ACCount39

The two are strongly correlated.

Intelligence is a tool - one that can be put to use against any problem. "Get diverse people to come to the table for compromises" is no exception.

The payment processors don't object to you. They usually object to the store or the platform you're getting things from.

It's invisible, insidious censorship. They don't hit your hands with a ruler and say "stop, no buying that, bad". They make it so that what they don't like doesn't get to be on the store shelves in the first place. Hard to buy what isn't being sold, isn't it?

As for why they do it - it's unclear, but there's speculation that payment processor leadership might be in part ideologically captured by the usual "think of the children" moralizers and puritans. The same types that used to spurn moral panics, rally against D&D and later GTA, and are the first in line to propose sacrificing freedoms for imaginary safety - now allowed to wield covert influence over most of the payments that happen online.

You get used to good AI performance fast. Going back to older, less capable AIs is a whiplash.

You know what isn't a Chesterton's fence? Payment processors being able to dictate what I can or can't spend my money on.

This by itself is a reason to push for more crypto acceptance, in my eyes.

Yeah, it's not talked about too often but RPi 1 was basically Broadcom's "useless SoC recycling program".

If not for the success of Raspberry Pi, Broadcom would have zero SBC presence today. Like many companies chasing the high volumes and high margins, they don't see the market value in a segment like this. Thus things like poor docs and weird blobs. Raspberry Pi is open to the degree it is despite Broadcom, not because of it.

Ironically, that Broadcom tie could have caused RPi to eventually lose ground to other SBCs - because the likes of Rockchip just deliver more bang for buck in SoC dept. Broadcom doesn't seem to be investing in staying competitive in the segment. So RPi's edge is just the ecosystem being more important than raw price/performance.

For now though, that's pretty much on hold, because SBC price tags are increasingly DRAM dominated instead.

Biology doesn't have particularly good simming, but what it does have is massive parallelism.

So as long as you can test things on cell culture level? You can do a lot with a high throughput setup.

Blue pigments used to be extremely rare and precious. Then some chemists found the infinite blue glitch.

It is - anything short of HBM can be replaced that way.

The issue, of course, is just how much time, effort and skill is required to do it.

It might become a viable commercial process outside third world countries if RAM prices spike even more - or if someone finds a way to teach an off the shelf $1000 robot arm advanced autonomous microsoldering.

Then there's the problem of forcing the device itself to recognize the new RAM. It's a device-specific trick. RAM sticks have a little tag chip that tells a PC "how much RAM this stick has", but RAM chips themselves don't - so the device has to infer its RAM capacity from elsewhere. Like strap resistors on the board. Which you have to find and adjust for the new RAM capacity. That, or fix the RAM values in firmware, which is also device-specific.

Honestly, reasonable.

I've been eyeing LPCAMM2 interposers for non-RAM uses - as an off the shelf connector for stacked PCB designs. The conclusion was that it wasn't produced or used at sufficient scale for it to work.

It's not about "teaching style". It's about having intrinsic motivation vs having to be motivated with a stick and threat of failure.

Less "storage server" and more "attention server".

A server that both holds KV cache in its own memory, and uses its own compute to perform attention operations. That way, you don't have to transfer cache entries server to server for every attention sweep - only the "requests" and "responses". Attention bandwidth stays server-local.

"Lockdown Mode" is something the user enables. If the user wants to trade functionality for security, it can happen. Good.

The "no root access, no bootloader unlock, no installing your own Apple-unapproved software" bullshit is mandated by Apple, with no opt-out.

Create a problem, and then heroically fight to make a solution.

This shouldn't exist in the first place. There would be no need for it if Apple didn't insist on "we own all the iPhones, our users just get to tap at them".

If you could just unlock the bootloader, re-enable SWD and do what you want with an iPhone that you actually own, there would be no need for this restrictive program at all.

AI price-performance is improving rapidly. AI usage, whether in tokens used, in cash spent, or any of the above performance-adjusted, is curving upwards too.

Causality is uncertain, but the "Jevons paradox" interpretation is certainly not contradicted by the available data. Anecdotes of per-employee AI spend rising, and multi-agent freerunning AI tasks becoming more common are also plentiful.

Personally, I think that the "Jevons paradox" interpretation is basically correct. Humanity doesn't have a limited demand on intelligence - but humans are expensive, so it's supply-constrained. The cheaper intelligence gets, the more of it ends up used. As AI gets cheaper and more capable of substituting for human intelligence, usage will rise.

It is an appealing target for LLMs? Well, LLMs do make "handroll your hot paths in assembly for better performance" much more viable.

But that's a bit of a problem too?

Because, unlike humans, LLMs have no trouble whatsoever recalling all the mnemonics. Hell, they can often recall all the opcodes and encodings too and disassemble from hex "manually".

So if the primary advantage of this syntax is better human-readability and human-understandability? The need for it in a future where low level assembly routines are written by LLMs in a perf evaluation loop isn't that great.