The Nano model isn’t pretrained in FP4, only Super and Ultra are. And posttraining is not in FP4, so the posttrained weights of these models are not native FP4.
I had a similar experience. The "Sanctus Sanctus Sanctus" written in stone was not an aspiration or a motto for me when I visited, it was a statement of fact.
I've often wondered if Intel would still be a dominant force in computing if it had kept engineering in Silicon Valley. I worked at Intel both in Hillsboro and in Santa Clara and I feel that Intel's decision to put so much engineering in Oregon was done to insulate them from the pressures of Silicon Valley. They didn't have to pay very well, and they had a very insular culture - because they could afford it. They didn't have to work very hard to keep engineers at Intel because their engineers were basically trapped in beautiful Oregon and generally wouldn't consider moving back to expensive California.
Housing costs in the Bay Area are soul-crushing, but they do motivate people to work on the highest value projects because complacency just doesn't usually work if you're trying to buy a house. And so I wonder, if Intel had kept their workforce mostly in California, could they have stayed a dominant force in computing?
Yes, but Italy had to centralize its language in order to accomplish this. 1000 Italian dialects were suppressed in a very heavyweight process. (And probably some people didn't like speaking Florentine, which became modern Italian.)
English is complicated because it's decentralized and there is no authority to regularize it. Which is a feature, not a bug.
1 - Being fluent in the national language does not prevent people from maintaining their dialects in parallel.
2 - Whether a language is phonetic has no relation to political issues concerning dialects.
3 - Whether a language is phonetic has no relation to whether people like to use it.
4 - English got decentralized starting with the Age of Sail, but the lack of correspondence between written and oral forms is systemic and older than that.
> English got decentralized starting with the Age of Sail, but the lack of correspondence between written and oral forms is systemic and older than that.
That's not really true -- there is and was a great deal of dialect diversity within England itself. It was widespread printing that allowed languages to be standardized at the scale of nation-states in the first place: the divergences that developed after the age of sail were reversing convergence that had only begun a couple of hundred years earlier.
And although versions of English from the south and east of England became the basis for modern standard English, other dialects persisted and sometimes spread around the world, so some of the differences between English dialects globally are due to disparate influences from different dialects originating within the British Isles.
being fluent in a language makes you less likely to be interested in a second when everyone speaks the first. This plays out over generations in killing the less common languages.
There is a still a lot more linguistic diversity in Italy than across the entire English speaking world.
e.g. Northern Italian languages are technically more closely related to Gallo-Romance languages from the other side of the Alps than to standard Italian.
It means “envy” in Latin and Spanish etc.
Which is why the logo is an acid green evil eye.
And why NVIDIA’s headquarters are two buildings named “ENdeavor” and “Voyager”.
I almost want to read it as satire. Especially juxtaposed against his death. Because the ideas of "What I cannot create, I do not understand." and "Know how to solve every problem that has been solved" seem profoundly unwise and endlessly futile.
If you are calling Richard Feynman "profoundly unwise" and "endlessly futile", you might need to do a bit more reflection on the grounding for your opinion.
Surely it can be true that a profoundly wise and consistently effective person holds a belief or utters a phrase that is profoundly unwise and endlessly futile.
Absolutely true. And paradoxically, they may fully understand that the phrase is profoundly unwise and endlessly futile and yet know the benefit of holding the belief anyway.
Feynman has a comment in one of his two autobiographies where he describes an argument with an artist friend — about, I think, the beauty of a rose. His friend believed that "dissecting" the rose, breaking it down to its biological components chemical processes, took away from the beauty of the rose.
Feynman disagreed — couldn't understand how knowing more about the thing could possibly take away from it.
It was the one thing I read from him where I disagreed with him. It seems strange to me he didn't see naivety, wonder as things someone might cherish. Those are things that you are in danger of losing when you come to know too much.
I'm probably belaboring my point, but I remember when I was in my 20's pointing out to my girlfriend at the time some of the more well known constellations in the night sky. They were not well know to her. I'd try to point to a star, point to another — "There, that's Scorpio. You can see the one reddish star, Aldebaran in the center..."
No, she could not see it. Christ, like Orion, I can't look up at the night sky in winter and not see it. What does she see in the sky at night?
Oh, that's right, an amazing jumble of mysterious points of light — like I used to as a young boy.
Funny when I later came across "When I Heard the Learn’d Astronomer".
Agreed. I find that I still have "wonder" all of the time, and that is what drives me to try and "figure it out". The sense of wonder never goes away, but my naivete about a single experience does go away.
I don't know why I'd want to continue to be naive about something after experiencing it. There's plenty of new things to see and do that will generate that "wonder" feeling all over again.
“The team looked for a fermenting agent that could remain reactive in substances with a temperature of up to 370 degrees Celsius and alcohol of the recommended 16 percent per volume.”
My guess is that the reporter forgot a decimal point and meant 37.0 degrees Celsius. Because finding a yeast that actively metabolizes sugar at 370 degrees Celsius might be somewhat challenging.
