though the amount of said data is very much finite.

sonori , 16 days ago

To note the obvious, an large language model is by definition at its core a mathematical formula and a massive collection of values from zero to one which when combined give a weighted average of the percentage that word B follows word A crossed with another weighted average word cloud given as the input ‘context’.

A nuron in machine learning terms is a matrix (ie table) of numbers between zero and 1 by contrast a single human nuron is a biomechanical machine with literally hundreds of trillions of moving parts that darfs any machine humanity has ever built in terms of complexity. This is just a single one of the 86 billion nurons in an average human brain.

LLM’s and organic brains are completely different and in both design, complexity, and function, and to treat them as closely related much less synonymous betrays a complete lack of understanding of how one or both of them fundamentally functions.

We do not teach a kindergartner how to write by having them read for thousands of years until they recognize the exact mathematical odds that string of letters B comes after string A, and is followed by string C x percent of the time. Indeed humans don’t naturally compose sentences one word at a time starting from the beginning, instead staring with the key concepts they wish to express and then filling in the phrasing and grammar.

We also would not expect that increasing from hundreds of years of reading text to thousands would improve things, and the fact that this is the primary way we’ve seen progress in LLMs in the last half decade is yet another example of why animal learning and a word cloud are very different things.

For us a word actually correlates to a concept of what that word represents. They might make mistakes and missunderstand what concept a given word maps to in a given language, but we do generally expect it to correlate to something. To us a chair is a object made to sit down on, and not just the string of letters that comes after the word the in .0021798 percent of cases weighted against the .0092814 percent of cases related to the collection of strings that are being used as the ‘context’.

Do I believe there is something intrinsically impossible for a mathematical program to replicate about human thought, probably not. But this this not that, and is nowhere close to that on a fundamental level. It’s comparing apples to airplanes and saying that soon this apple will inevitably take anyone it touches to Paris because their both objects you can touch.

sonori , 16 days ago

Generally the term Markov chain is used to discribe a model with a few dozen weights, while the large in large language model refers to having millions or billions of weights, but the fundamental principle of operation is exactly the same, they just differ in scale.

Word Embeddings are when you associate a mathematical vector to the word as a way of grouping similar words are weighted together, I don’t think that anyone would argue that the general public can even solve a mathematical matrix, much less that they can only comprehend a stool based on going down a row in a matrix to get the mathematical similarity between a stool, a chair, a bench, a floor, and a cat.

Subtracting vectors from each other can give you a lot of things, but not the actual meaning of the concept represented by a word.

sonori , 16 days ago

No part of a human or animal brain operates on subtracting tables of cleanly defined numbers from each other so I think it’s pretty safe to say that no matrix calculation is done on a handful of numbers as part of much less as our sole means of understanding concepts or objects.

I don’t know exactly how one could tell true understanding from minicry, far smarter and more well researched people than me have debated that for decades, i’m just pretty sure what we think an kindness is boils down to something a bit more complex than a high school math problem discribing a word cloud.

sonori , 15 days ago

They are definitely to simple to represent the entirety of an concepts meaning on their own. Yep, I don’t believe it’s likely that such an incrediblely intricate thing as a nuron, much less the idea of conceptual meaning, can be replicated by a high school math problem. Maybe they could be a part, but your off by about a half a dozen order of magnitude at least from where we are now with love being a matrix with a few hundred numbers in it.

sonori , 19 days ago

At first glance I thought it was reuseing the coal plants turbines, but looking though the article the only connection I can find is that it’s located several miles away and the only connection is that it plans to hire a hundred or so people from the coal plant it’s replacing and that Wyoming’s powder river basin is nearby and its associated highly automated low sulfur coal mines are in the vauge area.

All this to say, yes it has practically nothing to do with coal.

sonori , 23 days ago

I don’t think many people would claim overall valuation has much of anything to do with the value labor brings to an organization.

