They aren't a database company. They are a full spectrum B2B SaaS contract company. They make far more by up selling services than they do from databases total. Half of their stack will run on whatever db you want.
agree completely. When the megacorps are building hundreds of datacenters and openly talking about plans to charge for software "like a utility," there has never been a clearer mandate for the need for FOSS, and IMO there has never been as much momentum behind it either.
these are exciting times, that are coming despite any pessimism rooted in our out-dated software paradigms.
You're not moving your mouse 100% of the time. Probably less than 25% of the time. Probably using your keyboard less than 25% of the time. It doesn't need to degrade experience OR selectively refresh part of the screen (which it certainly doesn't).
i could be mistaken but from my read, the 'rotation' aspect is nothing new and not dissimilar from normal spin quant, where the importance matrix is rotated during calibration such that the local minima/maxima are more evenly smoothed and excessive/redundant quantization of parameters is avoided.
as for the J-L transformation is way above my head so i'm almost certainly mistaken but it seems to be some clever way to use a bit as a sort of pointer in order to reuse existing chunks of parameter weight data like in a jpeg or zip compression algorithm.
As long as you can control for fire, electrical safety seems like a temporary condition as robots and intelligent machines are cheaper and more available long term solution to hot swap blades in datacenter racks.
I think you're being downvoted for speaking of a complex future possibility ("robots and intelligent machines ... solution") as if it was a proven commodity. There will be many twists and turns in the path to the possible reliability, scalability, and cost effectiveness of robots and intelligent machines.
Appreciate your effort to provide reference info. Near the end it says "part of SoftBank’s efforts to implement robotic automation at [one] Data Center scheduled to start operating [no later than April 1 2027]".
They literally speak of preparing for a future that does not yet exist. I am optimistic it will exist, but that's not the same thing as it already happening and having a track record of reliability and profitability. I could find no mention of robots actually doing anything at that link. The article is about prepping servers, not specifically about robotics, in the same sense that planning hoses for gas pumps at gas stations is not about building cars.
But the discussion is about the safety of systems being actively implemented. For now, people are required to maintain data centers. Right now, these centers are transitioning to high voltage DC. Right now the best attempts at fully automated data centers are in progress with unverified status. So, for now we need to keep the humans safe. Future data centers not needing humans doesn't keep the current humans safe. Thus, optimistic future speculation is off topic and not relevant to the discussion of human safety with high voltages.
People are tired of off topic speculation masquerading as relevant to real world problem solving. It's not a hate boner.
EDIT: expanded to make it clearer why I believe the speculation to be wildly off topic for this particular thread.
> Dear downvoters: softbank has been optimizing their datacenters for robotic technicians since 2020.
> They are about to have fully human free datacenters by the end of this year.
What I'm hearing is that they've been trying to build a human-free datacenter for 6 years and they haven't done it yet. What's the betting that that "end of this year" schedule slips further?
If emacs can live through Stallman's descent into absurd un-asked-for pedophilliac defense positions, not limited to defense of Jeffrey Epstein himself, Vim can survive the simple passing of its creator.
Please don't do this. "editors outlive their creators' reputations/departures" - is a reasonable point. But to make it land as a zinger, you decided to dig up some
most inflammatory Stallman material possible, that does a lot of collateral damage to the framing.
Emacs the tool and Stallman the person are not nearly as coupled as your comment implies. Stallman created Emacs, yes, but the Emacs community drove him out of the FSF in 2019, pushed back hard when he tried to return in 2021, and has been actively distancing itself from him for years. The community's resilience despite Stallman is kind of the opposite of what you're trying to say - it's not like Emacs users were defending him in solidarity.
Tools transcend their creators - it is actually an interesting point and worth making. You just didn't have to push Stallman shit here.
I don't disagree with the general notion of your sentiment. I just wish there was less dragging Stallman's dick behavior into the mix of Emacs-related discourse. Which doesn't happen a lot, still would be ideal if it didn't happen at all.
Sure, but that doesn't address GP's argument, which I _think_ is "there's a time and a place for those criticisms, and _literally every time emacs is brought up in a public forum_ ain't it"
I hope it's not my comment(s) that triggered your anger, still, please accept my apology.
> Stallman deserves to be criticized for his own positions.
I fully agree. I'm just asking to try to decouple that from Emacs.
> because i like his software
Can we agree that Emacs is no longer "his software" and it stopped being that long ago? Governance and ownership have separated from authorship, right? The point is - when the scandals got out, we didn't circle the wagons. If the tool and the person were tightly coupled, you'd expect the community to defend him. We didn't. The separation was/is real, not just rhetorical.
Sure, yes, GNU/Emacs is still officially an FSF project, and the FSF is still Stallman's institutional creation, even if he's been sidelined. His philosophical fingerprints - GPL, copyleft, free software ideology as distinct from open source - are baked into the project's DNA in ways that aren't cosmetic. So there's a version of "his software" that's genuinely hard to dislodge. I'm not trying to argue that or erase his authorship, no.
But can we still find a way to deal with it differently? Say:
- Wagner was viciously antisemitic; the music is still the music
- Caravaggio was violent, possibly a murderer, yet painted some of the most incredible art pieces
- Heidegger was a Nazi sympathizer yet produced genuinely influential philosophy
People are complex creatures, sometimes we need to decouple the evaluation of the contribution from the evaluation of the person. I just want to avoid circles like: "using/praising Emacs is bad because Stallman is bad, therefore his creations are tainted".
