My exact setup. Main repo on a second internal disk, one replica on an external disk, second replica in backblaze. Replicas are kept in sync with `restic copy`. Backup integrity gets checked automatically with `restic check`. It all works great.
I have an encrypted offsite backup. A lot of people I know with home servers work out a deal with a family member to have cross-backups with each other.
Sadly I don’t have a family member that I can trust with that, but I do put an encrypted copy on AWS glacier and I have an encrypted volume in Dropbox.
Yes, my spouse has access to my password storage, which has all the decryption keys. Whether she remembers how to do it is a different question. :). Maybe I should write it down, or show one of my kids...
I am honestly not sure. I use GG photo because that what i use first and i was too lazy to investigate better deal. Also, i know Google does really well at keeping my data available, which is what you want for backup.
I didn't check ToS of proton drive, but in my experience, every cloud storage has requirement about what kind of data is allowed to store(after all, they dont want to accidentally store illegal stuff).
Raid is not a backup :( For the really important data (photos, documents, ecc) a small 1GB raspberry pi + USB external HDD works great as a Borg server for daily backup, there is no need for a full NAS when you can store all important data in less the a handful of terabytes
I’m not implying Raid 5 on its own is a complete backup.
Within a storage array though it does provide redundancy at that level, and generally speaking most people don’t access a raid or NAS at a shell level only where they drop rm -fr’s
Separate and offsite backups are non negotiable, however running a raid 5 locally can greatly reduce storage rebuild/restore time, if a single drive fails the rest of the raid continues to work fine until replaced.
This is the first time they are being bought by another company that makes content. Every other purchase was to add content creation to an existing company. So maybe there is chance.
But probably not with Ellison in charge. He'll probably just drive both companies into the ground.
Are they being bought by another company that makes content? Seems like the money is coming from Larry Ellison, whose main business is Oracle. Or the Saudis. Either way, neither Skydance not Paramount’s core businesses perform well enough to get this deal done.
Only people on the right think NPR is on the left. NPR is the most middle of the road you can get. Just because they report facts that contradict the administration doesn't make them left leaning.
Right, so it is broadly seen as more on the left than the right. Or, to be glib: only a radical leftist would think NPR doesn't lean left is far more correct than your initial assertion.
Have you heard the phrase "reality has a left wing bias"? People perceive highly factual information as left wing.
For example, if I told you yesterday the President made a statement, and then repeated the second half of that statement, which is a sign of dementia, you'd probably accuse me of being far left, even though that information is just simply factual.
That plus the fact that if you dig into the reports, the two that said "barely left" even admit that they only chose that because their rating system doesn't allow for "center".
I’m curious about how you would objectively define “woke”. I’d also be curious about how NPR scores on those measures relative to other comparable media.
EDIT: And if you didn't mean it in that way, and were serious, consider looking at e.g. Ground News' rating of NPR: https://ground.news/interest/npr. They (and others) clearly show NPR to have (slight) left bias. This means you are almost certainly going to see woke perspectives there from time to time, and more often than other less-biased or right-biased sources.
I know hard core leftists love to bash NPR/PBS, but as a non-leftist, non-centrist, non-right wing person, I definitely find NPR to have a left wing bias. Not as left wing as Democracy Now, etc - but definitely left leaning.
I think it's important not to tie identity to any part of the spectrum (e.g. "I'm center left").
I have opinions on issues, and they can vary across the spectrum. On some issues (e.g. healthcare) I'm far to the left (well, in the US - would just be considered "normal" left in other countries). On things like immigration I'm either center or right (everyone seems to have their own idea of what "center" means). On gun control I'm both left and right - I'd like to outlaw them, but am opposed to some gun control initiatives.
On several social issues I can be far to the left on some and far to the right on others.
In an election, I voted both for a Green Party candidate and a Republican candidate (different offices, of course).
What I see is people who identify on the spectrum may have strong opinions on some issues (e.g. left), and then they adopt the leftist viewpoint on other issues - in order to be consistent. In my experience, these people are also more likely to follow "leaders" than be opinionated.
I don't know that one needs to identify with part of the political spectrum for it to be an accurate description. It sounds like you're broadly left leaning, but that assessment of you doesn't need to do anything to how you view yourself. I'm likewise very left leaning on just about everything, but don't really consider it to be part of my identity
I would agree with your assessment. It's just that if I go and say "It's OK to deport undocumented people who came as children"[1], people will have a hard time calling me a leftist.
