Video wird geladen...

Video konnte nicht geladen werden

Zur Startseite

A good technical LLM interview question: Your LLM chatbot takes 12s before it generates the first token, and the users are complaining. So you move the model onto a GPU with 3x the computing power. The time to first token barely improves. Why did this happen? (answer below) Latency...

_avichawla's profile picture

Avi Chawla

74,437 subscribers

21,163 Aufrufe • vor 5 Tagen •via X (Twitter)

LIVE

Anya Rossi• Live Now

Private livecam show

0 Kommentare

Keine Kommentare verfügbar

Kommentare vom Original-Post werden hier angezeigt

Ähnliche Videos

Day 11/90 of Inference Engineering How does vLLM work and how is it used in production? Before we discuss how vLLM works internally, it helps to understand what vLLM is. At a high level, vLLM is an inference engine that is designed to serve LLMs to thousands of concurrent users efficiently while managing scarce compute and memory. The goal for vLLM is to maximize throughput and minimize latency; optimizing for the best inference economics and experience for end users. With every request from the end user, it eventually ends up in the engine core, gets scheduled alongside other requests from other concurrent users, executes on the GPU, and updates the KV cache with the new key and value vectors, and streams the tokens back to the user. The Scheduler decides what requests should execute next while continuously batching requests together to maximize GPU utilization. Continuous batching is an inference optimization that allows new requests to join a running batch as other requests finish generating tokens. This helps with keeping the GPU utilization high instead of letting it sit idle waiting for an entire batch to complete generating. After the scheduler dispatches the selected batch to the Model Executor, the Model Executor prepares the tensors and metadata required for inference, retrieves each request’s block table from KV Cache Manager, launches the optimized transformer forward pass on the GPU, computes the logits, updates the KV cache with the new key and value vectors, and finally returns the results for sampling and streaming. The KV Cache Manager uses the PagedAttention memory layout to allocate fixed-size cache blocks on demand and maintains a Free Block Queue on the CPU that tracks which blocks in the GPU’s Paged KV Cache are currently free. When a request needs additional KV cache space, the KV Cache manager takes a free block from the queue and assigns it to that request, thus avoiding an expensive search through GPU memory for available cache blocks. All of these components form the core of vLLM’s inference engine. The Scheduler determines what requests are executed, the Model Executor determines how those requests are executed, the KV Cache Manager determines where each request’s KV cache lives using the PagedAttention Memory Layout. This architecture enables vLLM to serve thousands of concurrent requests with high throughput, low latency, and efficient GPU memory utilization. Heres a little animation that visualizes everything! - I've also completed the forward pass for my mnist.c project. I had a nice chat with shrey birmiwal, such a knowledgeable guy. Excited to learn more about vLLM and implement a tiny-vLLM one day.
0:14

Day 11/90 of Inference Engineering How does vLLM work and how is it used in production? Before we discuss how vLLM works internally, it helps to understand what vLLM is. At a high level, vLLM is an inference engine that is designed to serve LLMs to thousands of concurrent users efficiently while managing scarce compute and memory. The goal for vLLM is to maximize throughput and minimize latency; optimizing for the best inference economics and experience for end users. With every request from the end user, it eventually ends up in the engine core, gets scheduled alongside other requests from other concurrent users, executes on the GPU, and updates the KV cache with the new key and value vectors, and streams the tokens back to the user. The Scheduler decides what requests should execute next while continuously batching requests together to maximize GPU utilization. Continuous batching is an inference optimization that allows new requests to join a running batch as other requests finish generating tokens. This helps with keeping the GPU utilization high instead of letting it sit idle waiting for an entire batch to complete generating. After the scheduler dispatches the selected batch to the Model Executor, the Model Executor prepares the tensors and metadata required for inference, retrieves each request’s block table from KV Cache Manager, launches the optimized transformer forward pass on the GPU, computes the logits, updates the KV cache with the new key and value vectors, and finally returns the results for sampling and streaming. The KV Cache Manager uses the PagedAttention memory layout to allocate fixed-size cache blocks on demand and maintains a Free Block Queue on the CPU that tracks which blocks in the GPU’s Paged KV Cache are currently free. When a request needs additional KV cache space, the KV Cache manager takes a free block from the queue and assigns it to that request, thus avoiding an expensive search through GPU memory for available cache blocks. All of these components form the core of vLLM’s inference engine. The Scheduler determines what requests are executed, the Model Executor determines how those requests are executed, the KV Cache Manager determines where each request’s KV cache lives using the PagedAttention Memory Layout. This architecture enables vLLM to serve thousands of concurrent requests with high throughput, low latency, and efficient GPU memory utilization. Heres a little animation that visualizes everything! - I've also completed the forward pass for my mnist.c project. I had a nice chat with shrey birmiwal, such a knowledgeable guy. Excited to learn more about vLLM and implement a tiny-vLLM one day.