I'm not defending Stallman or any of his behavior (good or bad), I'm defending something the community itself largely built, maintained, and steered. When people outside of the loop hear these things together, it hurts me personally - the conflation feels like a category error aimed at something I personally have a long relationship with.
The annoying thing about these whole thing is that you threw the Stallman material probably without even thinking about any of that. It's rhetorical ammunition, not a serious argument. You're not really engaging with what Emacs is to its users - just reaching for the most socially radioactive association available to win a point. And I'm now having to "defend" against an argument that was never made in good faith to begin with.
Which is exhausting in a particular way - not because the argument is hard, but because you have to take it seriously even when it wasn't offered seriously.
It's amusing seeing this brought up in the thread when:
a) Drew is the person who wrote the major "takedown" screed accusing RMS of being a pedo(-defender).
b) Drew was subsequently outed for having a long history on the internet of consuming & sharing lolicon and saying that 14-year olds should be required by law to have IUDs installed.
Do you have a link for this? What I recall of that whole scenario was that Stallman said something fairly minor regarding Minsky, and the nuance of the words written were lost on the mob and he was accused of saying something worse than that.
I'm not aware of him providing any defense of Epstein himself.
"argued in an email thread last week that Marvin Minskey, the late AI pioneer and longtime MIT professor, was unfairly accused of sexual assault and that one of the underage girls in Epstein’s sex trafficking operation likely presented herself as “entirely” willing to have sex"
Yes, that is the Minsky comment I mentioned that apparently renders people illiterate and incapable of understanding what they read.
What Stallman said is "the people who were trafficked, probably did not tell the people they were trafficked to, that they were being trafficked and were there unwillingly."
I don't see how saying that is a "defense of Jeffrey Epstein".
"Many years ago I posted that I could not see anything wrong about sex between an adult and a child, if the child accepted it.
Through personal conversations in recent years, I’ve learned to understand how sex with a child can harm per1 psychologically. This changed my mind about the matter: I think adults should not do that. I am grateful for the conversations that enabled me to understand why.
Children: Humans up to age 12 or 13 are children. After that, they become adolescents or teenagers. Let’s resist the practice of infantilizing teenagers, by not calling them “children”."
THESE ARE THE WORDS RICHARD STALLMAN POSTED ON HIS OWN WEBSITE WITHOUT BEING PROMPTED.
please defend this. i really really want to see you stoop this low.
EDIT: OKAY i'm being DOWNVOTED for bringing these words to light. officially y'all are now covering up for child sex criminals. Sickening.
Why would I defend that? That part's pretty cut and dry.
Him posting that doesn't have anything to do with you telling lies about defending Epstein. Both are shitty.
Is it now appropriate for me to tell lies about you defending Epstein, because you did something shitty (falsely accusing others of defending Epstein)?
How is that assigning the blame to Epstein's victims?
The scenario being described was that Epstein was ordering some of his victims, who were ostensibly employed as masseuses at his resort, to go and offer sex to specific people who were at an event taking place there.
You don't keep a sex trafficking operation going as long as he did if you don't coerce victims in that situation to play along with the story that they are masseuses and that the offer of sex is coming from them.
She was 16 which was above the age of consent there.
From Minsky's point of view a girl who was old enough to legally consent to sex offered to have sex with him. According to witnesses at the event he turned down the offer.
He's saying that Marvin Minsk might not have known that he was on pedo entrapment island and may have assumed a teenage girl was of age. Telling the entrapment targets the deal up front wouldn't be very smart. This is not blaming the girls, it was Epstein's setup.
When third parties are discussing the crime, "the person who committed the crime may not have known they were committing a crime" is a valid, reasonable thing for a person to say as part of a discussion.
Doing so is not a defense of the person who trafficked the child to be raped.
“We can imagine many scenarios, but the most plausible scenario is that she presented herself to him as entirely willing,” Stallman added. “Assuming she was being coerced by Epstein, he would have had every reason to tell her to conceal that from most of his associates.”
Didn't want to include? That's the quote I'm referring to.
"Sex trafficker probably told the people he trafficked not to tell anyone that they were being trafficked. Trafficked people trapped on an island with their abuser may have done as they were told out of fear." Obviously.
I don't see how that statement is a defense of Epstein, or victim blaming.
i think that's a mis-statement of the problem being addressed here. It's not a question of how useful AI video will be generally. It's a question of OpenAI doing it specifically. IMO it's two factors:
1) the intellectual property issues make commercializing freeform video generation impossible. The more popular your service becomes, the easier it is for lawyers to descend upon you. It's a self-defeating framework.
2) google and specialized video-only startups are simply doing a much better job than they were.
> the intellectual property issues make commercializing freeform video generation impossible. The more popular your service becomes, the easier it is for lawyers to descend upon you. It's a self-defeating framework.
This risks generalizing to audio and text which would make most LLMs usage unsustainable. I guess time will tell what actually goes through the strainer, long term.
The exploration in this mission was done 50 years ago.
I fail to see how this mission is noble. It's biggest accomplishment is keeping the NASA beurocratic apparatus in tact.
This spectacle of a mission is precisely the kind of distraction which enables complacency and allows the "dark age of war" to remain dark.
reply