cbeach

No. But does high memory bandwidth necessarily require desktop/server style power and cooling?

My 5090 has a bandwidth of 1,792 GB/s, and that is just about good enough for basic (i.e. 27B models) local LLM inference.

The fastest M6 MacBook Pro (24/32GB config) has a memory bandwidth of 170 GB/s. And the M5 Max is 614 GB/s.

Am I missing some nuance of the M6 MBP here, or am I right to assume it won't set the local LLM world on fire?

My 5090 has a bandwidth of 1,792 GB/s, and that is just about good enough for basic (i.e. 27B models) local LLM inference.

The fastest M6 MacBook Pro (24/32GB configs) has a memory bandwidth of 170 GB/s. And the M5 Max is 614 GB/s.

Am I missing some nuance of the M6 MBP here, or am I right to assume it won't set the local LLM world on fire?

Is there a single topic on HN that is not subject to silly Godwins Law ad hominem attacks on Elon Musk?

Must we have to remind people that raising an arm (while saying “my heart goes out to you all”) does not make someone a Nazi, not matter how strenuously the leftwing media try to present it that way?

> Because there was no warning. He just crippled it and then denied that he's done it.

What if he's telling the truth and it wasn't him that disabled it? How is it that you have obtained evidence as to internal operational procedures of Starlink/Starshield/Pentagon that make you better qualified than Musk to judge who carried out an action?

And why would Ukraine deserve any kind of warning? Surely if anyone breaks the very clear T&Cs by using Starlink in weaponry, then they should expect the service to be withdrawn, or at best, temporarily limited.

> Ukraine uses it for defensive purposes, not offensive

Ukraine have blurred the line since they started attacking energy infrastructure and civilian data centres etc deep inside Russia, with loss of Russian civilian life. I'll say it again - I support Ukraine vs Russia's illegal invasion. However, from Starlink's PoV, Ukraine is using its network for military attacks on Russian civilian infrastructure, which gives Russia the right (arguably) to attack Starlink infrastructure (e.g. ground stations). Why would Musk allow this to happen?

> Musk alongside Trump want Zelenskyy gone (receipts are there) and he thought pressuring him by crippling access to Starlink would do it or at least get him to stop attacking Putin's oil refineries.

That's a possible motivation, although speculative at this point. And it seems certain people are strenuously trying to paint Musk as the bad guy in this, and any other circumstances they can find. There's some partisan noise and speculation that we need to remove in order to find the truth here.

Musk has always been clear in the T&Cs that StarLink is not to be used in offensive weaponry.

Starshield has different T&Cs, of course, but that network is wholly governed by the Pentagon, not by Musk

I don’t understand why everyone is making Elon Musk the bad guy here, but it does seem to be a peculiar quirk of the HN audience.

One of the first things I did once Claude was capable - converting all my websites from PHP to static / React/Python / React/Scala (for those that needed performance).

PHP was great for learning the basics of web development 25 years ago. The world has moved on a lot since then.

But if goods and services become so cheap and easy to mass produce, won’t they become vastly cheaper? Thus helping to bridge the gap created by production concentration and job elimination?

I don't understand why capitalism (free markets, individual liberty, personal responsibility) should specifically frighten us in relation to AI.

Imagine the horror of the USSR, or Mao's China, or Jong Un having this technology.

Would we honestly prefer a far-left totalitarian dictatorship having control and leadership over AI?

At the end of the day, we'll always fear and distrust AI being owned by someone other than ourselves. Questions over the ownership of AI is important - in fact, too important to be conflated with our populist gripes against capitalism.

Musk built the first rocket capable of transporting a base, and humans, to Mars. NASA has nothing close to Starship, and if they ever did, it would come at a trillion-dollar cost to the American taxpayer.

Name a single person on Earth who has got us closer to Mars than Musk.

You think he's being terrible in public. I don't, and I'm not alone. The way certain people judge his actions is quite obviously partisan and a subject of great emotional overreaction. Those exaggerated, sensationalised negative traits you described (which were fed to you by a leftwing media with vested interests) actually have zero effect on your life - so you are simply choosing to be offended by them.

If, instead, you had a grounded, balanced opinion about the man, you'd understand the great good he's delivered, and continues to deliver for the world, from Tesla (making electric cars desirable and mass-market) to Neuralink (making viable brain computer interfaces to give heavily disabled people back their lives), to SpaceX (giving humanity hope for a brighter, more exciting future in space, as governments once did, but have since failed to do).

If you don’t like his politics and lean into that difference in opinions to criticise something orthogonal, like his technical innovation, then it’s YOU that is being divisive and partisan.