Sauron

yes

7 hours ago, Gat Pelsinger said:

Yes I see that there are more services and stuff. I can already see that in front of my eyes. But honestly, what extra functionality do they provide? I mean I tried Debian and Arch with a DE (I only use i3wm) and my experience was quite similar to Pop/Mint/Ubuntu/Manjaro. I mean sure, you got some features like signing in into your google account in the OS, some nice GUI based package managers, easy updates, some OS related custom packages, and a bit of stuff that is pre-configured. Am I missing more or that's about it? Those still don't justify how heavy these distros are.

What do you expect me to give you? A full list of every service that comes preinstalled in Ubuntu and what they do?

systemctl list-units --type=service

just compare the two and look up what the extra services do. And it's certainly not the google account integration that is slowing down your boot, if it really is slow. I haven't used Ubuntu in a while but I don't remember it ever being particularly slow.

7 hours ago, Gat Pelsinger said:

(I only use i3wm)

i3 is a window manager, not a desktop environment. It doesn't ship with applets, icon sets, animations, themes, settings menus, a login screen, launchers or anything of the sort, plus some preinstalled utilities and variety programs. DEs come with all of those and some extras for user choice, because they have to account for most users. Try pulling down the entire plasma metapackage and see if your system doesn't become just as "heavy" as manjaro.

There's no such thing as a "higher level distro", what you're referring to are derivatives. The point of them varies but generally they spawn when a group of people like a given distribution, but want to change a few things. For example manjaro is for people who generally like using Arch, but prefer a less involved installation process and having some sensible defaults out of the box. Artix is mostly Arch but without systemd. And so on.

2 hours ago, Gat Pelsinger said:

because Mint is based on Ubuntu which is based on Debian.

Ubuntu has almost nothing to do with Debian anymore, it's not just Debian with a nice installer. Mint is an effort to have either of those distros with an out of the box light and convenient desktop... maybe it's not to your taste but saying it has no reason to exist seems a little much.

2 hours ago, Gat Pelsinger said:

I mean we all know how Pop OS went for Linus. I know he is a guy who is scared of the terminal but that is what these higher level distros are about and they sometimes can fail.

Linus was trying to run non-native software through a compatibility layer, using a distribution that is not that widely used (mainly because it's designed by a manufacturers specifically for their hardware) and expecting it to magically work without a hitch. He said at the time that this just indicates Linux wasn't ready for mainstream gaming, and you know what? I agree - if you want to run windows games without issues then just use windows, duh. But I wouldn't blame that on Linux or pop_os... it's just an unrealistic expectation.

Personally I wouldn't recommend pop_os over Ubuntu if you don't have a system76 system for a variety of reasons, but it doesn't mean pop_os has no reason to exist. On system76 hardware it's probably a very smooth experience.

2 hours ago, Gat Pelsinger said:

I am not stating anything, this is a post on a forum, not a blog. I just want to know if my perception is correct or am I wrong?

Perception isn't objective so it's never really right or wrong... but I will say you tend to have strong opinions about things you don't necessarily understand very well.

1 hour ago, Gat Pelsinger said:

How hard is it to sudo apt install the Nvidia driver?

You also have to add the extra repository, and either way if the driver isn't present in the installer you might be stuck with a black screen before you even get started. That's increasingly rare because the foss drivers have gotten better, but it does happen at times.

1 hour ago, Gat Pelsinger said:

I see, but by what all I saw, there is way more to it than just graphical installers. That's something I want to know. Because just adding a GUI installer doesn't hammer your boot time and make your OS much heavier. Like there is a lot of other things that are going on but honestly I can't even make them out.

Yeah, there's more to these distributions than just taking debian or arch and adding a graphical installer... lots of preinstalled services that are enabled by default, for example. If you use arch, try counting how many systemd services you have enabled since first installation just to get a usable desktop...

I'm against copyright as a concept so I don't really care in that sense. For much the same reason I don't think this is targeting the right thing; make the models be public, not the training data.

1 hour ago, rjtyler1 said:

Hi Sauron, would you suggest rolling the driver back to an earlier version?

I doubt that's the issue, but it can't hurt to try. You can also check to see if there's a newer beta driver available from nvidia.

