X11 was never great.

(Like seriously, it’s nothing but config files you have to edit from the local console shell and and proprietary stuff from nvidia that misbehaves, all the way down. Always has been.)

Just because someone does something instead of fighting a war doesn’t make whatever they actually did do right. They could also do neither thing. Especially if the alternative to war turns out to not actually achieve the goal the war would have achieved, leaving them in the same position of deciding whether to do a bad thing or not, after having already done another different bad thing.

I didn’t ask whether it was better or worse than declaring a war; it’s clearly less bad than starting a war.

But that doesn’t mean it’s right. Maybe doing neither a war nor sanctions, but something else, or nothing, is the right thing to do.

Does that work?

Is it right to tell random people “hey you, it’s your job to break local laws and topple your dictator, we could invade you with actual trained military people but that would be inconvenient for us”?

It works on some devices; they do sign the builds as far as I can tell. But the bootloader itself needs to be convinceable to trust the LOS signatures, and needs to understand the secure boot implementation used in the Android that the current LOS is built from (since Android has re-done it all a few times). Nobody knows anything about bootloaders to figure out which of them can do this or how they would be induced to do it.

qsnc is a gentleperson and a scholar

So you would have to pair this with a switch that not only does VLANs but also somehow does your NAT for you.

Usually the routers you install OpenWRT on are really a CPU with one port to a VLAN-capable switch, and the port labeled WAN on the device is just VLAN’d separately by default. One cool thing OpenWRT lets you do on “normal” hardware is change the VLAN settings on the switch ports which are not accessible under stock firmware.

But if they are shipping “just” the router piece and making people go get their own VLAN-capable switch, I’m not sure what hardware exactly they expect people to use? And I’m not sure what being connected to the switch over one real 2.5G cable is going to do to LAN/WAN throughput, vs. how a “normal” router ties the CPU into the switch through means not known to mortal minds. Maybe it is just as good, maybe it is a huge bottleneck. It is definitely going to add cost over the $89 sticker price.

But if most people are just going to run fiber modem straight to WiFi, maybe this is the right config actually?

I don’t think that’s what accepting harmful interference means. It means more like, if there is noise in the channel, the device won’t just up its own power to clobber the noise, even if not doing that will somehow break it or otherwise make it not work right. It doesn’t mean you have to build the device so that some kinds of interference will cause it to break.

I think there are consumer-grade GPUs that can run this on a single card with enough quantization. Or if you want to run it on CPU you can buy and plug in enough DIMMs if you have an only somewhat large amount of money.

Looks like it has 32B in the name, so enough RAM to hold 32 billion weights plus activations (current values for the layer being run right now, which I think should be less than a gigabyte). It is probably made of 16 bit floats to start with, so something like 64 gigabytes, but if you start quantizing it to cram more weights into fewer bits, you can go down to like 4 bits per weight, or more like 16 gigabytes of memory to run (a slightly worse version of) the model.