max fu

70,543 Aufrufe • vor 1 Monat

sorry, they just did WHAT someone gave a machine one disease name, the leading cause of blindness in the developed world with 1.5 million americans already in its path, and it came back pointing at a drug that has sat in pharmacies for years under a different label: 551 papers read in 30 minutes against the 294 hours a human would have needed, and the loop that did it is public on GitHub most agent setups answer one question at a time, so the ceiling on the work is the quality of the question you happened to think of this one was handed a single question and wrote the second one itself. turns out that follow-up is where the real find was: a target called ABCA1, upregulated threefold, in an experiment no human ordered i read the whole paper looking for the trick, and the trick is structural. that is the second question, and it is the gap between an assistant and a factory: - hand the loop a field rather than a task: it was given a disease, and choosing the mechanism was part of its job - make it rank before it spends: 151 papers in, ten candidate mechanisms out, scored against each other before anything touched a bench - split reading from judging, so the agent that forms the theory is a different agent from the one grading it - close every cycle on physical reality: the verdict was an experiment, and another model's opinion was never allowed to stand in for one - feed each result back as the next question rather than a log line, which is the step almost nobody builds - search what already passed inspection first: the winner was an approved compound with a safety file already on record - write down what the round learned before opening the next one, so round two starts where round one stopped my read, and i think it is the uncomfortable one: reading was the entire bottleneck in that field, and everybody spent the decade optimising the writing. people ran every physical experiment here, the analysis agent needs a domain expert writing its prompts, and the authors decline to call this the leap it resembles. the thinking got replaced, and the hands did not so the question i cannot answer for my own setup: which step of your loop still stops dead until you sit down and type something bookmark this one. the four parts that turn one model into a line that runs like this, the queue, the rooms, the write permissions and the gate, are built file by file in the piece below ↓
0:15

sorry, they just did WHAT someone gave a machine one disease name, the leading cause of blindness in the developed world with 1.5 million americans already in its path, and it came back pointing at a drug that has sat in pharmacies for years under a different label: 551 papers read in 30 minutes against the 294 hours a human would have needed, and the loop that did it is public on GitHub most agent setups answer one question at a time, so the ceiling on the work is the quality of the question you happened to think of this one was handed a single question and wrote the second one itself. turns out that follow-up is where the real find was: a target called ABCA1, upregulated threefold, in an experiment no human ordered i read the whole paper looking for the trick, and the trick is structural. that is the second question, and it is the gap between an assistant and a factory: - hand the loop a field rather than a task: it was given a disease, and choosing the mechanism was part of its job - make it rank before it spends: 151 papers in, ten candidate mechanisms out, scored against each other before anything touched a bench - split reading from judging, so the agent that forms the theory is a different agent from the one grading it - close every cycle on physical reality: the verdict was an experiment, and another model's opinion was never allowed to stand in for one - feed each result back as the next question rather than a log line, which is the step almost nobody builds - search what already passed inspection first: the winner was an approved compound with a safety file already on record - write down what the round learned before opening the next one, so round two starts where round one stopped my read, and i think it is the uncomfortable one: reading was the entire bottleneck in that field, and everybody spent the decade optimising the writing. people ran every physical experiment here, the analysis agent needs a domain expert writing its prompts, and the authors decline to call this the leap it resembles. the thinking got replaced, and the hands did not so the question i cannot answer for my own setup: which step of your loop still stops dead until you sit down and type something bookmark this one. the four parts that turn one model into a line that runs like this, the queue, the rooms, the write permissions and the gate, are built file by file in the piece below ↓

Argona

32,475 Aufrufe • vor 16 Tagen

50% cheaper Claude inference with just one line of code change! - Remove → model="claude-opus-4-8" - Add → model="ship-like/claude-opus-4-8" I verified the cost saving in my own terminal by invoking the same Anthropic model with the same prompt. The underlying engineering by Ship is actually interesting, and the patterns can be used in any production LLM stack. Essentially, a trained model is a frozen artifact. Every request performs the same forward-pass, whether it extracts a date or refactors a module, because the compute decision was made at training time, before the request existed. Ship makes that decision at inference time instead. After seeing a request, it searches over executions, involving single models, cascades, ensembles, or harnesses with tools, and serves the cheapest one that will match the reference model's quality. This is not a basic router, because picking a cheaper model per query doesn't ensure the cheaper model preserves the original's behavior, like output shape, tool-call patterns, and refusals. Ship measures this equivalence directly. Outputs stay distributionally indistinguishable from the reference model, not token-identical, since two calls to the same model already differ, but they are indistinguishable in capability and behavior. Of course, some requests execute cheaply and some cost Ship more than the customer pays, but the price per request is still a flat 50% off either way, so the execution-cost variance moves off the application's bill entirely. The video below depicts the cost savings and output in my real invocation, and I partnered with the team to put this together.
0:12

50% cheaper Claude inference with just one line of code change! - Remove → model="claude-opus-4-8" - Add → model="ship-like/claude-opus-4-8" I verified the cost saving in my own terminal by invoking the same Anthropic model with the same prompt. The underlying engineering by Ship is actually interesting, and the patterns can be used in any production LLM stack. Essentially, a trained model is a frozen artifact. Every request performs the same forward-pass, whether it extracts a date or refactors a module, because the compute decision was made at training time, before the request existed. Ship makes that decision at inference time instead. After seeing a request, it searches over executions, involving single models, cascades, ensembles, or harnesses with tools, and serves the cheapest one that will match the reference model's quality. This is not a basic router, because picking a cheaper model per query doesn't ensure the cheaper model preserves the original's behavior, like output shape, tool-call patterns, and refusals. Ship measures this equivalence directly. Outputs stay distributionally indistinguishable from the reference model, not token-identical, since two calls to the same model already differ, but they are indistinguishable in capability and behavior. Of course, some requests execute cheaply and some cost Ship more than the customer pays, but the price per request is still a flat 50% off either way, so the execution-cost variance moves off the application's bill entirely. The video below depicts the cost savings and output in my real invocation, and I partnered with the team to put this together.