1 minute ago, rjtyler1 said:

He also tried to claim that a game crash will damage hardware. That is something that I have never heard happening in my 50+ years of being on this earth.

Impossible

2 minutes ago, rjtyler1 said:

I find it questionable that a top line GPU of the 30 series will have trouble running a game that can run on my Ally or my Surface using an integrated GPU cannot run on my desktop. 

The only situation where I could see the GPU being the problem would be a driver bug or a defective vram block. Usually the latter wouldn't cause a full game crash though, just artifacting.

1 minute ago, Dracarris said:

Excuse me that I don't put several decades of SW/HW co-design and design of custom AI accelerators into a forum post. The former part is part of my job and you can either trust me that one can achieve improvements in energy efficiency for a given task of 10x or more, or read some academic papers about the matter, or simply stay ignorant and claim that good engineering will only change the outcome a little and all that matters is slapping a brick-style battery in there.

If anyone here is putting words in people's mouths it's you - I never said AI accelerators don't or can't exist, or that they aren't faster than non custom hardware. Your argument from the start, however, was that Apple "will just figure it out" because they have "a track record":

23 hours ago, Dracarris said:

I think Apples track record shows that we can rely on them figuring out the energy efficiency part just fine.

so excuse me if I don't take your backtracking from this position particularly seriously.

How about you show me any indication that a purpose built NN accelerator can run a network like the one in the article at a sufficient speed for interactive tasks while using an amount of energy that is reasonable for a phone? If you have expertise in the field maybe you could have lead with that, rather than handwaving away the concern with a "they'll figure it out because Apple"

12 minutes ago, Dracarris said:

Under what conditions? On paper? A quick Google search says the X has 11hours or 660min of battery life, and not 560 as claimed in your graph.

I'm using the graph for comparisons with itself and other stats from the same source. I'm not interested in specific numbers because of course these stats depend on the type of workload. All I'm talking about is relative performance; whatever these tests were, the X had worse performance in them than the 6/s and vastly lower than, say, a 13 or 14.

14 minutes ago, Dracarris said:

So even if the competition has such better battery life as you claim, I honestly don't give a flycing fuck if a 6.5year old phone can easily bring me through the day and I'd rather take a smaller and lighter phone.

Anecdote, irrelevant. The point being argued is whether iphone battery life is consistent (it isn't) and consistently better than competitors (it also isn't). I don't care if you personally thought it was enough.

18 minutes ago, Dracarris said:

That's 58 to 75h of battery life, or approx 3 days.

...no it's not...? 1800 minutes is 30 hours...

23 minutes ago, Dracarris said:

I really doubt that all these phones were tested in the same way as the iphones in the other graph

It's the same source so... why would you assume that? Are you just so invested in iphones having a better battery life that you'll ignore data to the contrary?

24 minutes ago, Dracarris said:

And with all that said, it's still almost solely peeps with Android phones that I constantly see charging their phones while sitting at their desk at work or always having a charger or power bank with them. My personal anecdotal evidence for sure, but still a bit strange IMHO.

Yeah, it is just your personal anecdotal impression, so I'll just ignore it. Maybe you don't do that but a lot of people, myself included, keep their phones under charge while at their desk even when they're not low on battery - because why not?

Not to mention, it's not like all android phones have equally amazing battery life, and I never argued as much. The android market is vast and diverse, offering models across all price ranges and of varying quality. All I'm saying is that compared to some of the most popular competitors, iphone battery life is not especially impressive and is really bad in some models.

29 minutes ago, Dracarris said:

Not at all. Try reading my replies properly. I never even touched the word magic, it's just the typical scheme of putting those words in mouths of people that remotely speak positive about an Apple product.

I'm saying your usage of the word "engineering" is interchangeable with magic, because you throw it out as a thought terminating clichè. You can't just say "engineering" will solve a problem without explaining how it might do that.

If you say a bridge can't hold because the beams are too thin, I can't just say "engineering" will make it work and expect you to believe me. I'd at least have to show you how the beams might be made stronger, or how adding cables would make them sufficient, or something like that. The same goes here. I'm not even saying it's impossible to make hardware that can run this in a way that doesn't significantly impact battery life, but you haven't really made an argument for the opposite.

