Yes, just went from i3770 (12 years old!) to a 9900x as I tend to wait for a doubling of single core performance before upgrading (got through a lot of PCs in the 386/486 era!). It's actually only 50% faster according to cpubenchmark [0] but is twice as fast in local usage (multithread is reported about 3 times faster).
Also got a Mac Mini M4 recently and that thing feels slow in comparison to both these systems - likely more of a UI/software thing (only use M4 for xcode) than being down to raw CPU performance.
M4 is amazing hardware held up by a sub-par OS. One of the biggest bottlenecks when compiling software on a Mac is notarization, where every executable you compile causes a HTTP call to Apple. In addition to being a privacy nightmare, this causes the configure step in autoconf based packages to be excruciatingly slow.
Notarization isn’t called for the vast majority of builds on the vast majority of build systems.
Your local dev builds don’t call it or require it.
It’s only needed for release builds, where you want it notorized (required on iOS, highly recommended for MacOS). I make a Mac app and I call the notarization service once or twice a month.
Even better if you want to automate the whole notarization thing you don't have a "nice" notarize-this-thing command that blocks until its notarized and fails if there's an issue, you send a notarization request... and wait, and then you can write a nice for/sleep/check loop in a shell script to figure out whether the notarization finished and whether it did so successfully. Of course from time to time the error/success message changes so that script will of course break every so often, have to keep things interesting.
Xcode does most of this as part of the project build - when it feels like it that is. But if you want to run this in CI its a ton a additional fun.
Compilation works fine without notarization. It isn't called by default for the vast majority of complications. It is only called if you submit to an App Store, or manually trigger notarization.
The notarization command definitely does have the wait feature you claim it doesn't: `xcrun notarytool ... --wait`.
Wait wait wait wait wait. So you're saying that a configure script that compiles a 5-line test program (and does this 50 times) to check if a feature is present or a compiler flag works... will have to call out to Apple for permission to do so??
Ugh. Disgusting. So glad I stopped using macOS years ago. (Even if this isn't actually true... still glad I stopped using Apple's we-know-better-than-you OS years ago.)
It is amazing to me that people put up with this garbage and don't use an OS that respects them more.
I jumped ahead about 5 generations of Intel, when I got my new laptop and while the performance wasn't much better, the fact that I changed from a 10 pound workstation beast that sounded like a vacuum cleaner, to a svelte 13 inch laptop that works with a tiny USB C brick, and barely runs its fans while being just as fast made it worthwhile for me.
I'm trying to understand what does it got to do with LLM size?
Imho, right tools allow small models to perform better than undirected tool like bash to do everything.
But I understand that this code is to show people how function calling is just a template for LLM.
Mini swe agent, as an academic tool, can be easily tested aimed to show the power of a simple idea against any LLM. You can go and test it with different LLMs. Tool calls didn't work fine with smaller LLM sizes usually. I don't see many viable alternatives less than 7GB, beyond Qwen3 4B for tool calling.
> right tools allow small models to perform better than undirected tool like bash to do everything.
Interesting enough the newer mini swe agent was refutation of this hypothesis for very large LLMs from the original swe agent paper (https://arxiv.org/pdf/2405.15793) assuming that specialized tools work better.
I think James May made a great point when he said it's not about range, it's about quick and ubiquitous charging. I wouldn't mind if my vehicle could only travel 300km... if I could have the confidence I'd be able to stop and top it up in just a couple of minutes no matter where I was.
Faster charging would really make all the difference.
The problem with fast charging, at least here in Ireland, is that it's significantly more expensive than petrol. Our family moved back from an EV to PHEV because we get the benefit of 90+% of our journeys being for free (from solar charging at home), but that last 10% is petrol that is always available.
There's also nothing more miserable than being stuck in a queue for a fast charger with a colicy baby. I've offered people cash to get to the front of the queue, although no-one's ever accepted money when they understand why.
> I wouldn't mind if my vehicle could only travel 300km... if I could have the confidence I'd be able to stop and top it up in just a couple of minutes no matter where I was.