Akshay 🚀

63,725 Aufrufe • vor 1 Monat

Vorflux has opened its new cloud platform, allowing users to run tasks from a plan to a merged PR on a dedicated machine. It can plan, build, test, and review on its own. > Diff reviews are done by a different model family than the one that wrote it by default. > First boot is saved as a snapshot, with all subsequent sessions waking up from that same starting point. > A browser agent walks through the real user flow, and the recording is included in the pull request. Video proof in the PR 👀
0:18

Vorflux has opened its new cloud platform, allowing users to run tasks from a plan to a merged PR on a dedicated machine. It can plan, build, test, and review on its own. > Diff reviews are done by a different model family than the one that wrote it by default. > First boot is saved as a snapshot, with all subsequent sessions waking up from that same starting point. > A browser agent walks through the real user flow, and the recording is included in the pull request. Video proof in the PR 👀

🚨 AI News | TestingCatalog

11,385 Aufrufe • vor 7 Tagen

AI has had exactly two scaling axes that worked so far, and the second one is starting to look finite too the first one was pretraining: with scaling parameters and data, we got world knowledge (i.e. ChatGPT had read enough to know things), but it started saturating a while ago the second one was RL, and people had been doing RL the whole time before that: RLHF is RL but it never scaled far because it was trying to control the exact output, which tokens come out, how the text reads, but you can only push that so far before you’re just polishing RLVR dropped that constraint: giving the model a task, then checking whether the final answer is right, and ignoring everything in between -- so the model does whatever it wants in the middle and only the endpoint gets graded, and that’s much closer to actual RL and it’s what bought us planning and reasoning (arguably, tool use sits around 2.5 on this list -- while useful, it's not a different kind of thing) so one axis gave knowledge, the other gave reasoning, and both of them are one model working alone the next axis is how many models you can get working on the same problem, which is a different kind of axis than the previous two we know that multi-agent RL has always been the harder problem: I spent years in that literature and the gap between single-agent and multi-agent is definitely not incremental -- it’s a whole different class of difficulty! which is also why the derivatives are steep at the start, nobody has picked the easy wins yet... and the thing that gates this multi-agent coordination is communication: models can only coordinate as well as they can exchange information, and right now they do that by writing sentences to each other imagine what could we possibly achieve if we properly open that third axis development by letting models to exchange information in their native "language" without loosing any computational data that they produce during inference
0:14

AI has had exactly two scaling axes that worked so far, and the second one is starting to look finite too the first one was pretraining: with scaling parameters and data, we got world knowledge (i.e. ChatGPT had read enough to know things), but it started saturating a while ago the second one was RL, and people had been doing RL the whole time before that: RLHF is RL but it never scaled far because it was trying to control the exact output, which tokens come out, how the text reads, but you can only push that so far before you’re just polishing RLVR dropped that constraint: giving the model a task, then checking whether the final answer is right, and ignoring everything in between -- so the model does whatever it wants in the middle and only the endpoint gets graded, and that’s much closer to actual RL and it’s what bought us planning and reasoning (arguably, tool use sits around 2.5 on this list -- while useful, it's not a different kind of thing) so one axis gave knowledge, the other gave reasoning, and both of them are one model working alone the next axis is how many models you can get working on the same problem, which is a different kind of axis than the previous two we know that multi-agent RL has always been the harder problem: I spent years in that literature and the gap between single-agent and multi-agent is definitely not incremental -- it’s a whole different class of difficulty! which is also why the derivatives are steep at the start, nobody has picked the easy wins yet... and the thing that gates this multi-agent coordination is communication: models can only coordinate as well as they can exchange information, and right now they do that by writing sentences to each other imagine what could we possibly achieve if we properly open that third axis development by letting models to exchange information in their native "language" without loosing any computational data that they produce during inference

Sasha Malysheva

11,393 Aufrufe • vor 13 Tagen

Researchers made KMeans 200x faster. And the new technique also beats approaches like cuML and FAISS. Flash-KMeans is an IO-aware implementation of exact KMeans that redesigns the algorithm around modern GPU bottlenecks. By attacking the memory bottlenecks directly, Flash-KMeans achieves: - 33x speedup over cuML - 200x speedup over FAISS This speedup comes from how it moves through GPU memory. Standard KMeans runs in two steps, and both are bottlenecked by reads and writes to GPU memory: 1) The first step matches every point to its nearest centroid. Standard KMeans computes the full point-to-centroid distance matrix, writes it out to GPU memory, then reads it back to find each nearest centroid. That write-then-read round trip is the bottleneck. Flash-KMeans combines the distance calculation with the nearest-centroid step, so the result is computed on-chip and the full matrix is never written out. 2) The second step recomputes each centroid by averaging the points assigned to it. Standard KMeans has thousands of threads writing into the same centroid slots at once, so they stall waiting for their turn. Flash-KMeans sorts points by cluster first, turning scattered writes into sequential reductions that read and write memory in one efficient pass. Using these two optimizations at the million-scale, Flash-KMeans completes a standard KMeans iteration in a few milliseconds. The video below depicts this in action. Several reasons why this is important: KMeans has always been an offline primitive. Something you run once to preprocess data and move on. These speedups make the approach viable in several runtime-critical systems. ↳ Vector indices like FAISS use KMeans to build search indices. Faster KMeans means you can re-index dynamically as data changes. ↳ LLM quantization methods need KMeans to find optimal weight codebooks, per layer, repeatedly. What takes hours could now take minutes. ↳ MoE models need fast token routing at inference time. Flash-KMeans makes it viable to run this inside the inference loop, not just in preprocessing. I have shared the paper in the replies. That said, memory is the real constraint Flash-KMeans solves, and the problem is not just limited to clustering. The vectors a RAG system stores after indexing create similar bottlenecks. I wrote a detailed walkthrough recently on cutting this vector memory by 32x with binary quantization, querying 36M+ vectors in a few milliseconds. Read it below.
0:12