14 minutes ago, Dracarris said:

Well unfortunately, Apple cannot design such specialized acceleration hardware in-house, right.

It may not even be currently possible to make it that efficient, engineering is not magic as you said. Maybe they can do it, maybe not - I only take issue with people just assuming they can as if by magic.

16 minutes ago, Dracarris said:

That statista statistics is not accessible without a subscription.

I

Here you go, I don't have a subscription so I'm not sure what's going on on your end.

25 minutes ago, Dracarris said:

the fact you are still referring to models as old as the 8 and even the infamous 6S is showing.

I referred to models as recent as the Xs and 12...

28 minutes ago, Dracarris said:

Still far from abysmal performance as you try to paint it

Less than half the battery life as competitors and even other models from the same company is abysmal in my eyes.

I'm sure it's fine for many use cases, but comparatively it's terrible and Apple seems to agree, as evidenced by the camel case.

18 minutes ago, Dracarris said:

And I personally fully support the strategy of properly optimizing the phone instead of just slapping in a 25Wh battery, making it cookable via ultra-turbo fast charging plus-ultra (tm) and calling it a day.

Again you're acting as though optimization is magic. If the phone is doing things then it will consume battery charge, this is just physics; you can make it a bit more efficient by not running pointless operations but it's not like android phones don't do that... aside from poorly made apps, which are not platform specific, there's only so much you can do in software if you want the device to carry out a given task. You can clearly see just across iphones how much of a difference simply having a larger battery makes. Unless you're about to argue that the software on the Xs was just particularly unoptimized, despite running many of the same iOS versions as other models that came out shortly before and after.

34 minutes ago, Dracarris said:

And, btw, battery life per mWh is a thing, and so is a less or more optimized SW/HW stack. It's not magic, it's engineering.

The hardware is kind of beside the point since we're comparing software processes on the same device. Obviously more efficient hardware will draw comparatively less battery power, but it will still be proportionally constrained by the capacity of the battery itself.

The question here is whether running an LLM like this won't draw significantly more power (on the same device of course) compared to a more constrained, but arguably more than adequate, assistant chatbot. And my impression is that no amount of "engineering" will significantly change that ratio, because there just isn't much you can do in terms of software optimization to reduce that workload. Maybe with specialized hardware acceleration the difference won't be that large, but it remains to be seen and it's certainly not a given as you seem to imply.

45 minutes ago, Dracarris said:

That's advanced cherry-picking on your end, congrats. How old is the iphone shown in this picture? Battery life has been anything but hit or miss for many many years.

Here, have a graph of battery life by generation:

https://www.statista.com/statistics/1308110/iphone-battery-life-comparison-by-model/

you'll notice that while overall the trend has been increasing (mainly due to the batteries just getting larger, once apple got over the obsession with hyperthin phones and tiny screens) it varies year by year, with the 12 for example having a significantly shorter battery life than the 11, and notably abysmal performances from SE models and some top end ones even long after the example I gave - in fact, the 8, X and Xs had even worse battery lives than the 6 and 6s, which spawned the camel back battery cover.

6 hours ago, hishnash said:

Apple solution for this over the years has been to let devs (and the OS) push as much heavy work to be async dispatch to later when the user has the device attached to power (overnight charging etc)

doesn't work for interactive tasks

6 hours ago, hishnash said:

I would not at all be surprised to see some form of LLM slicing that uses the on device data to do re-informent training and model reduction when charging so that the model that runs on demand is tiny but still has the needed user data within it.  Apple have been encouraging devs to do this for the last few years already and they do this for the photo ML workloads they have. 

afaik that's not really a thing you can do... if there's retraining involved it can be done asynchronously but the meat of the operation would still be the inference of a response, which you can't get from just cutting down the model (if we knew which specific parts of the network are needed to answer specific types of question this would be a whole lot easier...).

To be fair I'm not specialized in neural networks so maybe it's possible and I just don't know about it.

1 hour ago, StDragon said:

That was an issue, but primarily due to 3rd party apps such as Facebook and WeChat running in the background consuming CPU cycles and thus battery. iOS itself wasn't the problem.

iOS was not the problem, the insufficient battery size was. Apple hardware and software is not magic, if the battery is too small you'll get bad battery life and, if you overuse the hardware by running heavy LLMs, that battery life will be shortened further.

