I wonder how well it performs in practice, because I can't help seriously doubting those benchmarks. That would put this 6GB model in Opus 4.6+ ballpark. Granted, that's mostly to Qwen 3.8's credit, but it's hard to believe that Qwen's already unbelievable capability density can still be compressed this much more.
The number of people abject enough to end up with transphobic views is thankfully nowhere near that. Most people, as it turns out, are not creepily obsessed with other people's genitals. Most people also aren't driven by a horrible urge to find minorities to torment. Though those who are would sure claim otherwise, of course; trying to normalize their awfulness is part of the playbook.
Because then they'll move on to the next victims and in having surrendered without even a fight you've granted them momentum for no good reason whatsoever, and you'll have fewer allies left too.
Is there a reason to believe this is how things work? Rather than "within a democracy as long as 'trans rights' means something that most people disagree with, it will be harder to advance the pro- side of the issue"? Is there evidence of 'momentum' being a real thing in politics, as opposed to the 'pendulum' that I've witnessed over the last decade?
Everything related to the right wing and fox news? We never had a big "swing left" - clinton was the democrats showing they can do economic conservatism as well. Modern acceptance of trans folks isn't a pendulum, most of the people espousing anti-trans views weren't pro trans 5 years ago.
Trying to abstract history into major shifts that are attributable to inanimate objects is just very ludic fallacy.
I'm confused by this. Are you saying that everything related to the right wing and fox news is evidence that momentum is a good model or that trying to model history with momentum is fundamentally fallacious? If the former, you've really got to be more specific- was firing Tucker Carlson evidence for momentum somehow? Did Republicans conceding gay marriage or Trump conceding abortion give Democrats momentum?
Sorry for being confusing, I was saying the latter - that these are reducing history to some game that can be understand with rules when it is nothing like that.
If you go back 15 years or so, you hear the exact same "concerns" about gay people pretty much word for word. Now that they're no longer an acceptable target for most people, they've moved on to regurgitating the same baseless fear mongering but targeted towards trans people. If society manages to progress further, they'll eventually come up with another group to serve as the "other" that they can blame everything on.
Scotland at least mulled independence quite seriously pre-Brexit, and one of the strongest arguments against which the UK advanced was that in leaving the UK Scotland would also leave the EU. The EU presidency, at the time held by Spain which was also concerned about its own independantist movement, supported that argument.
Then the UK voted for Brexit. Scotland and Northern Ireland voted against but England voted for it, and it outweighs both, so the UK left, dragging Scotland and Northern Ireland along and out of the EU. Neither were hugely amused.
So to answer your question, the Venn would likely be somewhat disjoint. That's a simple summary of a messy bag of thorns, though, so the details are likely way more nuanced.
He sells himself as an ethical guy, and doing things that are broadly positive for everyone even if they're against your own personal self-interest is basic ethicality.
Nvidia is party to a number of circular funding deals that would land them in an exciting situation if the other involved parties, i.e. frontier US labs, were to bite the bullet, for instance if the market in general broadly switched to open weight models as better value for the dollar.
You must have been living under a comfy rock the last few years since there are several communists - real ones, by their own say - in the running for positions in the "democratic" party. The coming elections will show whether they gain traction, if they do there is a real danger of communism forming in the USA.
As to fascism that remains to be seen. If by fascism you mean the actual meaning of the term, i.e. (section headings from Britannica [1]) Opposition to Marxism and socialism, Opposition to parliamentary democracy, Opposition to political and cultural liberalism, Totalitarian ambitions, Conservative economic programs and Corporatism I think there is some chance of this taking hold. Let's take these characteristics one at a time:
Opposition to Marxism and socialism: clearly present in the current US government, in my opinion rightly so since these ideologies have been shown to lead to disaster time and time again.
Opposition to parliamentary democracy: not present in the current US government, somewhat present in the current "democratic" party where DSA members want to radically change the way the country is governed by abolishing the Senate, abolishing the presidency, abolishing the supreme court and replace it with something resembling a politburo [2]
Opposition to political and cultural liberalism: clearly present in the current US government, to be expected given that the US two-party system largely comes down to 'political and cultural conservatism' versus 'political and cultural liberalism'
Totalitarian ambitions: some people in the current and previous US governments think and thought they could rule this way, they were and are held back by the courts and other institutions
Conservative economic programs: partly present in the current US government, to be expected given that it is part and parcel of the Republican program. Partly because a large part of the economic program (around 59% of the budget, data from 2025) consists of mandatory spending on social security (~22%), Medicare (14%), Medicaid (10%) and other mandatory programs (13%)
Corporatism (which according to Britannica means 'the theory and practice of organising society into “corporations” subordinate to the state ... workers and employers organised into industrial and professional corporations serving as organs of political representation and controlling to a large extent the persons and activities within their jurisdiction'): not present in the current US government, partly present in the "democratic" party where the DSA pushes an amalgamation of similar policies
What are your thoughts on this subject now that I made an attempt to put the term 'fascism' in its historical context?
OK, down-voter, be a man and tell me where you think I went wrong in my reasoning about the chances DSA-communists have in gaining a foothold or the danger of fascism gaining ground. Stop knee-jerking that down-vote button, tell us what you think - this is a discussion site after all, not a popularity contest or likes farm.
It's not complicated. The people in power in US are not hiding it. They want to dismatle democracy, take away peoples rights and freedoms. They are openly corrupted. They are laughing in your faces with hailing and nazy propaganda tactics.
While you are here worried about some hypothetical possibility of some socialist getting few seats. You miss that you won't have elections anymore.
I disagree. Enough people disagree that "blatant" is probably, by definition, not an appropriate adjective.
But at the same time, I don't hold that position passionately. Maybe it is fascism. It's not "blatant", but it's arguable.
Semantic arguments are never very interesting. It's more reasonable to simply argue that something is immoral - to argue the specifics of your disagreement - rather than to fight over whether a specific term applies, which would serve as emotional leverage for your argument due to its connections to historical atrocities. That's some kind of logical fallacy that I can't name.
Sorry, but people are calling anyone who disagrees with them nazis or fascists so frequently that it is hard to take seriously anymore?
You don't agree with my exact political views?! Then you are a fascist.
Also blatant fascism? By which definition? the OP article pretty much cites a single blog post as his evidence of DHH being a fascist; but never really defines fascism.
I get it DHH is not a very likeable guy, and a bit of a prick but calling him a fascist or taking childish jabs like calling Omarchy "vibecoded scripts on top of Arch" really removes a lot of credibility
reply