The live-video.net domain belongs to Twitch. So, from what I can gather, apparently the OP switched back to Twitch streaming and the last-hop RTMP server does not use certificates.
> - "Prefer New" seems almost useless. You've already spent all this effort doing the job, why are you cancelling it and throwing away the results?
The obvious use-case is if the result depends on a state and the state has changed since the job has started. Examples would be updating the landing page when a new article has come in (you don't need the outdated landing page w/o the new article) or if you did a code change while compiling (assuming it's not a commit).
For external events, like code update or new publish, sure. But the author talks about scheduled events - it's harder to think of good examples here.
(because with scheduled events, if you missed deadline once, there is a good chance that restarting with exactly the same deadline will miss again, and again, and you will never finish. Better do "prefer old" and at least have _some_ finished data)
Usually, yes. There are a few exceptions, such as serious misconduct, tax fraud and not declaring insolvency when necessary. But as long as you're following the law, you're fine.
> I hope there's always someone willing to make this bet and release better and better open models.
What would this bet be? Training is expensive and open weights mean that for hosting you compete on price with people that don't have this item on their bill.
"Attention is all you need" - the larger bet is that by releasing your models open-weight, you'll get more attention and mindshare than if you tried to jump in to compete with the major closed providers, and the value of that attention will outweigh the cost of the training run.
So far, it's really only the Chinese labs (and FAIR or whatever Meta's project is called now) that are doing this. Oh yeah, and Google's Gemma.
At the moment, this is all massively distorted by the prestige and investment money flowing into the space. None of the labs have to charge the real cost of inference let alone the marginal cost of training because they are instead lighting investment money on fire to cover that.
One imagines (though I have not investigated in detail) that there's a degree of national prestige work going on too. The Chinese labs are trying to show that they can build better and more efficient models and are releasing open to undercut the US labs.
> Unless you have a “every commit must build” rule, why would you review commits independently?
Security. Imagine commit #1 introduces a security vulnerability (backdoor) and the features. Then #2 introduces a non-obvious, harmless bug and closes the vulnerability introduced in #1 [0]. At some point, the bug will surface and rolling back commit #2 will be an easy fix, re-introducing your bug.
Alternatively, one of the earlier commits might, for example, contain credential dumping code. Once that commit is mainlined, CI might either automatically run on it or will be able to be run on it since it's no longer marked as unsafe PR.
[0] Think something like #1 introduces array access and #2 adds a bounds-check in a function a layer above - a reviewer with the whole context will see the bounds check and (possibly) consider it fine, but to someone rolling back a commit the necessity will not be obvious.
reply