This is called a motorcycle! Mine can do 260-280km on a gas tank, still does huge trips. Once batteries work like gas, you're absolutely right.
Eh I much prefer my Model 3 to my wife’s Mach-E because of the longer range it has. Even with fast chargers on the motorway it’s inconvenient to have to stop regularly to charge and delays your journey. 450km is nice for the Netherlands; if I had 500-600km range then I’d only ever need to charge at home which is way better.
For me 500km range is also the sweet spot. But it needs to be real range, like including heating in winter or AC in summer.
And while I only usually drive 300-350km in one piece, I don't want to buy a car where I have to fear that a drive of this sort ends up waiting to be towed because of battery degradation (500km will realistically be 450km in a few years), or because I missed the last charging station or got stuck in traffic with heating running, and the remaining few km dwindle in front of me.
It's rational to fear your phone being under 20% when you still need it. It's just as rational to have 20% buffer when charging your car battery.
Real range at motorway speed that is 120km/h in summer. My current cheap ICE has atleast 450 km total including 350 km or so at 120. Which to me would be sweet spot. I could get to nearest big cities and airports there and then back. And only have to think refuelling or charging in couple of days after.
In the end that is only two about 2 hour drive stints. And really spending time on those stints instead of getting to destination or being home later...
Not really. if your choice is a better ICE car at the same price point, why get an EV that has to stop intermittently and has failure modes like broken chargers. It has to be as good. And better
Have you looked at the taxes versus incentives for EVs vs ICEs in Norway? If you need a new car and one is triple the cost (because the other is exempt from fees) what are you going to buy?
But yeah, it's for the environment, surely. Reverse the policy and see what happens.
I agree it's a strong incentive, but I'm not sure it's the only one. One example was during the cold wave last winter. ICE owners struggled quite a bit more than EV owners. You also have the problem that ICE vehicles are quite slow and laggy, unless you spend a lot of money on performance ICE vehicles but then they usually tend to be loud and uncomfortable.
Yeah, the amount of issues I hear about with chargers not working, and everything relying on using some app? I'm not installing a smartphone app to charge a battery! So far I'm not feeling too tempted about electric vehicles. I'll be happy to find something that avoids these shortcomings though!
People really need to get away from that notion electric vehicles need to be as similar as possible to ICE vehicles. Most people living in cities don’t ever require that range, because 99% of their rides will be constrained to less than 50 kilometers. And even on the countryside, few people need to drive such long stretches on a single charge.
Keeping up this stoic desire to not having to change your habits around driving at all is dismissing a lot of the benefits small, lightweight electric cars could get us, if they didn’t need to carry tons of battery around—that isn’t even necessary most of the time.
If you want people to choose one thing, then you want it to be better than or at least as good as the alternatives. The idea that EVs need to be comparable to ICE vehicles isn’t just some silly argument, it’s literally the choice that consumers are faced with if they want to buy a car. Even if longer range travel is only 1% of what consumers will do with their car (which I’m sure is a number you just made up), why would you get a product that only meets 99% of your needs, when you can get the competing product that meets 100% of them?
It’s definitely a hyperbole number I made up. The point is that the technology isn’t equal or better, but different. It has other constraints and capabilities, but pretending an engine is an engine as long as the hood is closed gets us in the current situation where car builders struggle to recreate ICEs, but electric, consumers are never satisfied because they have wrong expectations, and regulators don’t ensure the charging infrastructure that would actually required exists.
With an electric vehicle, you can get an extremely low-maintenance, easy to drive, fast accelerating, ecologically efficient car. That has its on merits. On the other hand, it has a lower range than an ICE engine, and is less reliable in cold weather.
> consumers are never satisfied because they have wrong expectations
Consumers are satisfied with buying ICE vehicles, which is why 90-something percent of them do just that when buying a new vehicle. You’re not saying anything about consumers expectations here, what’s happening is (most of them) just they don’t want what EVs are selling. You can’t be wrong about wanting something, we’re all allowed to choose what it is that we want for ourselves.
