best inference silicon in the world generally or specialized to smaller models/edge?

Not even an Apple fan, but from what I've been testing with for my dev use case (only up to 14b) it absolutely rocks for general models.

That I can absolutely believe but the big competition is in enterprise gpt-5-size models.

What would be the evolutionary advantage of this? I know nothing about biology so I'm struggling to see the use of such a network. Some kind of synchronization?

IIRC, communication of threats, exchange of rarer nutrients (this is the main symbiosis trees have with the mycelium anyway), perhaps from healthy trees to needy trees. Solething like that? If I find a source I'll edit this comment.

edit: turns out the Wikipedia page is extensive.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mycorrhizal_network?wprov=sfla...

yes but there could conceivably be better tricks to discover

> There are no probability distributions over possible states when there is perfect knowledge of the state.

I know very little about physics but I thought that the leading interpretations of quantum physics say that the probability distribution is all we can know about a system. The entropy is not due to due to a lack of information about the quantum state, but because the outcomes are inherently stochastic?

Entropy is about the state - not about “outcomes”.

“All we can know” is the precise state - at least in principle - and entropy is zero in that case.

It sounds like you're talking about information entropy which to my understanding is analogue to but not the same as entropy in physics?

It pretty much is the same, except that entropy in physics usually has a constant in front of it.

America got richer and outgrew the phase where tons of factory jobs made sense. It seems pretty clear to me that well-paying manufacturing job in developed countries were the product of a particular moment in time where poorer countries couldn't do it yet. Now they can. It was never going to last.

I live in NJ and people often make a lot of noise every time there's a report of people moving out of NJ because of high taxes and high housing costs (yet NJ's overall population has increased).

To me, it makes sense: NJ is a place where you live to make a high salary (proximity to NYC and Philadelphia) and raise a family (very good public school systems as a result of those high taxes). When you no longer have a need for those circumstances, you move.

Likewise, the US is not a great place for certain types of manufacturing because the labor and raw material supply chain simply isn't there. Why not focus on the things that we are good at instead?

It was never going to last if the US allowed for very low cost imports from those countries. This is literally one of the largest points of tariffs - protecting domestic manufacturing. We could have had high tariffs the whole time and offshoring would have been much less pronounced. I'm not saying that would have been a net positive, but to say it would never last is only true under certain circumstances.

You were still going to lose export markets as international competition grew, and you were still going to shift to higher value-added service jobs as the economy developed.

The question was about what happens in other cases.

to understand what they said, or to understand a proof of why it would be true?

any stats class would be enough to understand what they said

I know what all these words mean, it "makes sense" to me in the sense that I read it and I think "ok.." but I wouldn't have the slightest idea how to use this to get weighted random samples or "generate event times."

So I guess I "understand it" in the sense that it doesn't sound like a foreign language, but I can't apply it in any meaningful way.

i thought it was really cool when it picked up the grapes by the vine

edit: it didn't.

Here it looks like its squeezing a grape instead: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=HyQs2OAIf-I&t=43s Bit hard to tell whether it remained intact.

The leaf on the darker grapes looks like a fabric leaf, I'd kinda bet they're all fake for these demos / testing.

Don't need the robot to smash a grape when we can use a fake grape that won't smash.

The bananas are clearly plastic and make a "doink" nose when dropped into the bowl.

Haha show the whole room and work either on a concrete floor or a transparent table.

This video reeks of the same shenanigans as perpetual motion machine videos.

welp i guess i should get my sight checked

And how it just dropped the grapes, as well as the banana. If they were real fruits, you wouldn't want that to happen.

I remember a cartoon where a quality inspection guy smashes bananas with a "certified quality" stamp before they go into packaging.

well not if the short matches the amount you hold in tesla stock through the ETF right?

You'd want to have cash on hand to cover your short position or you risk having to sell (potentially a lot of) your ETF to cover, which loses out on future whole-market upside. Still seems risky to me.

Or am I thinking about it wrong?

I definitely don't know much about finance, but a short is essentially being obliged to sell a position at a future date, right? You match your short position against the fraction of your ETF which is in TSLA, such that you are obliged to sell in the future exactly as many TSLA shares as you indirectly own through the ETF. This way you do not need cash on hand, because you can sell a portion of your ETF to pay off the short.

Theoretically it's not risky because in the scenario that the short becomes expensive, TSLA has gone up the and in turn TSLA has made your ETF appreciate the same amount that you owe due to the short, and vice versa if it goes down.

> TSLA has made your ETF appreciate the same amount

That's no guarantee. I mean, yes, the ETF price reflects its proportion of Tesla stock, but the market as a whole might have declined - even in bear markets some individual stocks appreciate.

Investing in ETFs is a long-term, counter-cyclical strategy. Dips are when you want to buy ETFs, not when you want to be forced to sell them because you took a short that failed to pay off. If you have to do that then you're not only selling the Tesla within your ETF, but also the future upside of all the other stocks in the fund. Isn't that hugely inefficient?

But, I'm not a particularly sophisticated investor, either (thus: ETFs for me), so my intuition may be wrong. Does anyone have some maths to bring to bear on this?

Yeah of course you can't escape the general market risk, i'm only talking about a strategy to avoid net exposure to risk specific to the TSLA stock.

OK. Other people (probably not you) in this thread were talking about this strategy like it was basically risk-free. Compared to a naked short it's, um, obviously a better idea, but I still think others were over-selling it by not mentioning all of the downside risk.

Oh yeah, I don't think I would suggest actually implementing this because it's just a lot of costs and fees to emulate what otherwise would be an index without the stock

Well, the people advocating it are bearish on Tesla and trying to win a bet on that, while "hedging" it with their ETF portfolio. I mean, on the fundamentals I'm bearish on Tesla, too, but there's a not-inconsiderable chance that any day now Musk announces an eleventy-billion dollar contract with the US government, so no way I'm taking that bet. Anyway, I'm not a gambler, so all my investments are super boring.

True didn't consider that.