I think you would have to be an outsider to come up with this proposal because it challenges many sacred cows of the IETF establishment. It has no chance of being taken seriously and I personally disagree with a bunch of the decisions but it's entertaining to ponder what kind of mindset would produce this.
Insider would understand that there is non-existing chance of any new IP protocol being even considered or taking off. And thus any effort spend on it would be complete waste. Best you can do is work on some addition or backwards compatible new functionality.
I wouldn't describe Transport Stream as a "file system" but most people probably aren't familiar with the term multiplexing. It's true if you record a TS (e.g. to a .ts file) you can later split out the different Program Streams which can hold pretty much anything.
Pedantry alert: you're generally extracting Elementary Streams from a given TS. A Program Stream is basically a variant of a TS that's meant more for files at rest - say, on a DVD, or a PS2 game (which did use MPEG-2 PS extensively in the PSS file format, except storing the audio as XA ADPCM in a data stream) - while a TS is a bit more robust for transmission
Then I'm mistaken. I thought the law only demanded that piracy sites were blocked, and then ISPs made life easier for themselves by blocking all of Cloudflare.
At any rate, this behavior isn't befitting a serious country like Spain.
You're not wrong but we've never really tried the combination of modern CSS with no JS. It could produce elegant designs that load really fast... or ad-filled slop but declarative.
Yes to the modern CSS. To go as far back as suggested would mean using frames again and table based layouts with 1x1 invisible gifs to use for spacing layouts. Never again!
I could be wrong but it seems like in the case of a crash no one will be buying new GPUs and thus the existing ones could hold their value longer. Of course that value will no longer be massively inflated by bubble FOMO.
>in the case of a crash no one will be buying new GPUs and thus the existing ones could hold their value longer.
No, because no one has any use for those monstrous GPUs outside of ML and some research projects. They can't even be dropped onto the consumer market because a SOHO is not equipped to house devices like that. The best case scenario is that the boards get dismantled and the VRAM gets salvaged for refurbishing. They've built these machines so specialized that they're essentially disposable.
What are you basing that on? Some of the demand that currently exists, exists because of all the money sloshing around the AI ecosystem (i.e. people using AI to sell AI solutions to other people), so how are you so sure demand can fully utilize all existing compute even after a crash?
It isn’t about holding value, the cards are going to burn up. If they don’t, in 5 years one could run a rack of 4 cards at home at an affordable rate. Either the cards become affordable again and the datacenter is useless, or they don’t, and nobody can fucking afford to rent them.
GPUs definitely have higher failure rates than CPUs but I'm not sure what the absolute rates will turn out to be. If 10% of GPUs die within 5 years that's very high but also probably economically fine. If 50% die that's a disaster.
Sorry, I meant at some point the current cards in he data centers will be obsolete, financially. They’ll be sold on the secondary market. Buying 8 h200s at $150 a pop will either be a real thing, or they all burn up and capex explodes again, which would be a death knell.
reply