But it means we are optimizing for something else than the best outcome or not? It is like with mp3 vs flac: mp3 is fine and optimizes for amount of data to represent a certain waveform, but lossless is the real deal for audiophiles and the only one capturing the real thing at a certain resolution. Same might be true for complex code or the best solution to a compression algorithms. Can the question really be answered if optimizing for marking does still produce the best result? Is it not like an author wanting to say something one way, but being forced to use certain words to get there?
none of the large AI labs know what the best outcome is because lab science never fully predict large scale implementation.
We've had decades of grade A research on social improvement programs and it's clear to everyone that implementation cannot be simulated or easily predicted.
So the "optimizing" thing is a fallacy. It's also found in highly racially charged pseudo science and eugenics; selecting for trains on small scales do not equal large scale benefits. But people's mental model are predisposed to small scales while also being blissfully ignorant of cognitive biases to the predisposition.
Even the idea that we can just keep throwing compute, context, power is a fallacy when you see chinese models making smaller and just as capable models with limited resources.
so, optimizing is something we should be putting into a democratic process because anything else will be lopsided, much like when eugenics was tried.
What would you be willing to pay rent wise for such a space? Would be helpful to know required square footage/m^2 , location/city, maximum acceptable price/month, acceptable commuting distance to desired location.
Honestly: By trying to control usage its not FOSS anymore and you yourself become a bad actor in the eyes if the FOSS idea. No soon to be unicorn can use any of your stuff.
May I add: You’d have to stop using VsCode or TypeScript, or even npm and Chrome, if you think big means bad, and you don’t want to fuel big corporations.
One can see how rediculous the whole idea of limiting FOSS in a “who can use this” way is.
Truly free will always win in the long way. Or you don’t think, a paid dev with some AI can replace your package fairly quickly?
I've learned quite a bit from the comments here, also got to see perspectives I wasn't focusing on. I've since then added a bit to the article about how one could be in favour of the deal. To be more transparent about changes, version history is coming to coffee.link.
The question I'm having is: Where exactly do inter.link and Google peer? Like either they are both at a public IXP (which would mean Google is not actually discontinuing peering, or you'd have to really define the "direct" in that quoted sentence), or one has a fiber cable to one of the others DC? How does that work? Any insights?
At the same building where you connected with Vodafone in the past, you connect to interlink instead.
Instead of one to many you connect one to one.
Just to clarify one thing, the fact that's you're connected to an ixp doesn't automatically mean you have to accept any routes or traffic over it. And yes some of them allow you to sell/buy transit over the IXP fabric so instead of buying one connection for transit and another for settlement free pairing over the IXP, you do all that over one physical connection
Your first example I was referring to - which you've now edited out of the article[0] to be more generic - stated:
> When Deutsche Telekom customers want to watch YouTube, that traffic flows directly from Google's network to Deutsche Telekom's network at a Frankfurt exchange point—maybe four or five router hops, minimal latency, no intermediaries. It's elegant. It's efficient. And it's exactly what Vodafone is abandoning.
Later:
> Deutsche Telekom pioneered this model in Germany, and the results have been catastrophic for customers. Not "slightly annoying" or "a bit slower"—genuinely, documentably terrible.
HeyHey. The website uses Ghost right now, and a lit based web components catalogue. Some features are not yet entirely carved out. The commenting system being one of them. Components are ready, but some integration work has to be done. We also want to enable highlighting stuff directly, so people can comment on specific referenced stuff...
The commenting APIs in ghost are a little obscure.
reply