It’s at least settings things up for a real Steam Mobile, rather than it being a companion app for PC. I’ve been on the Valve Phone hype train since the Steam Frame information came out. Most companies wouldn’t do it, but I know Valve does a lot of things just because the employees wanted something and they ended up making it a product. I could easily see that happening with a phone.
I agree currently, but I’m excited about this because it creates a PC market for mobile games. This is good because mobile games have the worst MTX, but PC games normally can’t get away with this. It could (unlikely, but possible) influence them to adapt to more of the PC market style.
I’m going to be this person I guess, but the defining trait of steampunk isn’t the use of steam alone. It’s that energy is transfered by delivering steam to where it’s used, rather than using it in-place to crested electricity. This means that steampunk machines operate off of some kind of kinetic energy, rather than electrical energy.
Basically, computers (and everything else) are spinning gears, not silicon.
Technically not algebra, right? Algebra is where you move things around and solve for variables, and that kind of thing. This is just arithmetic.
The way that could be done would be significantly worse than 15 slower. That’s the issue. Even with the fastest storage, moving things between RAM and storage creates massive bottlenecks.
There are ways to reduce this overhead by intelligently timing moving pieces between storage and RAM, but storage is slow. I don’t know how the models work, if it is possible to know what will be needed soon, so you can start moving it into RAM before it’s needed. If that can be done then it wouldn’t be impossibly bad, but if it can’t then we’re talking something like 100x slower maybe. Most of these are already pretty slow on consumer hardware, so that’d be effectively unusable. You’d be waiting hours for responses.
This is probably the easiest tool I’ve used to run them: https://lmstudio.ai/
There’s tons of models available here, some of them fairly large: https://huggingface.co/
No, I’m pretty sure there’s no way to run any larger than your RAM/VRAM, at least not automatically. You can use storage as RAM, but that’s probably not a good idea. It’s orders of magnitude slower. You’re better off running a smaller model.
Yeah, most likely, and it’ll only bind users and protect the businesses, as always.
It already is broadly accessible to the general public. They just don’t know about it or just accept using one of the cloud versions. It’s trivial to get up and running at this point.
The model should take into account income. For an open-source model it should be free. It’s using public data to produce a public product. For a for-profit model it should be paid. If they’re profiting off of public data then they should have to pay for the right to use it.
We can’t afford to make any of this. We don’t have the money for the compute required or to pay for the lawyers to make the law work for us. It should benefit the people, so it needs to change. It needs to be “expanded” (I wouldn’t call it that, rather “modified” but I’ll use your word) in that it currently only protects the wealthy and binds the poor. It should be the opposite.
As with all things, nuance and context is required. I don’t think we should be taxing poor people that heavily (if at all), but does that mean I should be against taxing the ultra-wealthy more? Obviously not.
I support copyright to protect developers and not hinder users, hobbyists, or the average person. I don’t support it to only help massive companies who can manipulate the law to protect them from competition, but also not hinder them from stealing from the masses. They can afford to pay. If AI is actually as valuable as they say, the price of paying for the training data is trivial.
Copyright shouldn’t only be helpful to big businesses. It should be most helpful to the average person. We have the opposite here. I support modifying copyright law to bind big businesses and liberate individuals. I don’t need to be totally against it like you imply.
An easier way to understand it, without knowing the math, is to know how it’s made. You play audio into a very similar device and it’s needle scratches the grooves. When you then have a needle pick up the grooves it’s moving the exact same way the needle was forced to move by the original.
It’s similar to how a speaker and a microphone are basically the same device. If you take a speaker and plug it into a microphone input, it still works (though they’re tuned differently so it’s not as good). A microphone has a crystal vibrate, which creates an electric signal. If you play that electric signal into a crystal it vibrates and creates the same sound.
There’s no math or anything being done for this to work. It’s purely mechanical. It’s just a copy of what the needle did when sound was played into it, so another needle running through it recreates the same sound. You can use math to represent it, but none is being done by the device (other than just the laws of physics).
