I agree that's likely true but I'm not sure if there are any jurisdictions finding things differently? I'm not aware of any rulings from appeals courts with broader jurisdiction but I imagine if they don't exist they will soon.
I think for brand new computers/builds that's correct but where it hit me was wanting to upgrade an existing desktop. I already have more DDR4 RAM than I need and would have been willing to purchase a new CPU/motherboard and being forced to also purchase new RAM at the same time made it too big of a price tag all at once. I just found the best zen 3 cpu I could on ebay and called it a day.
I think your point still stands overall for AMD's business though, I assume a vast majority of CPUs are purchased in new desktops?
Google operates across so many verticals that it's difficult to argue a side project is outside the scope of Google’s business and therefore Google could argue it has copyright over the work. To make it easier for engineers to keep contributing to open source, there’s a fairly straightforward path to release code through a Google-owned repository (if you look at github.com/google it is full of personal projects alongside official ones).
There is an official process where an engineer can apply to a committee to have Google waive any copyright claim. That requires additional work so if your goal is simply to publish the code as open source and you do not mind it living under the Google org, using the Google repo path is usually much faster.
Disclaimer: ex-googler, not a lawyer, not arguing whether or not the situation with copyright assignment is legally enforceable or not/good or bad/etc.
I don't think the original comment was saying this isn't a problem but that flagging it as a hallucination from an LLM is a much more serious allegation. In this case, it also seems like it was done to market a paid product which makes the collateral damage less tolerable in my opinion.
> Papers should be carefully crafted, not churned out.
I think you can say the same thing for code and yet, even with code review, bugs slip by. People aren't perfect and problems happen. Trying to prevent 100% of problems is usually a bad cost/benefit trade-off.
I agree that there is hyperbole thrown around a lot here and its possible to still use some hardware for a long time or to sell it and recover some cost but my experience in planning compute at large companies is that spending money on hardware and upgrading can often result in saving money long term.
Even assuming your compute demands stay fixed, its possible that a future generation of accelerator will be sufficiently more power/cooling efficient for your workload that it is a positive return on investment to upgrade, more so when you take into account you can start depreciating them again.
If your compute demands aren't fixed you have to work around limited floor space/electricity/cooling capacity/network capacity/backup generators/etc and so moving to the next generation is required to meet demand without extremely expensive (and often slow) infrastructure projects.
Sure, but I don't think most people here are objecting to the obvious "3 years is enough for enterprise GPUs to become totally obsolete for cutting-edge workloads" point. They're just objecting to the rather bizarre notion that the hardware itself might physically break in that timeframe. Now, it would be one thing if that notion was supported by actual reliability studies drawn from that same environment - like we see for the Backblaze HDD lifecycle analyses. But instead we're just getting these weird rumors.
I agree that is a strange notion that would require some evidence and I see it in some other threads but looking at the parent comments going up it seems people are discussing economic usefulness so that is what I'm responding to.
I think this is true with an arm mac (and would be tricky to fix that, props to the Asahi folks for doing so much) but for a lot of other hardware (recent dell/asus/lenovo, framework, byo desktops) I find Linux complete. I'm sure there is hardware out there that with struggles but I've not had to deal with any issues for a few years now myself.
I think with the right parental guidance/supervision this could be a very fun toy.
From the website it seems like a great way to generate some black and white outlines that kids can still color in. If used like that it seems almost strictly more creative than a coloring book, no? There are plenty of other ways kids can express creativity with pre-made art too. Maybe they use them to illustrate a story they dreamed up? Maybe they decorate something they built with them?
Also, some children might want to have fun be creative in ways that don't involve visual arts. I was never particularly interested in coloring or drawing and still believe myself to be a pretty creative individual. I don't think my parents buying me some stickers robbed me of any critical experience.
