At some point you have to say "Is not having it better than having it?" Where's your dude, today, who's gonna code this? If it were gone happen, it wouldve.
> This is the supply that a sufficiently powerful quantum attacker could steal by inverting ECDSA/Schnorr signatures
While I only read approximately one more sentence than you did of tfa, I would also like to know what "sufficiently powerful" means and why we don't want public keys to be public
It's well known that people veer when they walk. That's a reason why people die in the wilderness after they get lost, because they walk around in circles going no where
Google is clearly gimping the gemma models. There is a 122b gemma 4 that was never released, but was a part of the announcement tweet. Plus they weren't going to release MTP until people figured out they're running it on the pixels
I dunno about that. Gemma 4 is probably the best model for general self-hosted use for almost everyone that doesn't have a data center in their basement. They didn't have to release it at all, and they didn't have to release speculative decoding drafters, and they didn't have to release the QAT version of the models that makes the 4-bit quantization perform very close to the bigger versions, and can run in 32GB. I'd love a 122B version of it, and I didn't realize they'd ever announced one was coming (though I remember there being speculation about it). But, also, I'm happy they're doing so much with it. They've got all the sizes covered, it has great prose for an LLM, better prose than even most larger models, it's got great audio and vision, and broad language support. As self-hosted general purpose models go, it's the total package.
Qwen 3.6 is maybe better for code (though I'm beginning to think otherwise after some benchmarking I've been doing, where Gemma 4 has been overperforming expectations), but for just about anything else, Gemma 4 is the one.
If they're gimping it, why is nobody else making a better one that small?
But they didn't reveal the existence of ufo's in any sense that anyone would ever be interested.
Especially because the ufo's they did "reveal" have always been known and acknowledged. The term ufo has always been a term of art, stolen by conspiracy theorists. What's been revealed has strengthened the term of art, not the conspiracy theorists. Why would anyone be interested in more of the same?
I honestly don't get how you can complain about no value ai generated content (which this isn't). While you yourself espouse and contribute no value peanut gallery bullshit as if it's ok simply because you're human.
Gamesmanship in soccer is not more egregious than in say basketball. If you look at the nonsense ronnie coleman did in his day you wouldn't be complaining about soccer players
> It's not a hill to die on, especially because it's cringe to watch you crucify yourself
It absolutely is a hill to die on, because that is how fascism always starts and escalates. It's "tiny" and "petty" stuff that gets done first - think of the "Gulf of Mexico" renaming - and when that does not provoke meaningful resistance, the fascists see that as a sign to tighten the ratchet. And rather sooner than later, we see the East Wing of the White House torn down, dozens of people dead in ICE custody and Trump creating slush funds worth billions of dollars.
You can't present these two passages as if they're the same voice. It's two different authors so the point that there exists multiple points in the Bible is a non-sequitur. It is very clear that the Ezekiel quote is aspirational because we do know a) what the levant was like then & b) what Jewish law already said and c) what Ezekiel is saying. The fact that you personally don't know invalidates nothing, and that fact that you tried to present b) as if it's a 1:1 cancellation is just insane when Ezekiel already knows and is responding to those words.
Again I repeat that I did not share anything about voice, invalidations, my personal knowledge/actions (which you've deemed insanity), or cancellation... I am only feebly attempting to ensure that references to this topic from the Bible are considered alongside references in the Bible to a similar topic from another perspective.
I appreciate your filling in additional justification for the OP's initial intro. Thanks for sharing your understanding of the passages though there may be a slim chance your understanding of me is a bit lacking while you've chosen to disregard the HN guidelines.
reply