Yeah, things aren’t going to go the way you think if it all collapses. It won’t be “natural chaos.” It’ll be a brutal probably decades long civil war. It’ll be unnatural chaos, as anyone who can tries to grasp for power. There will be checkpoints on every street and gorilla warfare all over. You’ll never be safe, and any expectation for a" normal" life you have will be destroyed.
That might be the way things go. It’ll still be better than if the Fascists actually maintain power. It won’t be what you think though. It’ll be the worse than you could possibly imagine. If you haven’t seen actual warfare then you can’t imagine what it’ll be, and even if you have it’ll be so much worse.
If that’s what we have to do then that’s what we have to do. I still have hope that there’s a way to bring things back without it though.
Lol. “You can look it up.” That’s the entire issue here. Looking it up it says it’s the woman in the OP. However, she was only written about several centuries later and, according to Wikipedia at least, “her story has been hard to substantiate and some modern historians doubt her existence.”
If you think that’s enough then you agree with me and this other person. The story, though we can’t substantiate it, is good enough to keep telling it. It doesn’t really matter that it may be wrong. Insisting instead that we don’t really know who created it so shouldn’t say anyone did isn’t useful.
You say “yes” as if that means something. How? What changes if we just leave the gap of knowledge unfilled?
You didn’t answer who created it. You did t say what would happen. You just said “yes” as if that alone is enough justification. What good does it do? If the gap is instead filled with mysoginist religious garbage, what’s the benefit from telling people this isn’t true?
For people un-effected, fine. Let them know. For people who benefit from it, or who don’t hurt others because of it, what is gained? This isn’t answered by just saying “yes.” Put more effort in or I assume you don’t actually have any reason.
I get where they’re coming from. It isn’t that mis/dis-information is good. It’s just that they aren’t going to get the accurate information anyway.
For example, who actually created this university? Can you tell me? Does it actually matter? If this story causes good outcomes, where otherwise there would be a void of information which could be filled by someone else, then the story that causes good is the best option.
That’s true. They’re related genres, but fundamentally different. Still, all the architecture is already set up. If they can hire some of the C:S devs (they’re in the same country) then they could transition well. I don’t exactly expect them to, especially since C:S2 isn’t doing great even with the people who seemingly understood it, but it’s possible.
C:S2 (not to be confused with CS2) is not “mid development” in the usual sense either. It’s well post-launch. It is still being updated though, with new features added. The modern thing of launching games before they’re done has messed up how we speak about games.
But yeah, you’re right.
I’ve heard alright things about Surviving the Aftermath. Still, I agree. It looks bleak. It’s not dead, but this does seem to be it being put on life support.
It’s easier. It’s also different. Sure, it takes time and effort to learn it, which Windows users have already done with Windows. That doesn’t make it not easier. Windows also has ongoing costs of effort with all the shit they change, or the shit they push on you that advanced users try to fight off.
No one’s saying it’s easy. They’re saying it’s easier.
There’s been an increase in games that don’t give the client full knowledge of enemies. That data doesn’t actually need to be sent to the client if you can do checks on the server to know if they’re visible. Yeah, it needs to be simplified from a full raytraced solution from the camera, but it can be good enough that it isn’t much of a issue, depending on the game.
IIRC, some game (it may be Counter Strike, but idk) only gives your client player data for the “room” you’re in, and adjacent ones, or something like that. You can still see through walls near you, but you can’t see people on the other side of the map.
Yes, there’s always going to be a point where there’s nothing more you can do and you just have to hope for the best, and mitigate what you can on the client. Still, the naive “the client has to know where the enemies are” isn’t accurate. A well designed anti-cheat solution will try to come up with a solution for this. Sometimes it isn’t possible, but often there’s some amount of information that doesn’t need to be sent to players that can be hidden.
I don’t like the idea that Q is aware he’s in a show. That implies that the show isn’t real. We know that it’s a show, but I prefer it to pretend that it isn’t.