Researchers made KMeans 200x faster. And the new technique also beats approaches like cuML and FAISS. Flash-KMeans is an IO-aware implementation of exact KMeans that redesigns the algorithm around modern GPU bottlenecks. By attacking the memory bottlenecks directly, Flash-KMeans achieves: - 33x speedup over cuML - 200x speedup over FAISS This speedup comes from how it moves through GPU memory. Standard KMeans runs in two steps, and both are bottlenecked by reads and writes to GPU memory: 1) The first step matches every point to its nearest centroid. Standard KMeans computes the full point-to-centroid distance matrix, writes it out to GPU memory, then reads it back to find each nearest centroid. That write-then-read round trip is the bottleneck. Flash-KMeans combines the distance calculation with the nearest-centroid step, so the result is computed on-chip and the full matrix is never written out. 2) The second step recomputes each centroid by averaging the points assigned to it. Standard KMeans has thousands of threads writing into the same centroid slots at once, so they stall waiting for their turn. Flash-KMeans sorts points by cluster first, turning scattered writes into sequential reductions that read and write memory in one efficient pass. Using these two optimizations at the million-scale, Flash-KMeans completes a standard KMeans iteration in a few milliseconds. The video below depicts this in action. Several reasons why this is important: KMeans has always been an offline primitive. Something you run once to preprocess data and move on. These speedups make the approach viable in several runtime-critical systems. ↳ Vector indices like FAISS use KMeans to build search indices. Faster KMeans means you can re-index dynamically as data changes. ↳ LLM quantization methods need KMeans to find optimal weight codebooks, per layer, repeatedly. What takes hours could now take minutes. ↳ MoE models need fast token routing at inference time. Flash-KMeans makes it viable to run this inside the inference loop, not just in preprocessing. I have shared the paper in the replies. That said, memory is the real constraint Flash-KMeans solves, and the problem is not just limited to clustering. The vectors a RAG system stores after indexing create similar bottlenecks. I wrote a detailed walkthrough recently on cutting this vector memory by 32x with binary quantization, querying 36M+ vectors in a few milliseconds. Read it below.

Avi Chawla

89,234 Aufrufe • vor 2 Monaten

The new Product Page Header image in the App Store will not matter. First you need users to actually want to enter your App Store listing. And the reality is that a lot of users NEVER enter the listing. They search for something, see the app in the search results and download it directly from there. So the important update here is the new Search Results image. It's an app banner inside the App Store search results. And you should think about it as a persuasive ad. COPYWRITING will be what matters. Not the fancy "branding". Users are searching because they want an answer to something. Your creative needs to give them that answer immediately. And this becomes even more important with Apple Ads. You can pay to appear for the keyword, but your creative still needs to convince the user that your app is the answer they were searching for.
0:11

The new Product Page Header image in the App Store will not matter. First you need users to actually want to enter your App Store listing. And the reality is that a lot of users NEVER enter the listing. They search for something, see the app in the search results and download it directly from there. So the important update here is the new Search Results image. It's an app banner inside the App Store search results. And you should think about it as a persuasive ad. COPYWRITING will be what matters. Not the fancy "branding". Users are searching because they want an answer to something. Your creative needs to give them that answer immediately. And this becomes even more important with Apple Ads. You can pay to appear for the keyword, but your creative still needs to convince the user that your app is the answer they were searching for.

Teodora @DesignerAnts

68,784 Aufrufe • vor 16 Tagen

whoever leaked this has bigger balls than sense Google Research and MIT ran the same agent jobs 260 different ways for Nature last month: they held the prompts, the tools and the compute budget identical and moved nothing but the wiring between the agents, and the same work swung from 70% worse than a single agent to 80.8% better, averaging out at 0.0% i ran my own single agent against the task list first and it cleared 6 of 10 alone, already past the line where a crew starts subtracting this is Graph Engineering, the layer that decides whether a crew is worth 80% more or 70% less, and it installs into the agent you already pay for: - score your solo agent on the real task first: above roughly 45% success that study predicts zero to negative returns from any crew you put around it - under that line, put one supervisor over the fan out: crews with no correction step amplified their own errors to 17.2x the single agent rate, supervised aggregation held it to 4.4x - give every worker one output and let none of them read a peer's draft, so a wrong step reaches the supervisor instead of four other agents - run the comparison again after every model upgrade, because a better model raises your baseline and a higher baseline is what makes a crew stop paying - keep the single agent alive as the control, the only number that says the wiring is earning its calls turns out the shape does not travel: the biggest win came off a finance task under one supervisor and the worst collapse off a planning task with independent agents my position, and it is the arguable one: a crew is a bet on your own diagram, and the model you pick moves that bet less than one arrow does bookmark this, the three moves that draw those arrows before you pay for one extra call are in the post below ↓
0:15

whoever leaked this has bigger balls than sense Google Research and MIT ran the same agent jobs 260 different ways for Nature last month: they held the prompts, the tools and the compute budget identical and moved nothing but the wiring between the agents, and the same work swung from 70% worse than a single agent to 80.8% better, averaging out at 0.0% i ran my own single agent against the task list first and it cleared 6 of 10 alone, already past the line where a crew starts subtracting this is Graph Engineering, the layer that decides whether a crew is worth 80% more or 70% less, and it installs into the agent you already pay for: - score your solo agent on the real task first: above roughly 45% success that study predicts zero to negative returns from any crew you put around it - under that line, put one supervisor over the fan out: crews with no correction step amplified their own errors to 17.2x the single agent rate, supervised aggregation held it to 4.4x - give every worker one output and let none of them read a peer's draft, so a wrong step reaches the supervisor instead of four other agents - run the comparison again after every model upgrade, because a better model raises your baseline and a higher baseline is what makes a crew stop paying - keep the single agent alive as the control, the only number that says the wiring is earning its calls turns out the shape does not travel: the biggest win came off a finance task under one supervisor and the worst collapse off a planning task with independent agents my position, and it is the arguable one: a crew is a bet on your own diagram, and the model you pick moves that bet less than one arrow does bookmark this, the three moves that draw those arrows before you pay for one extra call are in the post below ↓