But since it's not my identity, things can change.
When I was younger, my views were more consistent with the right. At some point, after learning a lot of realities, a lot of those views moved to the left. Since it was never part of my identity, it was easier to shift. No internal strife, crisis, etc.
[1] My views on this topic are more nuanced than this, but I phrase it this way to illustrate the dichotomy one can have in politics that people fail to comprehend.
> Was it Reed Hastings that was painting Netflix's main rival not other streaming platforms, but other types of leisure like video games?
Yes. He always told us that we don't need to worry about the other streamers nearly as much as we have to worry about them turning off the TV and playing games or (gasp!) going outside. TikTok/Instagram Reels wasn't a thing yet, but if it were, I'm sure they would have been on the list too.
> I'm convinced LinkedIn demotes anything that links off-platform
This has been proven, they absolutely penalize off site links. The workaround is to put it in the comments, which they do not demote (yet). But engagement still matters for appearing on feeds. If you're not saying something controversial, you probably won't get a lot of engagement.
As someone who sometimes helps companies figure out content strategy, I am sorry to say that it is not true that linking in comments is safe -- this tends to penalize your post nowadays.
LinkedIn isn't alone here -- virtually every platform with an algorthmic feed penalizes both links and the obvious workarounds.
Not to defend the practice -- it's unfortunate because it trains younger users that attribution isn't important, it enables and incentivizes outright theft of content (good luck chasing down original sources after convincing yourself that it wasn't AI in the first place)
The next time you want to curse AWS, remember they gave us Firecracker, one of the best microvm technologies out there, and the basis of at least a few non-AWS products out there (this one being the newest entry to the list).
I don't think anybody hates AWS as a technology. It's mostly the rent-seeking (pricing almost-free bandwidth to an egregious level, nickel and diming users through fractional pricing calculations that are about as transparent as the US health insurance billing, predatory B2B vendor lock-in practices) that gets on people's nerves.
When MBA (and YC startup) schools teach to build product with a "high switching cost", they do not have consumer's (in this case the developers) interests in mind.
The other issue is that outside of the core offerings (S3, EC2/Lambdas, the logging and queuing services), everything else seems to be in a perpetual state of beta with products shipped by interns. The situation is not as bad as Cloudflare but the bar's on the ground. Pre-LLM, services like Cognito caused developers no end of pain and suffering. Poor documentation, buggy products opaque console UIs, there's no end to complaints when it comes to AWS. If their services were designed well, then companies like Vercel and Heroku shouldn't exist at all.
And what's worse, with all of their efforts at squeezing customers, they still pay the worst of out of all of the big techs for non-senior leadership day to day engineering ICs. At least with Facebook there's commensurate pay. It's like Amazon took a look at Asian "996" culture and figured that if it works for their warehouse staff it should be good for the engineering folks too.
Typical 50% RH at ground level is ~7g/kg air, air is roughly 1kg/m^3, so between the surface and the planetary boundary layer (let's say 1km) is about 7L of water per m^2 of surface. Moving along at ~3m/s means 21L/s passes by each meter of fence line.
PBL probably mixes after about 50km, so it takes ~5 hours to normalize after you pull out water at ~5 knot wind speed. If you want to not make a dent, means you can pull less than 1L per m^2 per hour, or about 8m^3 pear, which is about 8x the yearly requirement for farmland.
So, you can irrigate a farm and your neighbors would mostly be fine.
Absolutely can pull the water you need for e.g. household purposes out of the air - somewhere north of $0.10 a gallon or so, spendy, but close to trucked water - maybe $1k a month, give or take. People pay that much for trucked water, though a well is rapidly cheaper if it's available.
For a farm, say growing almonds (notably water intensive, but a reasonable first pass), you need about 4 acre-feet per acre per year, which would cost... hmm, somewhere in the very rough ballpark of $200k / yr.
That might put the economics of almond farming substantially in doubt, given that an acre of almonds might yield a value (revenue, not profit) of, say, $10k on a good year.
In humid regions, there is no practical limit that would cause any noticeable effects on the humidity of outdoor air. There is just so much water in the air that even if you were running dehumidifiers across all available land area, the air is still going to feel humid.
