I too would like to understand why. Perhaps the only one I care for is that I would not like to give too much power to Microsoft in choosing who can contribute.
Others have issue with their code being used in AI training, but I find no issue in that myself, my code is not exclusively mine anyway and I have no say in how it is being used.
I'm banned from GitHub because I didn't give them my mobile phone number, but I wouldn't switch to another provider that could easily do the exact same thing - "fool me twice"
No AI, EU based, so respects the GDPR for all users, regardless of where they live, you can send PRs to make it better, is 100% Free Software, has its own Actions system that is also 100% Free Software, the logo is nice, you can become a member of the Berlin based association and have a direct vote on policy/feature changes.
200mbps is still wishful thinking in a typical household with ISP-provided consumer-grade router/AP in a suboptimal location. At the very least it will slow everything else down while it takes ~11 hours at a sustained 200mbps to transfer 1TB.
Not sure that I expect the average hacker news commenters to stick with their ISP-provided router in a suboptimal location - you can pick up a wifi6 router for under $100, that will happily maintain gigabit speeds over a normal-sized house
The article quotes the CEO saying yield is comparable:
>TSMC’s new Arizona plant is already comparable with those in Taiwan when it comes to the measure of yield — the amount of good chips a production run produces per batch — Su told the audience at the forum.
The overhead cost of a fab is fixed. So hard to understand why that would have such a wide variance. It may be true that the facility hasn’t been fully amortized so in principle it’s more expensive to make chips there. I can understand it being more expensive for many reasons. However I wouldn’t expect the cost difference to have a large variance. 5-20% is a very large range if the yields are comparable.
I think it also shows that fabs who only have one customer (ie, Intel) aren't as competitive because they can't provide as much scale and are more sensitive to that customer's success.
Intel's fab would be doing much better if it spun it out a while ago and was making Intel, Nvidia, and Apple chips right now.
If Intel's fabs has been spun out and operating at arms length from Intel's chip design side, then Intel's fabs would be dead. The guaranteed volume from manufacturing Intel's CPUs is all that's been keeping their fab side going. If they had to depend on customers who were actually sane and free to take their business elsewhere, Intel's fabs would have long since chased off all their customers with unfulfilled promises that next time they'll have a working process.
What Intel process from the last decade would have been enticing to Nvidia or Apple?
But isn't ollama only local chat? Or I am missing something? I'd like to setup it as a server for my usages on another laptop (use it as my local AI hub) and would love to integrate it with some IDE using MCP
I think another generalization people make here is around complexity. Many developers work on apps that just aren't that complex. Glorified CMS's mostly doing CRUD with well established code patterns.
Sure, LLMs might create slop on novel problems, but a non-tech company that needs to "create a new CRUD route" and an accompanying form, LLMs are smart enough.
https://www.bart.gov/news/articles/2009/news20090309