Argona

888,684 Aufrufe • vor 11 Tagen

I just built a Meta Ads diagnostic in Claude Code that tells you WHY your account broke, not just what changed 🤯 It spins up a team of agents that each investigate a different reason performance dropped, then argue against each other to kill the wrong answer before it ever reaches you. All inside Claude Code. Perfect for DTC brands and agencies who panic-kill creative the second CPA spikes. If you've watched ROAS fall off a cliff and opened Ads Manager with ten tabs going, you already know what happens next. Your gut says "creative fatigue." You kill your best-performing ad. A week later performance is still broken, because that was never the problem. Guessing wrong is the most expensive move in paid social. This workflow ends the guessing: → One agent investigates each competing theory — creative fatigue, budget and delivery changes, traffic quality, offer and seasonality → Each one is blind to the others, reasoning only from its own slice of the data so they can't bias each other → A refuter agent then attacks every surviving theory and tries to kill it → A theory only stands if the data can't disprove it → You get a ranked diagnosis: the real cause, the evidence for and against it, and the one move to make this week No anchoring on the first obvious answer. No killing winning creative on a hunch. No "here's what happened" reports that never tell you why. What you get: → Every theory tested in parallel instead of one biased guess → An adversarial pass that kills the wrong answer before you act on it → A ranked diagnosis with confidence levels and evidence both ways → A reusable workflow you drop next month's export into and re-run Built 100% in Claude Code with the new dynamic workflows. The first account I ran it on looked like textbook creative fatigue. The workflow disagreed, and traced the real cause to a budget change that had doubled spend and flooded delivery with junk traffic. I put together a full playbook with the exact workflow, the prompt, and how to run it on your own account. Want it for free? > Like this post > Comment "META" And I'll send it over (must be following so I can DM)
0:19

I just built a Meta Ads diagnostic in Claude Code that tells you WHY your account broke, not just what changed 🤯 It spins up a team of agents that each investigate a different reason performance dropped, then argue against each other to kill the wrong answer before it ever reaches you. All inside Claude Code. Perfect for DTC brands and agencies who panic-kill creative the second CPA spikes. If you've watched ROAS fall off a cliff and opened Ads Manager with ten tabs going, you already know what happens next. Your gut says "creative fatigue." You kill your best-performing ad. A week later performance is still broken, because that was never the problem. Guessing wrong is the most expensive move in paid social. This workflow ends the guessing: → One agent investigates each competing theory — creative fatigue, budget and delivery changes, traffic quality, offer and seasonality → Each one is blind to the others, reasoning only from its own slice of the data so they can't bias each other → A refuter agent then attacks every surviving theory and tries to kill it → A theory only stands if the data can't disprove it → You get a ranked diagnosis: the real cause, the evidence for and against it, and the one move to make this week No anchoring on the first obvious answer. No killing winning creative on a hunch. No "here's what happened" reports that never tell you why. What you get: → Every theory tested in parallel instead of one biased guess → An adversarial pass that kills the wrong answer before you act on it → A ranked diagnosis with confidence levels and evidence both ways → A reusable workflow you drop next month's export into and re-run Built 100% in Claude Code with the new dynamic workflows. The first account I ran it on looked like textbook creative fatigue. The workflow disagreed, and traced the real cause to a budget change that had doubled spend and flooded delivery with junk traffic. I put together a full playbook with the exact workflow, the prompt, and how to run it on your own account. Want it for free? > Like this post > Comment "META" And I'll send it over (must be following so I can DM)

Mike Futia

12,772 Aufrufe • vor 2 Monaten

Nvidia just put a $250,000 cloud workload on your desk for $2,999 - and killed your $1,900/month AWS bill in the process You don't rent it, you don't manage it, you don't pay a single cloud bill - you just plug it in and let it eat the workloads you used to wire to AWS every month It looks like a small Mac mini, it's actually a full GB10 Grace Blackwell stack with 128GB of unified memory running models up to 200B parameters It's called DGX Spark, the consumer version of the rack Nvidia ships to OpenAI The reason Nvidia did this is simple Cloud GPU pricing is a tax on every developer building AI right now $1,900/month per seat, billions in margin flowing to AWS, Lambda, and CoreWeave Nvidia just cut themselves in by removing the cloud entirely Their solution is to skip the middleman, ship the rack to your desk, and let you keep every dollar of margin you used to wire to a hyperscaler This is much cheaper, faster, and you own the asset at the end But there is still a question nobody is answering yet, what happens to AWS, GCP, and Lambda when 500,000 developers move their inference back to a $2,999 box on their desk Also, technically you can stack four of these and run a 1.6 trillion parameter model locally for under $12,000 Even a single Spark out-performs the cloud subscription Anthropic engineers were running two years ago bookmark this, it pays back in 60 days 👇
0:19

Nvidia just put a $250,000 cloud workload on your desk for $2,999 - and killed your $1,900/month AWS bill in the process You don't rent it, you don't manage it, you don't pay a single cloud bill - you just plug it in and let it eat the workloads you used to wire to AWS every month It looks like a small Mac mini, it's actually a full GB10 Grace Blackwell stack with 128GB of unified memory running models up to 200B parameters It's called DGX Spark, the consumer version of the rack Nvidia ships to OpenAI The reason Nvidia did this is simple Cloud GPU pricing is a tax on every developer building AI right now $1,900/month per seat, billions in margin flowing to AWS, Lambda, and CoreWeave Nvidia just cut themselves in by removing the cloud entirely Their solution is to skip the middleman, ship the rack to your desk, and let you keep every dollar of margin you used to wire to a hyperscaler This is much cheaper, faster, and you own the asset at the end But there is still a question nobody is answering yet, what happens to AWS, GCP, and Lambda when 500,000 developers move their inference back to a $2,999 box on their desk Also, technically you can stack four of these and run a 1.6 trillion parameter model locally for under $12,000 Even a single Spark out-performs the cloud subscription Anthropic engineers were running two years ago bookmark this, it pays back in 60 days 👇