This is just the EV version of “the world would be much nicer if everybody thought like me” argument.
I think it’s unreasonable for people to think everything has to be business as usual whereas the true cost of a galon of fuel should have been 50 dollars if we facor in the environmental cost.
I think I don’t like that people see consumption as a birthright, and pretend there aren’t any consequences.
This is the main reason I never plan on buying one. I really hate all of the car-driven-by-a-computer functionality. I don’t want to drive a car where an internal computer can take over control of the vehicle, I especially don’t want one where the computer in charge of the car can connect to a network, I never want to drive one that has a mandatory always on connection. I also really want buttons, dials and switches, and think a yoke is such a stupid idea for a road car…
Plenty of ICE vehicles are starting to get these features as well, but I don’t buy those cars either, and all of the half decent EVs seem to have (nearly) all of those features I hate, configured in the worst way I could possibly imagine.
Yeah, and so far EVs almost universally have a couple "no-go" bullet points for me: touch screen controls, and always-online. Either of those just instantly excludes such a vehicle from my consideration. Uhh, unsurprisingly, I have no clue what I'm going to do when my current vehicle becomes unusable! Replace it with another old one, I guess?! >_<
> Most people living in cities don’t ever require that range
Very true! But most people in cities can't charge at home (street parking, rental, etc).
So charge time and access (finding a working station with a reasonable wait time) must also be considered before we tell people they're dumb for resisting change.
Yeah, but as it turns out our planet can’t sustain that model of consumption. The challenging technology requires you to insert a plug at night. Is that really that tough of a sale?
Yes, because the majority of people dont leave in the suburbia with their own garage. People leave either in apartments with shared parking that may have like 2-3 charging spots, or they just street-park and they have 0 charging spots. It is very annoying to have to search and fight for a working power plug multiple times per week.
Not everywhere is massive and spread out like US. In Ireland I can basically get anywhere in the whole country with one charge and maybe a top-up along the way. I'm more than happy with my 400km range.
That would not be a bad option to get smaller compared to the small tanks that people are driving right now.
Cars are one of the most inefficient form of transport anyways and driving almost never makes sense on large distances.
Instead of a large flow of people driving 600km to go to the same place with a single seat used each only once per year, what you would want is public transport instead on those routes, that would be more rational.
I'm also in Ireland and while 400km might get you anywhere in the country, it won't get you home. Fast charging here is more expensive than petrol (over twice as much per km in many cases), the charging infrastructure is not reliable, and it's very easily overwhelmed.
After the All Ireland semi-final this year, there were multi-hour queues for fast chargers on the M7. Multi-minute queues for petrol.
This is reflected in sales, where even with tax and BIK incentives, EV sales are falling sharply and second-hand EVs are being exported because the market has tanked.
I remember when the major advantage of EVs were “you won’t pay for gas anymore.” And now it switched to “well, it’s 10% cheaper than gas but the car itself is 3 times more expensive.”
I don’t understand how they expect poor people to buy these massively.
Been saying this forever: most of the cost of gasoline are "road taxes". You think the government is just to let that revenue disappear as people shift to EV usage? No, your EV will be just as expensive to operate, they will add taxes to your charger.
In Ireland, that has not yet happened. Excise duties are extremely high on petrol and diesel and EV charging has none. However, fast charging is already more expensive.
Part of this is that EVs are much more expensive than the average car (over the whole fleet - new cars are much closer in price), and so EV drivers are self-selected to be wealthier, therefore willing to pay more. Another factor is the lack of competition and alternatives, especially at motorway petrol stations.
Yeah you have a point, but I also don't think it's fair to use a once-off surge in demand as your counterpoint.
If I am driving far enough to warrant a charge, chances are I'm spending some time at my destination before coming back. 4 hours at 7kW (slow AC charge) is 28kWh, which ~40% of my total battery capacity, or about 200km of range. It probably won't get me home but I can probably get to another less busy charger on my way home.