The other side of that is that a big problem we're going to have moving forward is dealing with increased humidity - the climate change angle isn't just heat, heat + high humidity (the wet bulb temperature) is the actual health risk and the thing that takes a heat wave from inconvenient to a genuine crisis. Turning high humidity into drinkable water is two birds with one stone, if you do it right.
(To your point, it's almost impossible to imagine we'd be able to operate it at a scale that makes a genuine impact, but these are all chaotic systems and a couple percent here and there can compound to keep things on the right side of the phase shift.)
As long as the water is being locally used and locally discharged (i.e. via a drainage field) it shouldn't seriously have an impact. The water would return to the water table and either be used by plants or get wicked back into the air via capillary action from evaporation on the surface.
In places with low ambient humidity, harvesting water from the air is an atrocious process. The physics have not changed since people came up with this idea the last time, and the time before that.
For reasons of thermodynamics, pulling water out of the air uses more energy than desalination, and that's before the fact that you have to have a large fan to move a large volume of air to get a few drops of water.
It is on the order of using 60X as much energy to dehumidify air if you are trying to produce bulk water, rather than just desalinating water through a method like reverse osmosis
When these systems are designed for low ambient humidity areas, they use a desiccant based first stage, where desiccant wheel or loop captures water from the low humidity air, and then is heated in a chamber to "regenerate" it and drive off the water into a 100% humidity chamber where the condensation can happen.
The applications of condensate water sources typically aren't in areas where desalination is the competing technology -- usually the competition is piping water in from far away via a utility system.
There are commercially available systems that do that now, one that seems popular in my area is https://www.aquaria.world/ .
As to your question, would it be a problem if everyone did it -- it depends obviously on your definition of "problem", but consider that most people doing this have no way to dispose of the water they take from the air except by putting it back in the air. It might increase regional power consumption, and smooth out nightly shifts in atmospheric humidity, but unless there is a new river running to the sea, the average atmospheric humidity will remain the same.
The condensate water is laden with bacteria, mold spores, and pollution concentrated from the air. It can definitely be filtered and sterilized, but in water scarce environments you usually can't pull enough water from the air to be worth it.
If it's for watering plants it works fine, if you want to store it and use it otherwise you need a filter and UV sterilization, many of these devices also mineralize the water for taste. The condensate will usually have a lot of mold and dust.
Condensate is not suitable for drinking and 99.9% of homes don’t have a separate gray water plumbing system or storage tank. Even the evaporator coil in the furnace/fan coil unit is going to be dirty, and the condenser coil outside is definitely filthy.
> I've thought for a while that it would be interesting to have micro dehumidifiers on my roof that supplement my water supply from humidity.
Hi! This is friendly neighborhood energy conservation law speaking!
You can't just get moisture out of the atmosphere without investing energy. This device works backwards, it exploits the difference in humidity between the indoors and the outdoors. The source of this difference is ultimately the stored energy in food. Humans burn the food and release water vapor as a result, raising humidity inside the building.
It would probably depend on how you use the water. Watering plants (including via gray water systems) would mean a lot of the water would evaporate or transpirate. Flushing it down the drain means it exits the system.
For non-potable use, probably. Potable use might require some more treatment checks on it. It's one thing to use it for flushing the toilet... showering might be ok. Not sure about washing dishes. Washing clothes, maybe.
And for the "the amount of times I change out 2 gallons of water from the dehumidifier in the basement in the summer"... there's a lot of moisture out there.
This is constrained by season. In the winter, its much easier to get to 0% humidity than it is in the summer.
> We’ll imagine our storm measures 100 kilometers on each side and has a high TPW content of 6 centimeters. This means the water in our rainstorm would have a volume of: 100km x 100km x 6cm = 0.6km^3
> That water would weigh 600 million tons (which happens to be about the current weight of our species). Normally, a portion of this water would fall, scattered, as rain—at most, 6 centimeters of it.
Change that to 4cm for current conditions... but that's a lot of water.
That has a table of how much water at different humidity and temperature combinations. It's currently about 20 °C and that gives us 15.6 g/m^3.
... but there's an awful lot of air around.
This can also be complicated if you have trees or other vegetation around. The humidity at my parents place (fairly deep in the woods in farmland) is always much higher than it is if you go to the road (or in town).
> Some research conducted by USDA Agricultural Research Service suggests that corn can contribute between 3,500 and 5,000 gallons of water per acre to the atmosphere over the course of one to two days. A typical pool contains 18,000 - 20,000 gallons.
...
