It seems to use DHT under the hood whether directly or through a relay. https://pkdns.net/ .

That is a pluggable/possible, but non-default, configuration.

You would have a lot of security issues right? Whether or not it's useful Wayland does prevent to isolate clients from each other.

They’re right on this one, shared memory isn’t some scary dangerous thing. Both processes will just have some region of their respective virtual address space which are mapped to the same physical memory, which they can use to share data. Wayland already uses this for pixel data.

Not really, you can have one command buffer per client or process, and map each one in the virtual space of the process that's supposed to write to it.

This ruling was about search clearly, however, there's definitely ways implications for chatbots too.

Google does remove defamatory results I believe at least partially in response to being sued. However there is a distinction if they have been informed it is defamatory.

In this case it looks like they were notified and didn't do anything.

AI can still have a massive impact while these three companies go nowhere.

Same as the dotcom and same as the railroads.

> AI can still have a massive impact while these three companies go nowhere

These three companies can do great while their valuations go nowhere.

Which is unlikely considering their obligations. I'm a bit more optimistic about SpaceX (and anthropic to a lower degree), but if free models keep improving at the same rate as frontier models, their won't be any profit from AI.

What’s the time horizon do you think for free models matching today’s SOTA on average consumer hardware? I see people building 6k+ machines to run the best of them at the moment, which are behind SOTA by maybe 6 - 12 months or so right now.

Open models lag the frontier ~3-6 months, though they're likely smaller than frontier models as well so that lag might not be fully real. Qwen 3.6 27B is very usable for average coding, and Gemma4 31b is very usable for day to day tasks.

The problem there isn't the models, it's consumer hardware. Even 16GB cards aren't the norm, and even with massive improvements in per-parameter performance we probably still need 48GB memory to get models that feel smart enough to trust.

“Average” is also doing terrible things there. The “average GPU” is probably the integrated graphics on the CPU of a laptop.

If you scoped it to “average gaming desktop”, double digit VRAM is pretty normal at this point. If costs came down, I imagine the higher end GPUs would start including enough VRAM for 30B-ish models.

> I see people building 6k+ machines to run the best of them at the moment, which are behind SOTA by maybe 6 - 12 months or so right now

SOTA in open source (frontier Kimi MOE) requires terabytes of RAM. At DDR5 prices, that's $40k alone. For HBM, higher. We're years away from consumer hardware matching the power and latency of e.g. Claude.

I don't think free/open model necessarily means local. I use open code Go for $10/mo for pet projects and deepseek v4 pro is largely comparable to my workflow at work using Claude code. Obviously this wouldn't work for someone wanting to do more than just per projects (I hit my weekly quota 5 days in, on basic usage) but I'm just saying that local doesn't have to be part of the equation

> These three companies can do great while their valuations go nowhere.

How? They're building out on debt. The investors need to offload at a profit otherwise the company can't sell more shares to acquire the cash needed (share price too low).

Sure, it's possible that a recent IPO does poorly but the company soldiers on regardless, but it's not likely.

> They're building out on debt

SpaceX sort of is. OpenAI almost certainly is. Anthropic doesn't appear to be.

Dividends are absolutely not price neutral however most feeds correct for them.

Not at all since the company is also +80bn cash.

But they are about to set it on fire?

But null hypothesis p=0.3 or something right?

Set it on fire? I'm confused what your model of Google leadership is. Do you think they're being duped? Or controlled in some way? What is your theory of mind for Sundar's decision making process here. That he's committing fraud?

Because the obvious answer is that he has compelling financial data telling him that this $80B now will produce a positive return on investment in the future. But you of course seem to disagree.

Not me I have no dog in the fight, I am trying to mindread the market.

More like if these funds have an issue with the management structure they should just not buy the shares.

Maybe Nasdaq shouldn't put Space X in the Nasdaq-100 index fund 15 trading days later vs six months.

Nasdaq is a company that exists to make money.

They make money by curating an index i.e. a list of companies and licensing that list to other companies for a fee.

If they pick good, profitable companies with great future, then the business continues. If not, the business fails.

So when you're debating "should/shouldn't", the only perspective is that of Nasdaq, the company, and they only question they "should" be interested in is: is SpaceX a good company with great feature that will make the list better.

The 6 month rule was created by Nasdaq, the company, in order to pick good companies. It's not a religion. It's not a suicide pact.

Therefore when faced with historic IPO (the largest IPO ever) it's a sign of good management that they are not applying the same rules to SpaceX (debuting at $1.75 Trillion) as they do to companies that IPO at $100 million.

None of those are really unsolvable problems. I think though the issue it seems everyone in this thread is having is you can't wrap a non idempotent function to make it idempotent no matter how hard you try you have to design your system around it.