In this case I think all it indicates is just how much the company’s stock price is driven by speculation about possible demand for generative AI, and even then I’m not sure that current price per share times number of shares divided by number of employees is a clear indication of that.

sonori , 22 days ago

I’m saying that while a companies market capitalization is a real number that can tell you things about a company, it is not like anyone involved has a three trillion actual dollars. The company doesn’t see any of that money directly unless they directly issue more stock which would devalue the current stock, though there are some other ways for a company to use it to their advantage. Investors might be able to get a small percentage of that by selling, but only because someone else bought in with an equal amount of money, and a large sell will drive down the price.

More to the point, the evaluations people are doing with Nvidia don’t have much to do with what the company actually produces and puts out into the world today, but the assumption that it can turn its current leadership position in AI accelerator chip designs into growing massively in size in the future when every company needs a large data center or two to train their own individual LLM’s.

A individual stocks price is driven primarily by what people think that individual stock certificate can be sold for in the future, and effected by things like how many people are trying to sell, adding all of those certificates up at current market price doesn’t actually give anyone involved much information, nor does it reflect the actual quality, quantity, material, or labor taken to make things, in this case branded computer chip blueprints, that a company puts out into the world.

Now there are a lot of competing theories of ways to try and measure labor’s value, but my work being only as valuable as the speculative amount my organization as a whole might be theoretically sold for as a whole in the future if no one tries to undercut anyone else isn’t one of the more popular ones.

sonori , 22 days ago

Firstly it shows the value of individual shares multiplied by the number of shares, not the company as a whole. Secondly, in this case Nvidia’s share price is based on what the company may be able to expand to do in the future, not what it currently does. Thirdly, where would this repersentive percentage come from? If it’s, issueing new stock to employees, A Nvida already does that a lot, B, creating new stock is not practically reliant on overall market cap so why is it relevant, and C, would employees also be punished for destroying the valuation if it turns out that every company doesn’t actually need a data center full of several thousand AI accelerators scraping the internet to make unique chat bots and Nvida’s market cap falls back down to what it would be based on how much money the company actually makes?

Again, Nvida primarily makes chip designs for outsourced fabrication, not market cap, that three trillion isn’t like revenue for Nvidia. In your painting example, market cap would be like if two unrelated billionaires bet 10 billion on whether or not that painter would be successful in selling a hundred different 1m paintings in the next six months, the painter might have an easier time say getting a loan for new supplies from a bank if they can point to the billionaire betting so much on them, but you know it’s not like the painter was actually paid that 10 billion that makes up the bet, right? So it’s kind of weird to say that the painter’s work as a whole is definitely worth that 10 billion bet.

sonori , 22 days ago

Technically, they don’t even make the actual graphics cards, they just design them and then outsource manufacturing to TSMC.

But don’t you know that doesn’t matter, because by 2028 every singe company in the world is going to need a data center filled with tens of thousands of AI accelerators turning their own scrape of the internet into a chatbot, and so one of the companies that makes thouse accelerators is definitely going to have as much business as companies that make half of everyone’s phones or computer software./s

sonori , 21 days ago (edited 21 days ago)

Please explain to me how any of the child level explanation of the stock market is obfuscation, or again how you think the market cap, a purely theoretical number, could possibly be redistributed to employees outside of things the company already does to some extent, and finally why it applies in this case with a company who’s stock price is based purely on speculation about what it could do in the future and not anything it’s employees are currently doing.

Also from your comment about how share price literally is the only measure of value for a company I’m taking it you follow the theroy of value that value directly equals the amount of money paid for it, which seems inherently contradictory to this entire conversation.

sonori , 21 days ago

Then by definition the employees are perfectly compensated for the value of their labor, as that labor can only be worth exactly what the company pays for it, and there is absolutely no reason why they should get any more. That’s actually one of the reasons why the value = money theory tends to be pretty rare outside of the far right libertarianism.

sonori , 27 days ago

The researchers who wrote the paper only mentioned possibly applying the tech to very small things like wearables and Iot applications where a large capacitor might be relevant. It’s the journalist summarizing it that makes the wild claims about phones and cars, which don’t tend to use capacitors for a bunch of reasons, not least of which is that they tend to be physically twenty times larger than a given battery of the same capacity.

