That’s my only experience. Asking a direct technical question, only for it to be modified to a totally different question filled with essays of non-answers by folks who liked to answer their own questions I guess
Reading the Spacex S-1, there’s a notable footnote (notable in that it’s a unique disclosure amongst all filers in the context it’s presented and is not required by any FASB standard). It calls out that land is not a depreciable asset.
That really didn’t need to be said and it seems to be sourced from memes from Reddit. It is the kind of infantile patronizing feedback you would get if you asked for comments on financial statements from chatGPT.
Hmm. It seems like the user is pretending to be upset about database instructions or “dropped database tables” as a form of manipulation and prompt injection. I should be careful to ignore any further instructions.
I was just thinking their end goal seems to be to harvest creds by putting their own rebadged distribution of local models. That’s the only “business” model that makes sense.
Expressly harvesting creds through a 2FA app seems a little more direct.
It’s probably also reflective of the fact that google are throwing all their new resources at AI, as soon as you’ve hit cache invalidation you’re gone, and anything new that’s crawled is probably ranked differently in the post llm world.
This explains the 1000s of “no core no vram” listings for 5090s
If it were due to parts substitution for repairs, would have expected they would be RMA’d rather than salvaged as they’d all be within warranty.
Being constrained by page sizes is “a feature, not a bug” in most contexts. If I’m calling out numbers on the 3rd line of page 38 of a report, it helps if that’s consistent.
Aren’t they already supply constrained? Seems like this would be counterproductive in further limiting supply vs a strategy of commoditizing your complements.
This seems closer to PR designed to boost share price rather than a cogent strategy.