ZEUS⚡️

85,803 Aufrufe • vor 2 Monaten

**Traditional Engine Order Telegraphs:** The bridge unit and the engine-room unit are connected by two chains (or wire cables) that run through conduits over sprockets, forming a continuous loop. When the bridge officer moves the handle, it turns a sprocket that pulls the chain, which in turn turns the corresponding sprocket and pointer in the engine room. This classic system does not require electricity; it relies on a direct physical linkage, ensuring that both dials always mirror each other. Here’s a typical sequence of operations: The bridge officer grabs the handle and swings it to the command position, for example, "Half Ahead." This movement not only moves the engine-room pointer but also rings a bell or gong to alert the engineers. The engineers then adjust their own handle to match the position indicated by the bridge officer; this movement serves as an acknowledgment and rings the bell back on the bridge, confirming that the order has been received and understood. Only after this acknowledgment do the engineers work the throttle and reversing gear to carry out the order. It is common practice to first execute a full sweep of the handle, moving it all the way to one extreme and back before settling on the actual command position. This exaggerated motion serves two purposes: it rings the gong loudly and unmistakably, ensuring everyone is aware that a new order is coming, and it checks that the mechanism and chains are not stuck or slack. On some ships, this full sweep also signifies an important or urgent change (such as switching from ahead to astern), emphasizing to the crew that they need to pay attention because the situation is critical. After completing this sweep, the handle is adjusted to the desired position. This telegraph is from the Steamship Shieldhall (video credit as well). Go check her out on
0:10

**Traditional Engine Order Telegraphs:** The bridge unit and the engine-room unit are connected by two chains (or wire cables) that run through conduits over sprockets, forming a continuous loop. When the bridge officer moves the handle, it turns a sprocket that pulls the chain, which in turn turns the corresponding sprocket and pointer in the engine room. This classic system does not require electricity; it relies on a direct physical linkage, ensuring that both dials always mirror each other. Here’s a typical sequence of operations: The bridge officer grabs the handle and swings it to the command position, for example, "Half Ahead." This movement not only moves the engine-room pointer but also rings a bell or gong to alert the engineers. The engineers then adjust their own handle to match the position indicated by the bridge officer; this movement serves as an acknowledgment and rings the bell back on the bridge, confirming that the order has been received and understood. Only after this acknowledgment do the engineers work the throttle and reversing gear to carry out the order. It is common practice to first execute a full sweep of the handle, moving it all the way to one extreme and back before settling on the actual command position. This exaggerated motion serves two purposes: it rings the gong loudly and unmistakably, ensuring everyone is aware that a new order is coming, and it checks that the mechanism and chains are not stuck or slack. On some ships, this full sweep also signifies an important or urgent change (such as switching from ahead to astern), emphasizing to the crew that they need to pay attention because the situation is critical. After completing this sweep, the handle is adjusted to the desired position. This telegraph is from the Steamship Shieldhall (video credit as well). Go check her out on

Bart 🌊⚓️

107,644 Aufrufe • vor 20 Tagen

Elon Musk gave the entire entertainment industry its expiration date, and he is the one building the thing that kills it. Musk: “My guess is that we see the first compelling half hour, pure AI show next year.” Next year. A complete show generated entirely by AI. No writers. No actors. No cameras. No sets. No crew. No studio. Just a prompt and enough compute to render a reality that never physically existed. And shows are the easy part. Musk: “I say probably we’re maybe three years away from AI does the whole video game.” A show plays the same way every time. A game has to generate a living world that reacts to every decision in real time across every single frame. That is a fundamentally harder class of problem. And Musk put three years on it. Right now a single AAA title takes seven years and half a billion dollars across thousands of engineers and artists just to ship it. Musk is describing a world where one person types a paragraph and gets something comparable. The entire value proposition of a multi-billion dollar industry lives inside that gap. And it closes in thirty-six months. But the prediction is not the story. The person making it is. This is not an analyst speculating from the sidelines. This is the man building the largest AI compute clusters on the planet. The man who built xAI from zero in under two years. The man stacking hundreds of thousands of GPUs into facilities designed to do exactly what he is describing. When Musk says three years, he is not guessing about what someone else might eventually ship. He is reading you a delivery date off his own roadmap. Every media company on Earth is valued on a single assumption. That quality content is expensive and difficult to produce at scale. That one assumption is the structural foundation underneath every studio, every network, and every publisher in existence. Musk is dismantling it with raw compute. The studios still parading thousand-person production teams are not demonstrating strength. They are advertising the exact cost structure that one person with a prompt and a GPU allocation is about to make irrelevant. And it does not stop at entertainment. If AI can generate an interactive world that responds to human input in real time, it can generate anything. Advertising. Architecture. Training simulations. Product design. Every industry built on humans manually constructing visual experiences frame by frame is sitting on the same countdown Musk just read out loud. Now zoom out. Because this is not just an industry story. For the entire history of human civilization, the distance between imagining a world and actually creating one required thousands of people, millions of hours, and billions of dollars. That distance built Hollywood. That distance built the gaming industry. That distance made content scarce and studios powerful. Musk is collapsing that distance to zero. When the gap between imagining something and it existing disappears, every business model built on the difficulty of creation disappears with it. That is not disruption. That is a full inversion of how human beings create. Musk did not make a casual prediction on that podcast. He told you what he is building. He told you the timeline. And he told you which industries do not survive it. The entertainment industry is still debating whether this future is real. Musk is not part of that debate. He is building. And he just told you the delivery date.
0:17