So, it's complicated. Maybe, a little bit, depends on where you are.
What Anthropic is doing requires way more resources than what the Chinese labs are doing. So their complaint is that they do 95% of the work and the Chinese labs do the last 5% and call it their own.
An argument can be made that Anthropic is also only doing the last 5% of the work (because the content they are training on was the other 95%) but that's a bit more philosophical.
Yeah, the whole thing seems like a human centipede of rug pulling. Probably the same as it's always been. Curating AI knowledge should be something that we put our best researchers towards, but realistically I think we wind up with 2-3 highly biased nationalistic models that are constantly copying off each other's notes.
Thanks, that’s the nature of any business. Founders see a way to take existing knowledge and expertise, combine it in some novel or interesting way, and produce a new product
Napster was a fantastic and disruptive product, the likes of which arguably has no equal to this day. But eventually the hammer came down from the courts and it was replaced by streaming services like Netflix, which pay to license materials from their creators.
But if you take it deeper, didn't most of those authors rely on the work of others? Most of human knowledge is small advancements of things we already knew. Often by reorganizing what we already knew.
Is that not what the foundation models are? A new reorganization of existing knowledge?
So then the problem is that Anthropic seems hypocritical when they knowingly insert themselves into this chain, and then complain about people down-chain from them.
To remedy the negative impressions (if they even care to do so) they should do 1 of 2 things:
1) stop complaining about it
2) stop distilling other people's work
They insert themselves into this chain for profit and complain about it. I really think that adds a thick layer to the hypocrisy that people, or at least me, feel is especially distasteful.
No LLM products would exist without the avalanche of largely non-consensual use of IP to create them, full stop. Any of these companies doing this and then turning around and complaining when their IP is "breached" are going to met with a chorus of tiny violins.
It's hypocritical and we shouldn't listen to their bullshit but I wouldn't expect anything else from them.
This generation of frontier models is "good enough." At some point, the Chinese labs will get to where the Americans are right now, they'll race to the bottom, and we will actually see what proliferation of AI looks like.
If Anthropic wants to be a trillion dollar company, they need to make revenue like Google or Apple do. Both of them have near monopolies, Anthropic is only getting further and further away as time goes on.
Of course they're gonna complain until they either figure out a better plan or accept a new valuation which is high but not spectacular.
It is an ancient practice, that when a human creates something, other humans will observe it and learn from it. Every group of humans living together has practiced this in some form for tens of thousands of years if not longer. Even animals do it. It's a natural assumption when making any form of art.
It is not a natural assumption that someone will digitize the artwork and use it to adjust a couple thousand matrix coefficients in a complex computer program. To most people that seems like copying with extra steps. The brain may in some ways resemble a computer, but what sets it apart is that we have always lived with brains. Everything a human does has already anticipated the presence of other brains, while etched circuits on ultrapure silicon crystals are something new.
Often people ignore scale. N=1 is OK, therefore, N=1billion is OK. Same flawed argument as: "It's OK for one police officer to watch one street corner for the purpose of observing crime; therefore it's equally OK to have cameras recording every street corner in the city 24/7, for all purposes. Same thing!"
To a degree. The human produced knowledge is the product of all humanity (no human is an island).
A comparable idea could be that an encyclopedia or maths book is only distilling the things that other people did, and how dare they sell them. But the "only" is doing quite a bit of work. LLMs do not just spawn into existence. There is a body of work that they feed on, and then there is also very attributable work they do around and on top of that. All labs are struggling around the first order question: Is it okay to use prior work like this? The second order issue is still entirely reasonable to separately have and enforce rules about.
SOTA models cost hundreds of millions to train. Did creating the contents of the text corpus they were trained on really cost an equivalent of 20x as much (~10 billions)? I honestly don’t know, but I could imagine it having been significantly less.
This isn’t meant as a moral argument, just musing about the relative cost comparison.
If you look at movies alone that would easily surpass 10s of billions. The cost of most books is probably more nebulous, but books, research, and more all have time and money spent to create them. I would guess the corpus of all media from the 20th century on would be minimally in the hundreds of billions of dollars.
I would argue that producing the complete written corpus on which they at least intend to train (even if some is still out of reach) cost literally everything to produce.