9 minutes ago, jagdtigger said:

I wouldnt say never, they just waiting for the frogs to get slowly boiled.........

patents run out eventually

On 4/5/2024 at 6:21 PM, BrandonTech.05 said:

Even the fact that they want this patented is pretty uncomfy to me. Unless the technology literally just notices that the image isn't changing. I'm just worried they might just happen to gather other info from the image. 

there was a patent a while back about a tv that would require you to say the company name out loud to skip advertisements. that never materialized.

5 hours ago, Dracarris said:

I think Apples track record shows that we can rely on them figuring out the energy efficiency part just fine.

Uhhh... not really. Battery life has been largely hit-or-miss on iDevices, as exemplified by this utter monstrosity:

On 4/4/2024 at 2:47 PM, 05032-Mendicant-Bias said:

If the researchers aren't overselling their models, it's an enormous improvement in performance/parameters, so much that the model can feasibly run locally using neural engine acceleration within smartphones power and ram limitations.

This is likely still not desirable since you'd still be working with a limited battery life. It would certainly save a lot of money for the service provider though.

It's probably fine, but you should probably have complained upon receiving the delivery in this state.

7 minutes ago, Venomblast500 said:

is there any way I can test it to make sure it's still fully functional?

Just put it in a pc?

17 hours ago, MrSpaceCake said:

according to a recent patent filing.

Just because they filed a patent doesn't mean they plan on doing it. A lot of patents are filed just to prevent competitors from using the idea or "just in case" they want to use it in the future.

18 hours ago, RONOTHAN## said:

Whether or not that's a good thing is up for debate. XMP isn't 100% reliable, and since a lot of the "Average Joes" that OP is talking about aren't going to want or even know how to troubleshoot a non-functional XMP and wondering why their system is just randomly blue screening, not having a message like that will likely save them quite a bit of customer service requests. 

...which leads into the point that there's generally a reason these things are they way they are. As you said, off-the-shelf components are intended to work with a variety of other parts and manufacturers would (understandably) rather stick to safe defaults than deal with a flood of "incompetent" customers complaining that their device didn't work out of the box, despite being advertised as compatible with the rest of their setup. I would wager most of these users also prefer this arrangement.

It's a bit like cars - most people use their car to commute and don't care that they could theoretically get 10% more hp by tweaking the fuel injector settings, with a slight chance of being left with a non functioning car in the process...

On 3/22/2024 at 10:28 PM, bizzehdee said:

This would have been hard to find, it would have taken a lot of people, a lot of time, specifically looking for this sort of thing to find it. To dedicate that time to finding this, means that it is worth the time to find this, showing that the Apple Silicon chips are now popular enough in the general public to warrant somebody looking for this.

Not necessarily, there are people whose job it is to do this sort of research as well as bug bounties by Apple and others to incentivize them. Not that I think apple silicon macs are unpopular, just that this isn't really an indication of either.

34 minutes ago, IAmAndre said:

I don't find this particularly relevant. The Intel CPU is still more powerful and MUCH cheaper than the Mac Pro. Since none of them relies on a battery, it would take forever for the energy cost savings to make up for the actual price of the hardware. I would still consider Intel but more particularly AMD as the better option on the desktop side.

Not to mention the ability to expand your memory.

On 3/29/2024 at 2:26 AM, Donut417 said:

Yeah not everyone has an state ID, especially at that age. What are you suppose to do? Place the ID on a fucking scanner and send them a picture? ID's can be faked. So even then they have no way of knowing if its valid.

Let alone prove the owner of said ID card is actually the one signing up for the service.

34 minutes ago, manikyath said:

beyond that.. this also shows the painful reality of ecosystems like arch linux, as they essentially have no method to protect against this.

I disagree, packages go through validation and testing before they're thrown into the repos and this didn't just randomly occur because of a single malicious commit by a random contributor. Clearly there was long standing malicious intent behind this and collaboration from the upstream developers; hypothetically this could have been done with a "bugfix" of an older release, which could have made its way into any distribution.

