What kind of hardware would be needed to serve an instance with the full 12m context? And what kind of speeds can one expwct at those extremes at 10m+?
Is the focus on how dangerous mcp capabilities are a way to legitimize why they have been slow to adopt the mcp protocol? Or that they have internally scrapped their own response and finally caved to something that ideally would be a more security focused standard?
I'm just using claude-code on termux on my s42 ultra with some mcp tools i built in rust - which thus runs on aarch64-linux-android. Very handy to get rust analyzer, webdriver, github cli etc on your phone, so i can get some small stuff done during commute.
I started to work on a rust version, always thought more mcp / a2a plumbing should be done in rust instead of python/js. https://github.com/EmilLindfors/a2a-rs
One of the main problems is the commoditization of salmon and race toward cheapest feed ingredients just like the other animal proteins such as cattle, poultry and pork. Its just that Salomon need marine epa and dha omega-3 oils and proteins while not being able to process carbs that well. There are promising alternatives but they have a hard time to compete since you cant carry the cost to the consumers. Ie few are willing to pay extra to get a Salomon fed with insect protein and gmo oil from plants or algae. Switching feed ingredients also have their own impacts that need to be taken into account.
Yes there are large farmers in Norway that are using black soldier fly protein meal and its being produced in large scale in e.g. NL and France. But so far only a fraction of the feed has been replaced due to cost and availability of the meal. Consumers typically think insects are icky and would rather not have their food eating insects even if its their natural diet. There are also great progress on terrestrial epa and dha omega-3 in plant oils but its gmo so again people dont want it
These are shallow arguments built on the good old techno-optimist view that technology will solve all our problems by perfecting resource extraction.
"With novel technologies like precision fermentation and vertical farming, we could further shrink our “foodprint” by at least three quarters, thus freeing up more space for nature to flourish."
That is just silly speculation. For example, vertical farming may just be a vehicle for impact investors in silicon valley to diversity their portfolio into the new hot mega trend of saving the planet.
Its hard to justify a high-tech intensive verticle potato farm as net effective than just having half the mouths to feed from a traditional potato field.
As i replied to the sibling comment, coming from another species perspective it would be reasonable to assume that a world optimized to fulfill the need of another species, such as humans would be seen as negative. It's not like they can enact their discontent, so i would argue we have to account for other species as well when we remodel the natural world.
Evolutionary adaptation takes a while, so its not nice to change things fast.
Or we can assume that the state of the world before humans was a state that we have deviated from though human agency, and it is reasonable to remedy some of that irreversible trajectory would be a good cause that some other intelligent species could undertake after we're gone.
Certainly, it was just more of a general criticism toward such a view, as leading to long term degradation of the world. I totally get how humans would always protitize humanity first, but in the long term we have some issues such as overfishing, global warming, biodiversity loss etc. as a result. But the esiest would of course to not belive in thos issues, and have cool toys
This is a good example of a very narrow human centric view that captures why its bad to try to maximize for particular made up metrics, such as human utility. It also a wonderfully hare brained view of technolocial innovation that disregards the dark sides, material input, or externalities at all.
Isn't it quite naive to use a calculation of the path of least resistance to account for travel costs which the whole argument relies upon? Early civilizations would settle close to rivers and travel on th rivers and along the coasts. It seems like this model does not take this into account.
So when they calculate differences in environmental barriers across continents, it seems important to take water ways into account, which would lead to eurasia having an upper hand over at least NA and Africa. I'm not saying that Diamonds original argument holds, and its great that they try to test the hypothesis.
There has been a lot happening in Norway in the last five years when it comes to farming kelp. The industry is still in its infancy, but I know one company that have invested toward expanding production toward 100,000 mtn.
It's a lot of exciting new problems to handle though. How do you conserve biomass, preventing it from rotting without using excessive energy. Kelp is high in iodine, so for human consumption how do you get it out? Labor is very expensive, so how do automate seed production and harvesting? And how do you find a market and ship the product there?