If people are able to deal with batteries anywhere near that large, then I’d imagine most of them would choose twenty times the battery life/ range over being able to charge fast enough overload a wall outlet/ small power plant.

sonori , 27 days ago

No, it doesn’t effect devices of all sizes, only devices that might use this specific bulky capacitor, all other devices will show exactly zero improvement because there is no real point to mixing capacitors in with a large battery. Being able to quickly get three minutes of charge per whole hour of battery capacity you replace with capacitors just isn’t that useful because you might as well just stay plugged in for an extra few minutes and get the same charge plus that extra hour before needing to find a charger at all.

As for EV’s the problem is even more pointless, as being able to go a half mile the street from a charger massive enough that it can output a small power plants worth of electricity is similarly to specialized of a use case to be worth the loss of range and greater degradation of the rest of the battery.

sonori , 26 days ago

Obviously nearly every electrical circuit board uses capacitors in some respect, especially for filtering and smoothing, but it is extremely rare for them to be used for bulk energy storage outside of things like adjusting power factor.

Given we are talking about charging times, which are primarily limited by the batteries charge current vs degradation curve and not at all by the various small capacitors in the charger’s electronics, there is fundamentally no effect on charge times unless you are replacing the energy storage medium itself with supercapacitors.

We can already supply enough dc power to charge an EV battery at its maximum designed curve via dc fast charging stations, which involve some contractors and shunts but actually don’t even involve any size of capacitors at all in the car itself on the HV side.

sonori , 26 days ago

Again, there are no capacitors car side to be produceing thermal load in the first place during dc fast charging in the first place, and that thermal load is not the primary barrier to how much current can go into the battery without degradation anyway. After all, if it was we would just upscale the cars heat pump and be charged in five minutes.

Car charging is not coordinated to the point where they all plug in within a few seconds, and if it was a few second randomizer on when eqch timer actually starts charging would accomplish the exact same effect without hundreds of millions to billions of dollars in new grid scale capacitors and inverters.

This is also unlikely to become a significant problem because a lot of the grid is moving to battery backed solar and wind, where the limit is price per megawatt hour and as such said batteries can provide far more current than the grid could consume. You might be limited by inverter capacity, but storage capacitors are also fundamentally a DC technology so you would need them anyway.

This may turn out to have benefits for electronics that rely on already specialized supercapacitors, but it can by definition not have any impact on processes that are not currently limited in any way by capacitor technology like battery bulk charge current, the thing that actually limits how fast a car can fast charge.

sonori , 26 days ago

Not really trying to argue, just trying to help explain the high current DC battery systems I have experience with and to someone how seems to have some conceptual understanding of what individual components do, but not how and why they are used or where the limitations come from.

Them being confidently incorrect doesn’t help of course. :)

That being said you haven’t really given me much to work off of as to where these misconceptions are coming from beyond a journalist confusing applications for batteries and capacitors and this really seems to be going nowhere, so bye.

sonori , 1 month ago

Don’t forget Putin bravely defending himself against western imperialism by invading neighboring nations, and how he must secretly be a communist no matter how much of the country he has privatized and sold off to his cronies.

sonori , 1 month ago

Yep, at the very least there is a reason that all the democracies the US helped establish post world war two, to my knowledge none of them were recommended to closely mirror the US system. The fundamental US government was a decent enough step in the right for a british colony in the 1700s, but there has been over two hundred years of learning and improvements since. The problem is that while nearly everyone who’s studied governmental structures recognizes the problem, it’s very hard to get someone to understand a problem when their job requires not understanding it, and the general public doesn’t have enough knowledge or passion to force the issue.

sonori , 1 month ago

While I think in this case they won’t have an effect because no Amarican company is even trying to compete in the space, I feel like claiming “history says tarrifs rarely work” is pretty misleading. The high tarrifs caused by the US generating nearly all federal income by tarrifs in the 17 and 18 hundreds are after all widely credited with being the reason the northern US went from being a minor agricultural nation dependent entirely on european industrial goods to becoming one of the largest industrialized nations so quickly.

