I think theres a government organizational aspect, that in the US the police forces are often very small. If the forces we’re combining into larger units the specialization becomes economical.
As an example, in the state of New South Wales in Australia, its 1 police force organization for the whole state (8 million people)
That’s certainly one possible way to address, at least when considering rural sheriffs or small-town police forces. But that kind of suggestion starts making people feel pretty uncomfortable in the US. Local control is better at convincing people that those empowered to police in their communities are accountable to local voters.
As with anything, of course it’s going to be partisan, too. NYC leftists don’t want Albany dictating how their police operate, and rural Californians don’t want the uniparty government in Sacramento controlling theirs.
Yeah, that is the whole point. It was never going to be a clean cut. "Works in my lab" isn't good enough for real world.
The issue isn't that it wasn't planned properly, the issue is that the real world wasn't taken into consideration by people who either worked for the likes of Google who were aching for a globally unique identifier per device or just delusional about how much we can change in real world.
> Yeah, that is the whole point. It was never going to be a clean cut.
As predicted:
We believe that it is not possible to have a "flag-day" form of
transition in which all hosts and routers must change over at
once. The size, complexity, and distributed administration of the
Internet make such a cutover impossible.
Rather, IPng will need to co-exist with IPv4 for some period of
time. There are a number of ways to achieve this co-existence
such as requiring hosts to support two stacks, converting between
protocols, or using backward compatible extensions to IPv4. Each
scheme has its strengths and weaknesses, which have to be weighed.
Furthermore, we note that, in all probability, there will be IPv4
hosts on the Internet effectively forever. IPng must provide
mechanisms to allow these hosts to communicate, even after IPng
has become the dominant network layer protocol in the Internet.
Creating an IPng was always going to be complicated:
So it's a matter of mathematical and physical fact that to expand
the address size, you must change the protocol, and that means
[three] things immediately:
You have to change the version number.
You have to add new code to handle the new version.
[…]
You need a coexistence technique so that updated systems,
with the new protocol, can connect to old systems that know
nothing of the new protocol.
Two minutes of thought show that this third requirement has only
two solutions:
(3A) Dual stack, in which the new machines speak both
the old (IPv4) and new (IPng) protocol.
(3B) Translation, in which something translates addresses
between the old and new protocols.
It was never going to be a clean cut, which is why we didn't design it for a clean cut and instead developed a bunch of approaches to transitioning to it that deal with the real-world problems of the transition.
What more do you want from it?
What could they have possibly done differently to make you happy with it?
> people who either worked for the likes of Google who were aching for a globally unique identifier per device
v6 doesn't give you globally unique device identifiers. Devices get IPs from the network in v6, just like they do in v4. You're either thinking of MAC addresses or perhaps things like HIP (https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/html/rfc7401). I guess there is Mobile IPv6 which allows you to take your address to another network, but then there's also privacy extensions which prevent your machine from using the same IP for very long, so it's still not a unique identifier for your device.
> The issue isn't that it wasn't planned properly, the issue is that the real world wasn't taken into consideration by people who either worked for the likes of Google who were aching for a globally unique identifier per device or just delusional about how much we can change in real world.
All this complaining and not so much as a single hint or even belief that there's a better solution.
I suppose we could read into the complaint some kind of faith that one does exist, but since nobody has found it yet, the faith is a little uncompelling so far.
You can order the SXM carrier boards on eBay/Alibaba today.
> You wouldn’t repurpose these for home gaming, it would still be for llms
When small businesses, home-labbers and prosumers have cheap access to potent GPUs, there will be a Cambrian explosion of grassroots creativity and innovation in areas that are "beneath" AI labs expansive ambitions; I want to see the OBS-equivalent of LLMs. Hell, I'd love to see what some broke artist can do with OBS, an H100, and an open video model.
Good luck powering a 400kw rack in your basement, if you are looking to do frontier model type stuff. Just a single machine can run in the 150kw range these days for the less exotic stuff.
It can certainly be parted out with proper motivation but it’s going to take a whole new ecosystem to support these in your typical home lab. Even then 20-30kw slices are electric car level energy consumers.
> Good luck powering a 400kw rack in your basement
Wut? Open-weight models already exist and don't need a cottage industry.
I'd gamble on 1 million curious people with 1 SoTA GPU each over one AIaaS lab or company with 1M GPUs when it comes to developing delightful things and experiences. We still don't know what small, specialized models can do because AI labs only ship products that could justify the trillions invested so far. With a single Nvidia A100, I have trained small models that beat the brakes off "SoTA" models in niche areas (estimated TAM is <10M people, world wide) - the "Bitter Truth" doesn't apply to the long tail.
Indeed, also even the air cooled ones are designed for high static pressure fans (ie small fans that spin at really high RPMs). Those fans are really really loud.
You can just mod them to run on consumer fans that are designed to spin much slower but have higher diameter
reply