lloyd-christmas

Not the person you asked, but I have a 9700 which has the same VRAM, and running Q6 on it with unquantized kv gives me 50k context. Putting -ctv q8_0 ups that to 70k. I normally run Q4 with unquantized kv @ 130k at 50 t/s (mtp 3), with the disclaimer that I'm running PCIe gen4x8, so I'm slightly slowed. I've found that quantizing k leads to broken json on tool calls, which is fairly unrecoverable, but YMMV.

I run qwen 27B:Q4 @ 130k context at 50 t/s on a single R9700, and have a 7900XT that runs mellum 12B:Q8 as its subagent. R9700s do really well at low wattage and underclocking as well. It's designed to run at 300W, mine is throttled at 210W, and only had an 8% slowdown. If I had somewhere else to put my desktop in my house, I'd bump it up to 240W and there would be zero perf degradation.

I thought the same thing when I started using locals, but the reality is that - for a given context depth - the token generation speed doesn't change whether it's 128 or 8000, it just lengthens the benchmark run time.

I suspect this is it. I'm 40, and the only tech person in my social circle. Many of my friends were all excited about using it for things like basic webdev and home networking. One shotting that type of stuff is very viable even if you don't know anything about the topic. Now that they are trying to use it for something they actually know about, suddenly it's unusable. It's a modification of Gell-Mann Amnesia.

When I worked remote, I found I worked more hours than the days I went into the office and spent 40 minutes each day commuting. It's a lot harder to walk away from work when it is embedded in your home life. I actually quit my most recent job when they decided to close the office and move to full time remote work, so YMMV.

For me, I still have no idea what the visual of a venn diagram is trying to tell me within the context of SQL. Just having a visual that I can't even understand does nothing to benefit the situation either.

Employee Resource Group, I assume.

> the sheer amount of screen real-estate and convenience is really unparalleled.

Personally, that's my exact complaint. I miss smart phones I could operate with one hand without straining my thumb to reach the opposite corner. I want a quality smart phone with a screen size ~4.5". I don't really want a screen larger than that. It would be nice if the big brands made a small version instead of a "normal" and "XL". The iPhone homepage currently has the motto "Welcome to the big screens". If I wanted a tablet, I'd buy a tablet.

A few scattered thoughts: Much of this article seems to only apply under the assumption that people didn't have hobbies prior to being a working adult. Most people I know have hobbies, but those hobbies were developed prior to being working adults. The article states:

> most of us will be truly excellent only at whatever we started doing in our teens.

So what about all of us that have had our hobbies prior to even being a teenager? I've been playing piano now for almost 3 decades. I played nearly every day from age 4 to the day I graduated college. By the article's admission, I'm supposed to be excellent by now. But... I've steadily gotten worse since becoming a working professional. I have my 5000+ hours of practice, but only a few hundred in decade since graduating. My experience when it comes to these hobbies is that most people drift away from their interests due to self-comparison, not societal comparison.

The activities mentioned by the article seem to be of the everyday athletic variety. As adults, we're supposed to be conscious about our health. Nobody cares if you're a shitty runner when it's an expectation that you're health-conscious. The same can't be said for the arts and crafts variety of hobbies. The home brewer doesn't necessarily want you to try their shitty beer; The illustrator doesn't want to show their stick figures; The woodworker doesn't want you to sit in the chair that's probably going to break under your weight, regardless of whether or not they had fun making it. The office talk of "what did you do last night?" is a lot easier to answer with "went for a run"/"watched the same TV show as you" rather than having to follow up with the inevitable Q&A about your hobby. Let's say I mentioned that I was playing piano ("I've been playing since I was 4!"). The next time my team goes for drinks and there is a piano in the bar, people want to hear me play. Do I really want to publicly struggle to play a piece I was able to easily perform when I was 12? That doesn't sound like very much fun to me.

> you are trying to land a gallery show or at least garner a respectable social media following

People put their best foot forward, which also assumes they have a good foot to begin with. If you suck at something, you usually don't put it up on your Instagram. My point is really just that I don't talk about my hobby, and I assume that's also somewhat common for hobbies that aren't the typical everyday athletic variety. While I realize there are statistics that heavily back TV-as-a-hobby, I think the author has a bit of a selection bias and that there is under-appreciated amount of people that simply have no desire to discuss their hobbies. The discussion can detract from the enjoyment you get from the hobby itself.

Congrats, that's 3 years in jail†. Enjoy your time!

†I am not a lawyer. This is not legal advice.

I'm not sure of any precedent, but the disclaimer isn't just a "don't hold me to it" liability insurance. There are certain certifications required related to various types of products and recommendations (primarily Series 6, 7, 65, and 66). If they don't have that certification and act in that role, it's not just oops-you-can-sue-me liability, it's an actual possibility of jail time.

> How many right-of-center professors did you have?

Nearly all of them, having majored in Economics.