just checked, yes they don't seem to provide that information, most other providers are advertising fp8 or fp4 which is okay, but "together" doesn't, so they are likely using fp4
update: coreweave/fp8 is at 191 tps, launched this morning, but really bad cache hit rate (~60%), coreweave is good for privacy but let's hope they improve cache
a lot of websites that never bothered to provide a REST API are now exposing MCP server because it has become popular, and you can use those servers to write normal automation for yourself, without plugging in any LLM etc
The same thing is going to happen at the app level on Google and Apple platforms. Android tried to have modular cooperating software, but both the early dominance of iPhone in the developer community, and developer interests in having monolithic apps made that effort fail.
Now both Google and Apple are making app interfaces legible and on-device tool calling discoverable. This will change apps in interesting ways.
Of course. This is just a list of someone's ideas for equivalently difficult (and transformative) unsolved problems in biology. Many of these would of course have obvious and immediately impactful practical applications, unlike the math problems.
> ... This is just a list of someone's ideas for equivalently difficult (and transformative) unsolved problems in biology. ...
I think GP was saying the proof of the pudding is in the tasting: the longer a problem has provably resisted resolution the more difficult it is considered...
bombastically decorating a problem as equivalently difficult does not make it so.
Well, if LLMs actually turn out to solve some of the Millennium problems, at least some of these biology problems are almost certainly at least as difficult. Certainly solving any of them would be Nobel-worthy if biology nobels existed (and solving some of them would likely easily be worthy of a medicine Nobel). It's not like these are new problems whose difficulty is unknown!
The Millenium Prize problems didn't only withstand decades/century of resolution, they also withstood the same test of time in ridicule of the challenge statement.
This list of "Millenium Problems for Biology" contains such brainfart level "analogies" that there the list will be ridiculed, for the question / challenge itself displays a lack of understanding of the subject in question. Science is also asking the right questions.
Consider for example:
> 10. Protein Amplification Chain Reaction:
> Demonstrate exponential amplification of arbitrary peptide substrates.
> Specifically, demonstrate input-protein-dependent synthesis of new, full-length, sequence-faithful covalent polypeptide copies from amino-acid monomers without a nucleic-acid template or preformed cognate scaffold, in a single pot reaction. For the challenge to be considered complete, at least 100 random peptide sequences of at least 50 amino acids each must be preregistered, synthesized, and pooled. It must then be shown that the abundance of these peptides in solution can be amplified at least 1000x with at least 90% sequence accuracy on a per-residue basis. Reasonable modifications may be added to the peptide sequences to facilitate post-amplification analysis if necessary, provided they are not active in the amplification. Methods that rely on explicit sequencing of the peptide are not permitted. Methods that rely on reverse translation to generate a nucleic acid intermediate are not permitted, because they are duplicative with a separate Millennium Problem.
The analogy is very clear: to amplify DNA or RNA one uses PCR, basically throw the desired product in a cauldron with monomer building blocks, then by repeated heating and cooling the lone monomers find their permitted locations on a complementary pre-existing strand, and form the new polymer strand.
So it seems natural to ask for a generalization to protein polymers, except every biologist or chemist knows its nonsense: proteins don't have a complementary strand! You can't demand chemistry or physics to magically copy without a complementary template!
You may ask "but if that were true, how can we already have PCR for RNA?"
Well pretty simple: while this is done routinely, its only possible indirectly: convert the RNA to double-strand DNA, use PCR on this DNA and then convert the amplified DNA back to RNA!
The demand to not involve sequencing or the hypothetical reverse translatase from one of the other problem statements turns this one into a non-existence theorem, but the challenge doesn't describe a winner for demonstrating its impossibility!
I assure you that any chemist or biologist being asked why we dont have PCR for protein, will understand your lack of knowledge, and explain how PCR works, so that you understand that PCR was only possible because of the complementary strand!
This list will be ridiculed for being not even wrong.
My frustration is omarchy getting more than $18 million in funding for some dotfiles... (i know it's an exaggeration, because omarchy foundation itself seems to be funding projects like Hyprland/Quickshell/mise)
but archlinux project probably deserved it instead of omarchy
(linux kernel already has enough funding i guess, so they don't need this)
---
Can someone explain me, how are they going to profit off this? they can't expect to show ads to linux users right?
> but archlinux project probably deserved it instead of omarchy
No it doesn't. They vomit their politics every chance they get and ban individuals/projects that disagree with them politically. (Go and try to find XLibre on the Arch Linux wiki as one small example.)
I hope Omarchy gets another 18 million and everyone that currently donates to Arch switches to supporting Omarchy, just like previous GNOME donators are doing so we can have a new Arch base that judges individuals based on their merits and not their politics.
Arch Linux is just a packaging format and a package manager. All you need to do is stand up your own servers and run your own builds, and point the user pacman configs at your own server and you have your own Arch Linux distribution. Omarchy is already doing this, just like Manjaro has been doing for years.
I'm not a therapist, but I think one way you could deal with how upset you are about supposed name calling that nobody directed at you would be to post a comment on HN pretending that you're not upset about it. See if that helps.
The comment isn't for you, it's for all the people out there are are getting tired of being labeled as Nazis for wanting to keep their culture and heritage alive.
My frustration (on top of what you said) is that DHH is already a multimillionaire. Of all the distros, I feel like his is the one that needs donations the least.
You can then run your script/dev with: sops exec-env secrets.enc.env 'docker xxxx' (it will ask you for your password, or touch-id to decrypt the secrets)
I like this because this way the .env doesn't sit in the directory at all, and is only passed to your dev environment and stays in it while it's running
Decrypt back to a file (if you ever want that): sops decrypt secrets.enc.env > .env
---
Well ofc, any agent can do docker inspect to get all those env vars, but atleast reading the dotfiles won't do anything
you can also edit the file with: sops --input-type dotenv --output-type dotenv secrets.enc.env
This is crazy, but sadly anthropic/openai will never do this, what has happened to this world, where chinese companies are more open than US or even EU companies
I don’t think Trump changed them, but Trump is absolutely a symptom of larger social collapse in the US, and that collapse has affected Altman and Amodei. We’re not even pretending that truth matters or that the wealthy can ever suffer consequences, and those two seem quite liberated by that.
"As we get closer to building AI, it will make sense to start being less open. The Open in OpenAI means that everyone should benefit from the fruits of AI after its built, but it's totally OK to not share the science (even though sharing everything is definitely the right strategy in the short and possibly medium term for recruitment purposes)."
-Ilya Sutskever (email to Elon musk and Sam Altman, 2016)
