Off-and-on trying out an account over at @tal@oleo.cafe due to scraping bots bogging down lemmy.today to the point of near-unusability.

  • 23 Posts
  • 1.62K Comments
Joined 3 years ago
cake
Cake day: October 4th, 2023

help-circle


  • Similar to HBM, HBF relies on multiple memory dies that have been stacked together, but instead of DRAM, it utilizes NAND flash to increase storage capacity.

    What’s the lifetime on the flash memory in such a setup? I mean, if you’re constantly shoveling 3TB/sec into said flash memory, even if you have a lot of memory behind that interface, I’d think that it’d have a limited life.

    thinks

    Maybe if the stuff is rarely-written? Like, say you use HBF for static data that you mostly just read, like the model edge weights, and HBM-accessed DRAM just for the dynamic stuff?

    reads more

    Oh. Maybe this is really more a replacement for M.2 or whatever is currently used for flash on compute servers, not as an HBM alternative:

    Its primary role will be to complement capacity limits rather than outright replace HBM. LLMs can be processed through HBM, which is immediately required for computing, with HBF storing data in a larger capacity.

    Might eliminate the need to load a model from flash to DRAM, if it can just be used directly from flash.

    considers

    That might legitimately reduce demand for DRAM. Like, a lot of AI DRAM usage is (presently, though might change for more-advances AI) for data that doesn’t change much. Like, you’re only putting it in DRAM so that the parallel compute hardware has fast access to it, not because it needs to be written to much.

    EDIT: It also might provide parallel compute manufacturers a way to price-discriminate between more-price-sensitive GPU (gaming) users and AI (often much less price-sensitive) users via a route other than capping on-card DRAM for gaming users. It’d kind of suck for gaming users if texture memory gets capped because GPU makers don’t want to cannibalize their AI market. If you make your parallel compute cards have a ton of onboard flash, that’s something that gaming users don’t care about — they need their memory to be mutable — but AI users do.


  • Honestly, GNU/Linux isn’t better today from a user standpoint. I mean, Linux has the technical subsystems to sandbox software, yes — like, the move to Wayland makes isolating graphical software possible, where X11 imposed major limitations on one’s ability to do that. Various containerizing systems exist. But the typical software package distributed via Steam, say, in 2026, can see the filesystem as a whole.

    Like, I can hack something up with something like firejail using that functionality that may-or-may-not work for a given game on a given system, but that’s not a real, universal solution for users. My mother is not going to do that.

    Mobile OSes at least isolate most apps from most of the filesystem and some sensors, and provide some level of reasonably-accessible transparency into what apps can do. They still have their own issues that annoy me, like software normally being able to phone home with what information it does get. But that’s still way more isolation than a user who is playing a video game on GNU/Linux is getting.

    Global, always-generally-available connectivity brought us a lot of nice things, but it’s also come with a lot of not-so-great things, and some of the not-so-great things is a loss of privacy and a loss of control over the things that we own. :-(



  • I mean, that’s really true of products in general.

    I think that there are some real consumer law issues to answer where someone buys a product and then a manufacturer can control the product subsequent to the purchase. Like, say I buy a BMW with the expectation that I am not going to be seeing ads, based on the way it acts at the time that I bought it. At that point, I’m locked into owning that BMW. Then the manufacturer degrades my experience, maybe to the point where I no longer consider the vehicle to be the one I wanted.

    Like, what is my remedy here? If the vehicle has OTA updates, I can never know what it’s going to be doing down the line, so I can’t make an informed decision. Having informed consumers is one of the basic requirements for markets to be efficient.

    Maybe I could say “Well, that’s just a case of let the buyer beware. We’ll rely on reputation…some auto manufacturers will piss off consumers and those will be avoided”. But…if someone doesn’t buy cars that frequently, that’s a long iteration cycle.

    I’m actually more concerned about video games. Like, if I’m a publisher, once I sell a video game, I don’t normally have more revenue coming in from it. But if I do have the ability to update that video game down the line. And I can update it to go harvesting user data, which turns it into a revenue stream. A lot of video game publishers go defunct on a regular basis or sell IP or whatnot, so there, even the “rely on reputation” route is more questionable.






  • It’s absolutely worth requesting your data to be deleted regardless of where you live by claiming to live in California…

    I do think it’s possible that some of them won’t delete your data upon request, failing to comply with the law

    That’s not failure to comply with the law if you don’t actually live in California.

    People have a legal location of residence in the US.

    If you want to establish legal residency in a state, you’re typically looking at doing something like spending the majority of the year there.

    EDIT: I’d also be pretty confident, though the article doesn’t talk about it, that California won’t normally have jurisdiction for California state law unless a data broker is doing business in California, and that that will also be a constraining factor. Like, if a data broker company is only doing business in, say, Russia, the US will not enforce rulings against them regarding California state law in general.






  • There used to be a convention of having authors who would, at least occasionally, write deliberately-enraging opinion articles in magazines. In my experience, they were typically at the end of magazines. Maybe not outright wrong articles, but they’d make statements that many readers of the magazine would object to.

    The idea, as I understand it, was to — and this was before social media, in the Internet-based sense of the word, developed a focus on this — drive engagement. People would write letters to the editor complaining and arguing against it, and then the magazine could print some of these in the next issue in the letters section.

    John C. Dvorak was the most-prominent example of this that I recall — he put articles in a few computer magazines — and was notable in that I recall him publicly-admitting on one occasion that he did this, that it wasn’t just that he happened to have controversial opinions.

    Huh. Looking at his WP article, it looks like he just died last week.

    Anyway, my point is that I could believe that publications might still have authors who do this sort of thing.




  • We can desalinate all the water we want in California — we already have a bunch of desalination facilities, and can build those out as far as need be — but desalinated water isn’t as cheap as already-fresh water. That’s mostly an annoyance for, say, residential use. But it’s harder to competitively do agriculture on desalinated water. Israel has done some limited agriculture on desalinated water, but farmers are not generally going to be okay with that as an option. Most agriculture uses a lot of water.

    searches

    Someone ran the numbers to see roughly what it would cost if we did only desalinated water for everyone in the US.

    https://hannahritchie.substack.com/p/how-much-energy-does-desalinisation

    Producing enough drinking water for someone — assuming 3 litres per day — costs just $2.30 for the entire year. That’s less than the cost of a single bottle of water in many countries.

    We actually use way more water than we do for drinking — we’re pretty prolific with water to do things like lawns.

    If the average person in the United States uses 310 litres of water per day for domestic uses, it would cost them $0.42 per day. Or $154 per year.

    We’d probably want to conserve more nationally in such a scenario (Californians use less than the national average). But even with no conservation, it’s very much doable.

    It’s a cost that we’d rather not pay if we don’t have to, as a society, but we certainly are able to do so for residential needs.

    But if there isn’t enough freshwater to do agriculture, then who gets the freshwater determines which farmers go out of business (or at least have to shift to something else) and which get to keep operating.