That's what you get when you use speculative decoding and focus / overfit the draft model on coding. Then when the answer is out of distribution for the draft model, you get increased token rejections by the main model and throughput suffers. This probably still makes sense for them if they expect a lot of their load will come from claude code and they need to make it economical.
I for one support this system. I drive a VW with this feature and it's fine. It recognizes signs well enough. There's a built in grace of about 5km/h. The only thing the car does is that it produces a few gentle dinging sounds that are completely different from other warning sounds like parking sensors, when someone hasn't buckled in, door is open, etc.
I have no intention of speeding and welcome the warning to consider I may have missed a sign. And if it is wrong, or I wish to ignore it, it's only like three subtle dings before it shuts up. It's fine. Perhaps the issue is not in the law, but the specific car manufacturer in the article.
I haven't ever seen a server with 8x H100 NVL 188GB. The H100 NVL has 94GB of VRAM but they sell them in pairs connected with NVLink, so I guess they sometimes market them as 188GB, but in fact it's two cards and a server usually has 4 pairs.
I think you misunderstood what the "single market" in that article means. The EU doesn't want there to be a single marketplace (App store). The single market means unifying the different national European markets. The EU cares about maintaining that market, keeping it healthy and competitive and using it as a glue to keep the European nations together and peaceful.
> convention that governs technology along a framework akin to a technology user’s bill of rights. No stealing information, no antipatterns, cancel subscriptions with a single click, etc…
What you're suggesting is exactly what the EU is doing through GDPR and now the DMA. The balancing act is them recognizing that these big powerful tech companies derive their value partly from their scale, network effect, etc. and trying not to, for example, try and break them up, but instead lay out a set of principles that a sufficiently big tech company has to comply with. These rules are designed to promote consumer interests and limit what is perceived as abuse of market power by forcing the companies to be more open to competitors.
> I think you misunderstood what the "single market" in that article means
I can see your point, and when as I was reading I was definitely finding myself understand better the EU's POV, however at the end, when I tried to apply the same example given in the article to the present circumstances, I had a hard time seeing how DMA furthered those goals. But to see what I mean, let's look at an example:
> The single market means unifying the different national European markets.
This is the general thrust of it, and I agree with it and it makes sense to me. The article even went to great lengths to say that the EU would do this even at the expense of their own industries, because the outcomes would ultimately be better for everyone. The example given was roaming, and I think that makes a lot of sense. Another example given was standardizing on 230v AC, while still allowing each country to maintain their regional outlet shapes.
Ok, so far I think we should be in agreement and I haven't said anything that doesn't come directly from the article. In summary the single market means unifying the national markets, and this is done by making one set of rules, even if it's at the expense of their own industries. So nothing thus far should be controversial.
Now in the case of Apple, the question is what being regulated. They're not requiring iOS and android apps to be cross platform, as that would be intractable and is akin to the example in the article of requiring countries to change their plugs. It's basically "infrastructure" at the point, and the cost doesn't justify the benefits. So in this case, the "what" means iOS apps.
To that end, what remains is defining a set of rules that applies to all iOS apps so they can be some uniformity of regulations, similar to the example of standardizing on voltage or charger format. So what are these things in particular? That would be where apps can be found, how they're downloaded, how people pay for stuff, how they cancel subscriptions, etc...
Ok, so now we've reached the point. All of these things actually were already standardized in a single, predictable way, just that they were done by apple. This was done even at the "expense of industry", which in the case would be the developers. I'm sure developers, like cell phone carriers would love to do bad stuff to their users if it makes them more money, but it's ultimately better for the industry as a whole to forbid it. This only works when your competition can't do the bad stuff either.
There are legitimate complaints that I believe can and should be guided towards apple's stewardship of the App Store, but I don't think requiring multiple app stores was the solution. My point is I think the ethos of what the EU is doing is correct, and I wholly support the effort, as I indicated in my ancestral comment. However, I just don't agree that they chose the right unit of abstraction. They should be forcing apple and Google as app stores to abide by a single set of guidelines, but the implementation therein should be left to those companies. Google allows multiple app stores, great. Apple doesn't want to. That should also be fine.
So if you disagree with me, or if I still don't understand the article, can you explain to me better how? As I see it there are multiple levels they could have chosen to enforce the one market principle. I just don't agree with where they chose it. By the same token, forcing iOS and android to be cross platform would also be incorrect.
Ok, and finally I say this mostly from the pserpsective of an iOS user. I like the platform and I feel like I can trust it, however it really only works if developers don't have alternatives where they can do bad stuff. So if there's another App Store where they're free to do shady stuff then it puts all the developers distributing their apps through the apple App Store at a disadvantage.
On the other hand, if the EU wants to manage and regulate all the app stores with a consistent set of guidelines, then I don't understand what are even the points of other app stores. So help me understand, because to me it just seems like what the EU wants we already had when apple was curating the App Store, and it wasn't even really that bad for anyone besides developers, which the EU seemed to be fine with if it was for the good of the industry.
> All of these things actually were already standardized in a single, predictable way, just that they were done by apple.
If there is only one company, it's not a standard - it's a monopoly.