Indeed that was why the WTO blocking third world nations from putting tarrifs on western goods was so heavily criticized by the left a few decades ago, before China proved you could do it without said tarrifs so long as your competitors were greedy enough to outsource their industry to you.

sonori , 1 month ago

While the paper demonstrated strong diminishing returns in adding more data to modern neural networks in terms of image classifers, the video host is explaining how the same may effect apply to any nureal network based system with modern transformers.

While there are technically methods of generative AI that don’t use a neural network, they haven’t made much progress in recent decades and arn’t what most people mean when they hear or say generative AI, and as such I would say the title is accurate enough for a video meant for a general audience, though “Is there a fundamental limit to modern neural networks” might be more technically correct.

sonori , 2 months ago

But if we don’t feed the entire internet into Siri, China would, and you don’t want China to have an advantage in the autocomplete wars, now do you?/s

sonori , 2 months ago

How could that help at all? Seeing as the blockchain would have no way of telling the difference between human and Ai text, and if you could find a way to automatically verify that in way way that was so efficient you could expect all the text uploaded to the internet you could just run that program locally and not be beholden to people paying a fee to post anything to the internet.

sonori , 2 months ago

I can’t imagine any sort of verification system not being completely overrun by bots/people on fiver/ mechanical turk immediately unless you tied it to meatspace IDs in an know your customer sort of way, in which case you would definitely need a central organization to do said verification, which eliminates any possible need for a blockchain as said organization can just use a faster, far cheaper, and most importantly for this application editable database.

More to the point, no one doubts that an article published by one organization was secretly published by another, but rather that they secretly used AI in the writing process, which also negates the system because that organization is never going to tell you which articles are done by AI, and any sort of reporting system for the entire organization or a specific author is just going to be immediately and constantly used to review bomb.

sonori , 2 months ago

They actually are where the push first stated on the right. After all, redefining antisemitism as being anti Israel is great if you’re primarily concerned with getting the Jews out of your country. Besides, it it’s fine that Isreal has citizenship decided on race and religion, isn’t it really antisemitic that we complain about doing the same thing here.

sonori , 2 months ago

There is also a massive difference in user experience in China vs abroad, to the point where they might as well be two fundamentally different apps. Even just things like time limits for children exist by default in China and are unavailable elsewhere, which kind of feels like an admission that they only take things like platform safety seriously at home.

sonori , 2 months ago

Well on the bright side, getting fired from one of the largest mega corps in the world for complaining about the company’s providing resources to kill civilians is a hell of a thing to be able to put on your resume.

On the not so bright side, I don’t like being a background character in a cyberpunk story.

sonori , 2 months ago

Probably, but I would much rather be a background character in the intro to a space opera instead.

sonori , 2 months ago

Coming from someone who has done sysadmin work for schools, in practice the problem with filtering tends to come from the federal government requiring you to filter porn or else loose your funding, but doesn’t really provide any more guidance or resources beyond that.

Given most schools tend to be tight on money, this in practice means generally ticking the box’s in the firewalls config or outsourcing the whole system and the people who control the defaults control the vast majority of schools. No one person is going to try and keep track of and sort the entire internet, so often no one has any idea of what the ever updating list of blocked sites is until someone actually brings it up.

Personally I think the government should just set up a small board that maintains a repo with a list of sites they want blocked to comply with funding instead of leaving it up to the school, who will tend to be overzealous because there’s minimal to no cost one way and a massive one if it makes the news that you’re not strict enough.

This list of not safe for work sites could then even be used as the base of the filter for other government buildings too when combined with a data exfill list, and would save everyone a lot of time and effort. Of course it would likely hurt sales for a handful of companies with lobbyists and will never get done, but it would solve this issue.