Elon Musk gave the entire entertainment industry its expiration date, and he is the one building the thing that kills it. Musk: “My guess is that we see the first compelling half hour, pure AI show next year.” Next year. A complete show generated entirely by AI. No writers. No actors. No cameras. No sets. No crew. No studio. Just a prompt and enough compute to render a reality that never physically existed. And shows are the easy part. Musk: “I say probably we’re maybe three years away from AI does the whole video game.” A show plays the same way every time. A game has to generate a living world that reacts to every decision in real time across every single frame. That is a fundamentally harder class of problem. And Musk put three years on it. Right now a single AAA title takes seven years and half a billion dollars across thousands of engineers and artists just to ship it. Musk is describing a world where one person types a paragraph and gets something comparable. The entire value proposition of a multi-billion dollar industry lives inside that gap. And it closes in thirty-six months. But the prediction is not the story. The person making it is. This is not an analyst speculating from the sidelines. This is the man building the largest AI compute clusters on the planet. The man who built xAI from zero in under two years. The man stacking hundreds of thousands of GPUs into facilities designed to do exactly what he is describing. When Musk says three years, he is not guessing about what someone else might eventually ship. He is reading you a delivery date off his own roadmap. Every media company on Earth is valued on a single assumption. That quality content is expensive and difficult to produce at scale. That one assumption is the structural foundation underneath every studio, every network, and every publisher in existence. Musk is dismantling it with raw compute. The studios still parading thousand-person production teams are not demonstrating strength. They are advertising the exact cost structure that one person with a prompt and a GPU allocation is about to make irrelevant. And it does not stop at entertainment. If AI can generate an interactive world that responds to human input in real time, it can generate anything. Advertising. Architecture. Training simulations. Product design. Every industry built on humans manually constructing visual experiences frame by frame is sitting on the same countdown Musk just read out loud. Now zoom out. Because this is not just an industry story. For the entire history of human civilization, the distance between imagining a world and actually creating one required thousands of people, millions of hours, and billions of dollars. That distance built Hollywood. That distance built the gaming industry. That distance made content scarce and studios powerful. Musk is collapsing that distance to zero. When the gap between imagining something and it existing disappears, every business model built on the difficulty of creation disappears with it. That is not disruption. That is a full inversion of how human beings create. Musk did not make a casual prediction on that podcast. He told you what he is building. He told you the timeline. And he told you which industries do not survive it. The entertainment industry is still debating whether this future is real. Musk is not part of that debate. He is building. And he just told you the delivery date.

Dustin

22,390 Aufrufe • vor 1 Monat

Stanford researchers did it again. They just built the agent-native version of Git. When an agent works on a longer task, the run builds up a lot of state. This includes files edited/created, a dev server, a database, installed packages, KV cache, etc. Say the agent is at step 10 and makes a mistake, maybe it misreads a traceback and rewrites a file that was actually fine. The tests start failing, and the run goes off track, although everything through step eight was correct. By default, the agent just tries to fix it, which creates more edits and tool calls. This burns more tokens and grows the context. The other options are a person stepping in to redirect it or restarting the whole run from step one. That's wasteful, because it pays for every model/tool call again and re-prefills the context. Moreover, since an agent's run is non-deterministic, it doesn't reproduce the same early steps anyway. The reason it's hard to just jump back exactly to a previous correct step and resume from there is that the trajectory is only a message log. It records what the agent said and which tools it called, but not the live state underneath. That state includes things like memory, open file handles, child processes, installed packages, /tmp, and KV cache. None of that is in the log. Git can version the files, but it doesn't snapshot the running process or the KV cache. Checking out step eight moves the files back, but the process is still sitting in step-ten memory with a cold cache. Shepherd is a runtime layer by Stanford that records the run as a trace of typed events rather than a flat log. Each agent-environment interaction becomes a commit, similar to Git, but it tracks the live run. Its commit includes the agent process and the filesystem together, copy-on-write, so a branch carries the actual state and not just the files. Going back to a previous step is then a single call that forks from that commit and continues from the exact state. The copy-on-write fork is roughly five times faster than docker commit, and because the prompt prefix through step eight is unchanged, the KV cache is reused over 95% on replay, so early steps aren't reprocessed again. Once the run can be forked, a meta-agent can sit on top and operate it. It watches the trace and reverts as soon as it looks wrong, before the bad write is committed. In practice, it's just Python calling fork, replay, and revert on the trace, rather than a separate control plane wired into the harness. Not everything is reversible though. Files and sandbox changes undo themselves, but a database write has no automatic undo, so it needs a matching undo step set up in advance. Something external, like a sent email or a real charge, can't be undone, so the supervisor's job there is to catch it before it fires. They tested this on a few public benchmarks. On CooperBench, where two agents work on the same codebase, adding a live supervisor took the pair-coding pass rate from 28.8% to 54.7%. It's still early and labeled alpha. The benefit mostly shows up when a run gets branched a lot over a heavy sandbox state, which is exactly where restarting wastes the most tokens and time. If Git was made to make file changes reversible, Shepherd is trying to do the same thing for a live agent run. Shepherd Repo: (don't forget to star it ⭐ ) That said, Shepherd reverts a bad step inside a run. The harness around it, the prompts, tools, and checks the supervisor relies on, still drifts across runs as models and dependencies change. Akshay wrote about making that harness repair itself, where a failing trace gets diagnosed, the fix is verified against the exact input that failed, and the failure is locked as a regression test so it can't recur. Read it below.
0:15

