How does deducting R&D in software equal magic money? Isn't it just making the deduction timeframe the same timeframe as the actual expense/money paid?
It's weirder that you spend money on R&D today & then get a 20% for 5 years in a row, no? You've spend money, but also can't deduct it from your profit so you're both spending money and paying taxes on that money as if you had it.
No - 16gb of ram is barely enough to run regular applications if you're a power user let alone the most breakthrough computationally heavy workloads ever invented
16 GB of system memory vs 16 GB of VRAM / unified memory (? I think this is the case for recent Apple machines) makes a huge difference. The former is more of a neat party trick (depending on who you hang out with) and the latter is actually something you can use as a tool to be more efficient.
I recently bought a 7900 XTX with 24 GB of VRAM, but the model I currently run can easily run in 16 GB (6 bit llama 3 8b). It's fast enough and high enough quality that I can use it for processing information that I don't feel comfortable sharing with hosted services. It's definitely not the best of the best as far as what models are able to do right now, but it's surprisingly useful.
Also keep in mind: 32GB of RAM is more than enough for normal usage, but it's useless for (this kind of state-of-the-art-) ML unless you also have a graphics card of the kind that won't fit in a laptop.
Unless of course you were talking about VRAM, in which case 16GB is still not great for ML (to be fair, the 24GB of an RTX 4090 aren't either, but there's not much more you can do in the space of consumer hardware). I don't think the other commenter was talking about VRAM, because 16GB VRAM are very overkill for everyday computing... and pretty decent for most gaming.
It's almost a myth these days that you need top end GPUs to run models. Some smaller models (say <10B parameters with quantization) run on CPUs fine. Of course you won't have hundreds of tokens per sec, but you'll probably get around ~10 or so, which can be sufficient depending on your use case.
>Can anyone summarize in layperson's terms any standards that these securities must meet?
No, not even the SEC & that's the cause of major court cases currently.
In normal security offerings, there's disclosures coming from the issuing company about financials/profitability etc but btc/eth are peer to peer networks so there's no-one in the middle to do these things & it is very different to normal securities.
> No, not even the SEC & that's the cause of major court cases currently.
That's the spin of all the PR the crypto exchanges have put out.
However, when it's time to put their money where their mouths are, they don't mention that there's no specific standards (because there is - the Howey Test).
Coinbase, for example, has been very loud about this. "We're desperately asking the SEC to help us do this right and they won't!"
Except their lawsuit says that they absolutely know how to "do this right", but...
> for many tokens, registering is not possible due to effort involved, or not economically viable.
i.e. Coinbase doesn't like the cost of having to register securities for the shitcoin du jour - there's no money to be made.
But the SEC isn't obligated to make a profitable business model for Coinbase.
SEC just a few days ago lost most of its case against XRP where it’s strict definition of the Howey test was decided by the judge to be incorrect regarding crypto tokens. The judge did rule for the SEC regarding investment contracts concerning tokens. Most likely the SEC will lose the case against coinbase as well for similar reasons.
Just because the SEC says something doesn’t mean it’s true.
Just because a judge says something doesn’t make it true either. I’m sure the case will be appealed and, until a final verdict is given, nothing has been settled.
I don't think you do get the point - the point is that unless you define every single word in a rule (like how legislation has a definitions page), it's very hard to do simple content moderation in a way that everyone agrees
This is silly, though? Rules and legislation is also usually layered in such a way that other rules can supercede.
Such that, if your model of how rules and regulations work is that they are all active at all times.... I have really bad news for you. For fun, consider that there is still the 18th amendment to the US constitution. There is just also now the 21st amendment to go with it. And at no point did we have to redefine words for that trick.
Regardless of whether you do actually get the point, when multiple comments indicate that they think that you didn't get the point that tells you that you have failed to communicate that you got the point. Doubling down doesn't help
I do not know how to communicate "I got the point" more than "I got the point". Please tell me how to communicate "I got the point" better than saying "I got the point".
They think I didn't get the point, but they're wrong. Hope that helps!
It's definitely a rhetorical challenge, and even if TFA is using a poor analogy, it does serve to illustrate this problem, which feels to me like part of what it is trying to communicate.
I have a lot of experience thinking that I get the point of someone else's argument, and then realizing later that I didn't actually get the point, or not in a way that was useful to both parties in the conversation
When I don't feel understood it's usually because the counterparty hasn't said things that allow me to recognize that they have internalized what I'm trying to communicate
Changing tack a little, I think that this is one of the things that I admire about some legal writing, that they are intentionally addressing the act of communication in addition to the substance of what they are communicating. In addition there is a recognition that their words have consequence
This whole debate is funny because it's exactly what the game itself is about. Everyone sees this as a very clear, unambiguous thing, and the other side must be misunderstanding it. If only I explain it the right way, they'll be forced to concede to my point of view. It's the only valid one! They can't possibly understand it and come to a different conclusion!
In this case, there are just three angry internet commenters who want to tell someone else they're wrong. It's not GP's problem. I agree with GP -- it's a bad metaphor. GP doesn't owe you litigating that in depth.
Possibly unfair, but this is like trying to discuss religion with believers.
"
Oh no, THAT specific thing is silly. OUR things are completely different."
Similarly whatever you do or showcase or discuss, "Oh that is not REAL Crypto. Our Crypto is different!"
It's a massive whack a mole. Meanwhile there are what, ten thousand plus different tokens tracked on coin market cap?
Edit : 25k, apparently lol. It's been a few days since I last checked :-)