I do agree though, the charging infrastructure needs to be built out much more. I dream of a day where every parking space in every parking lot has a slow charging port, and there are much much more ~50kW installed. But the current level of build-out is not that bad, and when combined with home charging it's basically a non-issue ~80% of the time.
Maybe next time, get your car topped up before going to the game, and then afterwards you can just drive home, skipping probably the majority of the surge traffic. Or take the bus!
I personally doubt very much that this range is required. Charging infrastructure is definitely a lot more important.
I still drive a diesel because I drive across Europe a lot. My usual journey is 700km, which I can do with ca. 40L. The total my 65L tank would give me is about 1000km depending on the conditions. Anyway, those 700km take about 8 hours with a couple of short stops. If I were to drive 2000km I would definitely need a long break in which I could easily charge. I am not really aware of any ICE having a greater range than that, never mind 2000Km.
I’ve once driven the Plugin-Hybrid Kuga and it got very close to the diesel range. It almost made the entire 700km journey with the 40l petrol tank.
But these long journeys only happen a few times a year and I think it would be silly to drive a huge battery around for the off chance I am driving across an entire continent.
As an owner of an EV it took me the first 6 months to adapt. The concept is different and you need to adapt your mentality to it. When you use an ICE car you fill up once it goes under 20% When you drive an EV you leave home and it's always full and costs nothing (PV takes care of that). Most places I visit have chargers which means you charge while you do what you have to do be it restaurant, shopping mall, supermarket etc. Things only happen differently if you plan long journey and living on an island that's no issue.
How does that work when all cars are electric? Fighting with some guy at the grocery store for a charging port? I'm not trying to be inflammatory asking that, I genuinely wonder what the approach is supposed to be if suddenly everyone went and bought an electric car. I always hear that "you can charge all over the place" but I'll see like, two charging stalls in a giant parking lot. I wonder what the future looks like in that regard in, say, 5-10 years.
> I wonder what the future looks like in that regard in, say, 5-10 years.
Likely, for one, a great deal more aluminium HVAC|DC cable laid in car parks to support charging; copper's kind of expensive and in short supply but is also a contender.
Might be smart to invest in any IPO's launched to raise capital for new proven economically feasible smelters processing infrastructure.
The hay to feed all those horses doesn't appear by magic, livery's the future m'lad.
I think really, like your parent said, people charge them at home. In the UK, energy providers have plans where they schedule charging overnight so it costs next to nothing. It costs about £10 / month for a family vehicle that gets daily use.
Demand and supply I guess. If all cars were EV all parking spots would have a port. Simplistic I know but that's how markets work. Would gas/petrol stations exist every few km if there weren't cars that needed them?
Range is kinda irrelevant if you live in a place where filling stations are ubiquitous. Going 850 km in my old petrol-powered car required just one five-minute stop.
That's Perth to Carnarvon up the coast road in Western Australia, roughly 8 hours @ 110 km/hr speed limit and one leg of a longer trip from (say) Perth to Broome.
Yes. That's my point. They can, lots of diesel tractors can. Family cars owned by most people do not have 2000km range tanks and it's ludicrous to define a barrier to acceptance that far north of lived experience for most people.
It's called range anxiety for a reason. People are anxious about it. But, it's disconnected from what a trip meter tells us about average commute, daily drive.
Cue hoardes of "but i live rural and drive 30,000km a day" responses. Because people don't understand averages and what on average most people do. I know I drive below average, i checked. I do about 1/3 to 1/4 of an average Australian driver. I also know these 200km daily commute drivers are a wild outlier, not the norm. The people whining about e-vehicle range snipe social media to headline their justified concerns to their outlier behaviour and distort the conversation.
Controversially, agricultural societies late to industrialization, have more population now and are replacing early industrial societies due to lower birth rates in industrial workers.
So I doubt humans with AI will replace humans without.
What is enjoyment though? Suicides, mental health issues, obesity, various substances abuse…
Let alone that such enjoyment is on next generations. Wether by wasting resources, abusing environment. Or generation that will never be born thanks to crappy birth rate.