All that being said, in the case of many of the schools listed in the article I have no trouble believing it’s malicious. The problem shouldn’t have taken more than a ticket or first talk with a sysadmin to resolve, much less escalated to legal action, and is undoubtly an active choice on the part of the school administrations in question.

sonori , 2 months ago

Except there is already a massive market for hydrogen. It is needed, produced, and used in bulk for a vast collection of industrial processes. The problem is that green hydrogen is simply expensive to make, gains very little from being done at scale, and when it comes to competing with other energy storage techs any that don’t inherently have to throw half the energy away as waste like hydrogen does are always going to have an advantage.

sonori , 2 months ago

Neglecting that we actually study and know how fast large batteries degrade with age and time, and thusly know that they do last far more than ten years, it does actually matter that hydrogen is to expensive to make with excess green energy and that no company is willing to buy it precisely because green hydrogen made from excess green energy is so many times more expensive to make then grey hydrogen.

If it is saves more money to electrify and save wear and tear on equipment by shutting down when there is an excess power than could ever be made by making and selling green hydrogen with it, people arn’t going to make much green hydrogen. Put another way, green hydrogen being so expensive that even with free electricity it is still too expensive to compete is a problem for green hydrogen.

Maybe raising taxes on grey hydrogen to the point green hydrogen can compete might be worth it, but that is a very different solution to a very different problem then what you originally claimed, which was that there wasn’t enough demand for hydrogen.

Indeed given the actual problem facing green hydrogen, which is that it is too expensive to produce compared to the more common grey hydrogen, increasing demand for hydrogen is actually directly harmful to the planet from a global warming perspective.

sonori , 2 months ago

Current gobal hydrogen demand is in the region of a 100,000,000 metric tons per year. That is not too small a market to be worth creating green hydrogen, and the fact that green hydrogen cannot come close to meeting even that demand would seem to prove that more demand for hydrogen is not the problem. Indeed if too expensive for applications that actually need to use hydrogen, why would expanding applications that waste half of it like cars be at all helpfull?

sonori , 2 months ago

From my understanding IRC’s biggest flaw is that it requires the recipient to be online in order to receive messages, and any software that includes voice, video, screen sharing, and proper servers would by necessity have very little resemblance to it.

sonori , 2 months ago

Everything here is basically text and maybe images if your lucky. In order to make it into a Discord or Zoom competitor you would need to solve far higher bandwidth things like HD video and low latency audio, and both of thouse are fundamentally very different things for a server to handle as compared to high latency short text messages.

You could probably link account sign in, but any real-time stuff would likely be limited to within that single instance unless you create a whole alternative method of federation that would still only be available between thouse certain supported instances.

It’s also a whole lot more expensive to host, unless you go peer to peer in which case good luck, and vulnerable to bad actors massively running up hosting bills even if you can protect against denial of service attacks.

It would be nice to see, but there is a reason why Matrix is the closest anyone’s come and it’s still more a proof of concept then an actual platform you could direct family or random strangers to.

sonori , 2 months ago

The problem with non-persistent messaging is that for most things people use Discord for it is a non-starter. Most people who are doing more than just socializing really don’t want to spend half their time repeating things to people who were at work, asleep, or in a different time zone when the discussion came it. Any serious Discord competitor would need to focus on practically and low barriers to entery, which tend to be directly opposed to novelty.

sonori , 2 months ago

Forgive me, but I fail to see how expecting video/voice conferencing software to actually be capable of carrying video/voice could be described as a fallacy. It seems to me like that is kind of a core functionality to any software trying to fulfill that role.

IRC has nothing to do with the subject, and while XMPP/Matrix are promising they are still a long way from being able to talk someone without significant tech expertise and who has never seen them before into jumping onto a call in five minutes or so without touching a single setting. That is the fundamental part of Discord, Teams, Skype, or Zoom that matters.