And the monetary cost doesn't even register when weighed against the blood, sweat and tears that went into capturing the authentic experiences of real human beings, whose honest expressions are now at least in some cases getting hoovered up, ingested, and then destroyed for all eternity, for fear that this specific work is the rounding error that might give an equally immoral competitor the edge in the bicycle-riding flamingo race that is currently consuming an absurd amount of the world's creativity and attention.
do you also count eg published results of very expensive physics experiments? because once the costs of things like these are taken into account, we are way over 10 billions.
It probably cost vastly more than training the LLM. You need to consider the time people spent and perhaps weigh it in their hourly wage. Accumulate that across all the training data and it will be a mindboggling amount, compared to training the model.
Pre vaccination smallpox killed hundreds of millions of people just in the twentieth century [0], the knowledge that allowed for the creation of just that vaccine is worth hundreds trillions of dollars in humans lives, let alone all of `the knowledge and experiences those people were involved in.
The knowledge that created the Haber-Bosch process [1] helps to sustain the majority of the world's populous, add another five hundred trillion dollars for that just to start with.
The creation of the printing press and all written information that allowed it to be built provided dissemination of knowledge beyond the ultra wealthy and is worth a non-finite amount of money.
LLM's are cool math, but they are less than a rounding error in comparison to even the tiniest sliver of human knowledge and technological output.
Shush, this is Hackernews. We all want to have our egos stoked that our industry is the most important in human history and that tech will transform and save us all. Go away with your historical analysis /s
I get that angle but it’s a weak argument as Anthropic is doing the same to others. Also while there’s certainly a lot of computing power needed to do what Anthropic does, it’s increasingly clear there isn’t much secret sauce involved. Everyone knows how do to the core work it’s just a question of who wants to burn billions on compute to do it.
Anthropic’s anger here seems mostly rooted in their annoyance that this exposes they don’t really have core IP that’s not just easily replicated. And that’s clearly a problem for a deeply unprofitable company trying to convince people they’re worth $2 trillion.
> What Anthropic is doing requires way more resources than what the Chinese labs are doing.
Oh that’s very sad.
Meanwhile Anthropic made a product from the work effort of millions of people without compensating them, sell that product on tap and unless I am mistaken do not even have their competitors’ cover of having released any sort of meaningful open weights model.
They have taken from culture (including very specifically their most direct customers’ specific culture — our culture), turned it into a machine to make themselves rich, appear likely to predicate their valuation on permanently removing people from the workforce, then want to dump themselves onto pensions funds and ordinary savers to carry the bag.
It is, I agree, philosophical, because karma is a philosophy as well as a bitch.
And the communal work of humanity is orders of magnitude more work than what anthropic pays for their scraping of content. I got no check from them for my contributions
Indeed, if it isn't a crime to train on humanity's data, it isn't a crime to train on capitalism arranged frontier LLM provider models. Is that bad for shareholders and capitalism? Meh, sounds like a suboptimal socioeconomic systems issue. Burn up all the capital the unsophisticated are willing to provide. “We are selling to willing buyers at the current fair market price.”
With my apologies to Brewster Kahle, "Universal Access to All Knowledge."
I have far less of a problem with the Chinese models if they even do this because they are making their models free, whereas the large Western LLM providers throw out a few bits but not their main work product. So not only are they hypocritical, I'm pretty sure that if the Chinese models were not released into the wild they would be making less noise.
Oh yeah, totally agree, I'd even rather pay those building the Chinese models if I didn't think I'd get thrown into a US gulag for felony contempt of business model.
I use crime in the broad sense of "You shouldn't be allowed to do that" in this context. If you have a better word to capture that thought, let me know, I'll make the edit ("frowned upon" perhaps?). I don't have strong feelings other than "hah AI companies aren't going to be able to create a moat to capture the value they want to capture because we can collectively keep pulling it out of their models in perpetuity through ever improving model distillation methodologies". This is no different than Uber and DoorDash using VC dollars to subsidize services until they try to turn the knob to profitability once they've captured the market, except in this case, there are mechanisms to exfiltrate the model value into open models that can be distributed at very small marginal cost. They can never gate the golden goose money printer, they can only complain it isn't fair they aren't able to.
But that’s not more philosophical. It’s a perfect parallel! Enormous amounts of work, vacuumed up and resold. What’s the difference? If it’s ok to vacuum up all the knowledge in the world, then that includes knowledge of how to use all that to power an LLM.