Moreover Arch was not affected, so it's possible that if the backdoor had been active in the Arch build it would have been caught by the Arch maintainers - we just can't know for sure. Debian Sid and Fedora Rawhide are considered testing distributions so they don't have the same safeguards as mainline Arch - if you want that experience on Arch you need to look at the testing repo.

11 hours ago, manikyath said:

while this is a potentially very big backdoor.. it seems that humanity had some karma saved up, and a microsoft dev of all people just happened upon the backdoor while working on a dev build.

Microsoft has a lot of people working on various Linux related projects (and Linux itself) so this isn't that weird.

23 minutes ago, Mark Kaine said:

this isn't about anonymity tho, its about under age people accessing media that's not meant for them (per the law)

 

you cant just say "dont lie" problem solved lol. 

Yes I can, who says it needs to be law? Does the law prohibit you from showing age inappropriate movies to kids? There are warnings and labels, the rest falls under parenting. If you don't know your kids are on tiktok or whatever, you're a shit parent... but that's it.

16 minutes ago, Mark Kaine said:

*everyone* gets a code at birth (an online pass if you will) highly encrypted,  cant be read by websites other than confirming certain information  - such as age.

Except kids could just ask their parents, or their friends, for their code. If it's not tied to your online identity it just wouldn't work to do what this is trying to achieve. Just think of systems like PGP... you can just give away your key if you want to.

19 minutes ago, Mark Kaine said:

sure that could be abused, but it would still be much better than what we have now (literally nothing) it would also make prosecution of cetain crimes much easier...

What we have now is simply not giving your 10 yo a smartphone if you don't think they can use it responsibly. Much better success rate than anything involving ID.

Either way the system you propose is not the one being implemented, so that's neither here nor there.

20 minutes ago, Mark Kaine said:

and also long-term i don't think this could be even abused much... its about the equivalent of parents buying high percentage alcohol for their kids, sure it happens,  but does it happen often? hell, nah. 

Specifically for their children, no... but having it around the house where the kids can reach it, or having their older siblings sneak it in? All the time. In fact, forget alcohol, this is a known phenomenon with guns. I wonder what mr. DeSantis would say if someone proposed restrictions on gun ownership for families with children...

Not to mention a lot of people don't, and still wouldn't if it were made illegal, see social media as comparably dangerous to vodka (for kids).

2 hours ago, BrandonTech.05 said:

If you don't feel comfortable sharing your age it is your choice to not use social media though...

I can share my age, but maybe I'd rather not share other identifying information like, you know, my name and address. Like on this forum, for example. Just because you don't care about privacy (or maybe you do? I doubt BrandonTech is your full legal name...) doesn't mean others don't. Even if I AM willing to use my real name on a social media site I may not want to have to prove it's actually me. In some places (namely florida...) having certain statements tied back to you with absolute certainty may even have you retroactively prosecuted by the state, for things you did that weren't crimes at the time or place you did them.

1 hour ago, Mark Kaine said:

lol no? it means the law must be followed then instead of everyone (including websites) just ignoring it.

 

repeated violations should lead to closure of said websites obviously too. 

Websites don't ignore it, they put the onus on you not to lie. If that's not enough for you, maybe you should put in some effort and actually parent your spawn... and if you are willing to accept them having a social media presence, why should the state of florida come in and stop them?

Kids don't want to be anonymous on social media anyway, which I'd argue is part of the problem with modern online interactions, certainly not the solution.

Anonymity protects you, especially as a child. It means you can just log off and stop engaging if you get harassed or bullied, without lasting real life consequences. It means you can't be as easily targeted by predators.

The result of laws like this (and we have a real life example in the UK trying to enforce personal identification to access porn sites) is that 18 year olds will just create and sell accounts to minors. It doesn't work and it's a detriment to people's privacy and security.

1 hour ago, Mark Kaine said:

nope. anonymity is why social media is so toxic.  

This is demonstrably not true.

https://theconversation.com/online-anonymity-study-found-stable-pseudonyms-created-a-more-civil-environment-than-real-user-names-171374

Not that you couldn't just see that by the sheer number of buffoons spewing the most inane bullshit and dogpiling anything that moves, under their full name.