So much enjoyment and such a high quality of life that people ain’t willing to procreate. Yay. Usually nature reacts in such a way in opposite environment.
> Suicides, mental health issues, obesity, various substances abuse…
Yeah, because those don’t exist in third world countries.
> Let alone that such enjoyment is on next generations. Wether by wasting resources, abusing environment.
Oh boy, here we go.
> Or generation that will never be born thanks to crappy birth rate.
So much enjoyment and such a high quality of life that people ain’t willing to procreate. Yay. Usually nature reacts in such a way in opposite environment.
You base your assumption on a belief of good birth rate=good life=what nature thinks is good, which is completely incorrect.
Give me at least one reason why me and my girlfriend should sacrifice her health, career, mental well-being, money and time to do something we both don’t want to?
> Yeah, because those don’t exist in third world countries.
Of course they do. That's just a natural part of human existance. But dealing with those issues is vastly different. Nowadays in „developed“ world people are pretty much left to their own devices. And some asshats go as far as saying that trying to help those who suffering is bad. „Fat acceptance“ is one of the worst.
> You base your assumption on a belief of good birth rate=good life=what nature thinks is good, which is completely incorrect.
That's how it goes in nature, doesn't it? Life form in a suitable environment starts replicating till it meets natural boundaries. Once environment is no longer suitable, it starts to shrink. I wouldn't call it „good life“ or „bad life“. That's just how the world rolls.
> Give me at least one reason why me and my girlfriend should sacrifice her health, career, mental well-being, money and time to do something we both don’t want to?
I don't have to give you a reason. Your environment was supposed to. But this is a very interesting. You're basically saying that a good part of your quality of life relies on not having kids. Not on your high-quality-of-life environment. Vice versa is correct too IMO. People in poor countries would have higher quality of life if they stopped having kids. Less resources towards kids/education/whatever, more towards nice stuff. But this is a bit like maxing out credit cards. And then calling that high quality of life. Just on a societal level. But some people deep in debt seem to enjoy high quality life, don't they? cough US federal debt cough.
> Controversially, agricultural societies late to industrialization, have more population now
If you pointed the above out 123 years ago, would the British Empire change your mind?
Population is just one metric of success.
>So I doubt humans with AI will replace humans without.
But they might out live them whilst the manmade chemicals that affect health, like (per|poly)fluoroalkyl (PFAS) that took decades for the law to recognise and legislate against, in much the same way understanding dialects of RegEx in conversation becomes more common place in every day conversation, in order to understand the evolving world we live in.
Has survival of the fittest evolved into survival of the intelligent?
Unfortunately, due to the law of names, StabilityAI will in the future hit the same issue as OpenAI and do a 180, unleashing very unstable AI to the world.
More like Stability will turn out to be an unstable company. Last we heard they were struggling to raise more funding and might lose their CEO due to unclear business models:
The company can cease operations tomorrow, but the model they open sourced (and all of its derivatives built by the community) will continue to exist. If OpenAI disappears then all of the work they have done goes with it.
when has opensource ever spearheaded independent innovation? they usually follow along.
Fred Wilson once did a take on all trends in SV. First some firm comes out with a product that changes the landscape and makes a massive profit. Then some little firm comes along and does the same for a cheaper price. Then some ambitious group out of college comes out with an open-source version of the same.
Open source has never been a trailblazer of innovation. Open "research" was the original mantra for open ai. And an entrepreneur in residence put together a great product. If they were any more open, it would not make sense.
> Open source has never been a trailblazer of innovation.
Except for, you know, all the major programming languages and Linux, which make all that innovation possible in the first place. Also, everything OpenAI is doing is based on open source stuff from Google and others, so…
Single thread performance of 16-core AMD Ryzen 9 9950X is only 1.8x of my poor and old laptop's 4-core i5 performance. https://www.cpubenchmark.net/compare/6211vs3830vs3947/AMD-Ry...
I'm waiting for >1024 core ARM desktops, with >1TB of unified gpu memory to be able to run some large LLMs with
Ping me when some builds this :)