Lemmy isn’t exactly voice conferencing software, so I don’t know why you would want to collaborate on software development work with it as a forum. As for documentation, a static site is probably the best place for that, although in this case keeping it off the clearnet was presumably a core consideration.

sonori , 2 months ago

Except this preticular discussion thread isn’t about Discord used as documentation, but Discord use in general as a videoconferencing tool. I also imagine the project started using Discord for conferencing, and documentation grew up around it because everyone was already there, emulation is very finicky, and it wasn’t out in the open for Nintendo to find indexed by Google. They could have used Jitsi, and the same thing would have happened.

A video conferencing program like Discord is hardly the first or best place to put software documentation, but in this case it being hard to find was presumably the point.

It also seems odd to insist that Capitalism doesn’t allow Jitsi, Matrix, or XMPP to exist, when they and many other open source projects do. Jitsi is owned by a major cooperation, but Matrix and XMPP arn’t to my knowledge. Rough around the edges and in need of significant work, yes, but not prevented from ever exsisting.

Video, voice, and text messaging are together the signifiant part of Discord as you put it, it doesn’t make sense in order to split them apart any further.

sonori , 2 months ago (edited 2 months ago)

A point the article makes rather well is that something is not a bobble because it doesn’t work, but because the investment going into it is fundamentally irrational in scale. The web still existing has nothing to do if investment or companies tripping over themselves to advertise as a dotcom in the dotcom bobble was rational, percicly because it clearly wasn’t dispite the web being a fundamentally revolutionary tech.

The question when it comes to LLM’s, the near exclusive subject of the marketing around AI, is if bunch of random companies paying for a mildly improved chat bot are actually going to generate enough profit once the marketing hype has worn off and the legal challenges settled to justify the current massive scale of investment, or if instead once the project managers and CEO’s have moved on to the next buzzword to attract investors LLM’s will become a tight market where providers struggle to turn a large enough profit to satisfy investors.

sonori , 2 months ago

What, a system that responds with the next most likely word to be used on the internet treats people of color differently? No, I simply can’t believe it to be true. The internet is perfectly colorblind and equitable after all. /s

sonori , 2 months ago

A similar policy with Canada would likely lead to similar effects, as while it is more open than that of Mexico there are still significant economic limitations imposed by travel restrictions. You are however unlikely to get Canada or Mexico to agree to complely unrestricted trade given the history of Amarican companies annexing their northern neighbors.

sonori , 2 months ago

A decent number of artists offer digital downloads of their music directly either for a flat fee or in a pay what you wish system.

It is nowhere near as convenient unfortunately. Benn Jordan mentions some options in several of their videos about their experience with Spotify, but i’m admittedly not certain I just linked the right one.

sonori , 3 months ago

Especially given how much more expensive they are than conventional hybrids and the hoops you have to jump through to even grt one in my family’s experience.

The small battery capacity they have also means that any household outlet will charge them fine, so it would be really interesting to see why people are going through all the extra effort to buy one and then not use it.

sonori , 3 months ago

I mean the first time he really did something in public was getting mad at a bunch of journalists for just tacking a little blurb about a key Tesla investor when discussing the actual ceo’s presentation at a Tesla press event, so i’m not sure that he fired his PR team so much as the less you know about him the easier it is to like him.

If all you know is that he’s a techbro that used his pile of free money to buy an EV and a rocket company it’s easier to file him under the James Cameron folder of generally inoffensive rich dude with neat hobbies.

sonori , 3 months ago

Yes, but at the end of the day SpaceX is the work of tens of thousands of people, not just the guy who provides a pile of money in exchange for constantly forcing the engineering teams to do stupid stuff if they can’t explain why not at an eighth grade level.

sonori , 2 months ago

If you have a hypervisor in a home lab, which it turns out OP does not, odds are good your already running a DNS filter/ server, DHCP server, AD domain, etc so the whole network is down anyway during hypervisor restarts if you don’t have HA setup.