Distillation doesn't "grab 95% of lab's work", that's ridiculous. At best it's tiny icing on top of the cake that's already there. It's not even necessarily done on a better model (e.g. GLM 4.7 distilled Gemini 2.5, a weaker model), I'm pretty sure A\ and OAI could do (or even do) the same with greater efficiency since they have access to logits, weights, and internal state of open models.
>An argument can be made that Anthropic is also only doing the last 5% of the work (because the content they are training on was the other 95%) but that's a bit more philosophical.
How is this philosophical? They should release the unsupervised pretrains, at the very least.
By that analogy, Anthropic is doing more like 0.000001% of the work of learning all we learned, and writing it down so that Anthropic at al can condense it into their models.
Yeah, you need a lot of resources in order to waste a lot of resources. Look at codex and Claude code - these trillion dollar companies 'with top talent' cannot build what open code and pi/oh-my-pi have built in the open for free? Both codex and Claude code, are slow, buggy pieces of shit (and I say that as someone who still heavily uses both for work, moved to open code and pi for personal stuff). The reality is these companies mostly focus on marketing and market capture through, non-competitive means - their services and software are unreliable, buggy trash.
> An argument can be made that Anthropic is also only doing the last 5% of the work (because the content they are training on was the other 95%) but that's a bit more philosophical.
Actually, it's an interesting argument to make. How many labour-hours went into creating the training data Anthropic has collected? Probably multiple billions of hours. How many labour-hours did it take them to setup the datacenters, scrapers, and training algorithms? A few thousands hours?
> What Anthropic is doing requires way more resources than what the Chinese labs are doing. So their complaint is that they do 95% of the work and the Chinese labs do the last 5% and call it their own.
Anthropic: The Chinese have broken the implicit ethical rule of honorable thievery. We did most of the heavy lifting in this global heist, and here they are taking our righteous loot. This is not right.
From one perspective, the 5% estimation is near-infinite orders of magnitude off, since they've trained on something approaching the sum-total of human knowledge.
More like google (when google just served content off of the website you were searching for), but also fed every form of media, turned up to 11, and given agency far beyond retrieval.
Deepmind was indirectly distilling Claude 3, XAI was doing this to other models (with Musk shrugging it off like something unremarkable, which it is), it has nothing to do with nebulous stereotypes like East, West, China this, America that. It's mostly Amodei and Altman screeching over this fact.
It is kind of ironic that they scraped the web for publicly available data and used it freely to train their models and now their freely available models are being used to train other models.
I'm overall pro-Anthropic and pro-banning open-weights AI, but I agree with the parent commenter; distilling Claude models is not that different from pretraining on web data. It's all basically the same sort of thing.
I think a good litmus test here would be if Anthropic were to not care about distilling their models when the distillers keep the resulting models closed-source and sell tokens via an API. If they cared only about security concerns and not about people profiting off of their work, then they should be publicly fine with this and only protest against it going into open-weights models.
I'd split it at 99.98% original, 0.015% Anthropic, 0.005% Chinese, and that's being exceedingly generous to the AI companies, there should be several more 9s and 0s in there.
> previous busts left useful infrastructure behind (rail, fibre) that could still be used. If/When the AI/LLM companies go bust, what will be left over afterwards and how useful will it be?
LLM technology will not go away. The premise here is that the foundation model companies will bust. So now there will be tons of idle GPU, where companies like AWS and Azure, or even Coreweave and Lambda, can pick them up for cheap and rent them out to people who want to run open source/open weight models.
LLMs as of whatever open models are SOTA when the proprietary bubble bursts, plus... whatever else you can do on GPUs - weather modeling, CFD, genetics research, and so on, and so on.
And that's at day 0. Because LLMs are not going away, thank to open weight models, and the race for capabilities has left so, so many low-hanging fruits unpicked, we'd have a decade or more of useful R&D to do even if LLM capabilities suddenly plateaued tomorrow and never improved.
I mean, look at Jev making round in the industry now - this is just a single example of a low-hanging fruit that took many years for someone to bother to pick up and market a bit. There's many, many more of these just laying around.
I’m pretty sure that when the railroads went bust that nobody pulled up the rails and put them somewhere else. And when the internet bust happened, they didn’t pull up all the dark fiber and lay it down somewhere else.
I would bet that if all those GPUs go idle, they stay housed and cooled in the data center they were originally installed in, for better or for worse.
I used to do this, until I learned the value of offsite backups.
Learn from my mistake (if you aren't already :) ).
reply