> They should be forcing apple and Google as app stores to abide by a single set of guidelines
They are. It's just that what Apple does simply won't fit in those guidelines.
> but the implementation therein should be left to those companies.
It is. The DMA doesn't tell Apple how to run their servers or what APIs to allow. It just tells everyone, including Apple, that some behaviors in the market are ok and some are not. It just so happens that Apple falls in the not-ok bin.
> Google allows multiple app stores, great. Apple doesn't want to. That should also be fine.
According to whom, you?
The fact is that European society, as represented in the EU Parliament, EU Council, and EU Commission, determined that such behavior is NOT fine in the market. It strangles competition to Apple in the digital-services arena and effectively allows them to extract rent from the whole industry. Hence, Apple should stop what they are doing or face consequences. This is a side-effect of issuing guidelines for acceptable behavior in the digital marketplace.
If you don't like the directive, go vote for some party in European elections (hey, this year) and national elections (possibly this year, depending on the country) to change it. If you're not in Europe, well, you are not affected by the directive, so you don't really get a say about it.
Pickpocketing is only a concern in tourist traps like if you went to visit the tower of Pisa out something.
And waking around my university buildings, it's very common to see people leaving their stuff including expensive laptops to reserve their spot in the library and random tables in hallways that have them. Though this is frowned upon if you're going for more than a few minutes.
> Pickpocketing is only a concern in tourist traps
I have not spent a huge amount of time in Europe but judging from the way certain minority groups are spoken about by many Europeans, it is not a widely held belief in Europe that pickpocketing is limited to tourist areas - although I'm sure that's mostly true.
No they haven't. It voluntarily and temporarily shut down. Someone was pretending to represent Reddit threatened to sue u/savevideo, but Reddit admins stepped in and confirmed it wasn't them and that they don't have anything against u/savevideo
For several years now, in the EU at least, all new cars need to have automatic emergency breaks. It's basically impossible to run into something, run someone over, etc. This kind of system reduces stress and gives at least me a certain peace of mind. In this regard Tesla self driving is a step backwards.
You seem to be confused about what AEB is and what it does. It is generally effective at braking for static or rapidly slowing vehicles ahead. Most AEB systems are not effective "safeguards against driving into oncoming traffic and parked cars". These would involve a steering intervention, not a braking intervention.
I assume AEB ignores a lot of stuff on purpose, otherwise it'd be braking due to things on the side of the road, and cars in the other lane on a curve that are heading straight towards you
Correct. Most AEB systems use a forward facing radar, which often receive spurious reflections from various street elements overhead bridges, overhead signage and manhole covers. As a result, most radar-based implementations will actively ignore completely stationary objects while driving at high speed.
That is a good article which summarises the state of AEB and its general capability. It's worth noting that the most effective system they tested doesn't use radar at all, it was an entirely vision-based system: Subaru Eyesight. Worth remembering this when people agonise over Tesla ditching radar sensors on the Model 3.
I chose my parents' most recent new car precisely because of this—a 2019 model year Subaru Forester. Not only was the active safety top notch, its chassis tuning means that it's more capable of remaining composed after swerving to avoid an obstacle. (It was also one of the few vehicles which ticked every box for them.)
Here is the comparison I relied upon for that decision. (Yes, I am Australian.)
If you're interested, Tesla's head of AI recently did a public presentation of their new vision based depth system. It's worth a watch if you find this stuff interesting and enjoy learning about the forefront of technology.
A key takeaway is that they've been running this stack in shadow mode (validating output but not controlling the car) on everyone's Tesla for quite some time. Equivalent to 1000 YEARS worth of real world driving. And from this data they've proven it is now superior to radar in all circumstances.
being very suspicious about that talk, the output they show doesn't matches at all with the output people have extracted from running teslas - https://twitter.com/greentheonly/status/1412597377228226562 - specifically the 'trained' heath signature running horizontally across the dash.
Well,the rest have radar, so that's not a problem.
"Stereoscopic vision works most effectively for distances up to 18 feet. Beyond this distance, your brain starts using relative size and motion to determine depth."
Written in 1030's by a Slovenian, it's a historical fiction novel set in the in 11th century what is now Iran. It tells the story of how a radical leader of an Islamic faction, based in the impenetrable mountain fortress "Alamut", manipulates young men into perfect obedience and turns them against his enemies through the use of drugs and a fake paradise full of women purporting to be heaven.
It is also one of the major inspirations for the Assassin's Creed series of games.
I don't know about CNTK, but Tensorflow and I think PyTorch don't have _good_ distributed training.
They use a distributed training model that utilizes parameter servers, which scales nowhere near Horovod's mpi solution.
Even for single-machine-multi-gpu solutions, only now in Tensorflow 1.8 is pure tensorflow as fast as Horovod with it's estimator MirroredStrategy. If you watch Tensorflow dev days 2018, the devs say they're working on bringing something like Horovod to pure Tensorflow
The above link contains a sample Excel template with details of the various information a record of processing should contain. If you are only processing employee data this should be straightforward. It's a link to the ICO, the UK's data protection authority, but it should be useful regardless of where you are (assuming GDPR applies to you of course!).