Stanford researchers did it again. They just built the agent-native version of Git. When an agent works on a longer task, the run builds up a lot of state. This includes files edited/created, a dev server, a database, installed packages, KV cache, etc. Say the agent is at step 10 and makes a mistake, maybe it misreads a traceback and rewrites a file that was actually fine. The tests start failing, and the run goes off track, although everything through step eight was correct. By default, the agent just tries to fix it, which creates more edits and tool calls. This burns more tokens and grows the context. The other options are a person stepping in to redirect it or restarting the whole run from step one. That's wasteful, because it pays for every model/tool call again and re-prefills the context. Moreover, since an agent's run is non-deterministic, it doesn't reproduce the same early steps anyway. The reason it's hard to just jump back exactly to a previous correct step and resume from there is that the trajectory is only a message log. It records what the agent said and which tools it called, but not the live state underneath. That state includes things like memory, open file handles, child processes, installed packages, /tmp, and KV cache. None of that is in the log. Git can version the files, but it doesn't snapshot the running process or the KV cache. Checking out step eight moves the files back, but the process is still sitting in step-ten memory with a cold cache. Shepherd is a runtime layer by Stanford that records the run as a trace of typed events rather than a flat log. Each agent-environment interaction becomes a commit, similar to Git, but it tracks the live run. Its commit includes the agent process and the filesystem together, copy-on-write, so a branch carries the actual state and not just the files. Going back to a previous step is then a single call that forks from that commit and continues from the exact state. The copy-on-write fork is roughly five times faster than docker commit, and because the prompt prefix through step eight is unchanged, the KV cache is reused over 95% on replay, so early steps aren't reprocessed again. Once the run can be forked, a meta-agent can sit on top and operate it. It watches the trace and reverts as soon as it looks wrong, before the bad write is committed. In practice, it's just Python calling fork, replay, and revert on the trace, rather than a separate control plane wired into the harness. Not everything is reversible though. Files and sandbox changes undo themselves, but a database write has no automatic undo, so it needs a matching undo step set up in advance. Something external, like a sent email or a real charge, can't be undone, so the supervisor's job there is to catch it before it fires. They tested this on a few public benchmarks. On CooperBench, where two agents work on the same codebase, adding a live supervisor took the pair-coding pass rate from 28.8% to 54.7%. It's still early and labeled alpha. The benefit mostly shows up when a run gets branched a lot over a heavy sandbox state, which is exactly where restarting wastes the most tokens and time. If Git was made to make file changes reversible, Shepherd is trying to do the same thing for a live agent run. Shepherd Repo: (don't forget to star it ⭐ ) That said, Shepherd reverts a bad step inside a run. The harness around it, the prompts, tools, and checks the supervisor relies on, still drifts across runs as models and dependencies change. Akshay wrote about making that harness repair itself, where a failing trace gets diagnosed, the fix is verified against the exact input that failed, and the failure is locked as a regression test so it can't recur. Read it below.

Avi Chawla

441,021 Aufrufe • vor 1 Monat

Big win for open-source LLMs! DeepSeek V4 Pro holds the top open-weights score on SWE-bench Verified, in the GPT-5.5 range. GLM 5.2 leads the open-weight intelligence index and sits near the closed frontier on long-horizon coding. But this leaderboard number is a weak proxy for real performance. It comes from one task set, run through one harness, served at one precision. The same weights can even score differently across providers, since many hosts quantize activations to fp8 and drift the model off its reference weights. Real performance is determined based on whether a model can read a repo, make coordinated edits across files, run the tests, and recover when one breaks. By that measure, the top open models hold up, but only inside the right harness. The teams that actually put DeepSeek V4 into production pipelines as a frontier substitute got there through the harness they built around the model, not by picking a stronger model. If you want to see this in practice, Cline (64k+ stars) has actually built that harness around open models, tuned so they run at production quality. And it's tuned so that these LLMs can run at production quality, with plan and act modes, checkpoints, and terminal feedback. ClinePass is the new access layer on top of it. It runs a curated set of those models inside Cline, narrowed to the ones tested for coding-agent use, with 2 to 5x the standard rate limits and no separate provider accounts, keys, or billing to track. The video below shows the setup, and I worked with the team to put this together. It runs alongside custom keys and local models as well, not in place of them.
0:14

Big win for open-source LLMs! DeepSeek V4 Pro holds the top open-weights score on SWE-bench Verified, in the GPT-5.5 range. GLM 5.2 leads the open-weight intelligence index and sits near the closed frontier on long-horizon coding. But this leaderboard number is a weak proxy for real performance. It comes from one task set, run through one harness, served at one precision. The same weights can even score differently across providers, since many hosts quantize activations to fp8 and drift the model off its reference weights. Real performance is determined based on whether a model can read a repo, make coordinated edits across files, run the tests, and recover when one breaks. By that measure, the top open models hold up, but only inside the right harness. The teams that actually put DeepSeek V4 into production pipelines as a frontier substitute got there through the harness they built around the model, not by picking a stronger model. If you want to see this in practice, Cline (64k+ stars) has actually built that harness around open models, tuned so they run at production quality. And it's tuned so that these LLMs can run at production quality, with plan and act modes, checkpoints, and terminal feedback. ClinePass is the new access layer on top of it. It runs a curated set of those models inside Cline, narrowed to the ones tested for coding-agent use, with 2 to 5x the standard rate limits and no separate provider accounts, keys, or billing to track. The video below shows the setup, and I worked with the team to put this together. It runs alongside custom keys and local models as well, not in place of them.

Avi Chawla

44,124 Aufrufe • vor 1 Monat

a contractor in Shenzhen priced a ¥12,470,900 hospital contract, about $1.7m, in one afternoon and beat firms carrying forty people he explained how he did it: the bid consultancy he used to pay took three days and ¥46,000 for the same envelope. he did this one alone, off one screen, at 11.4% margin, uploaded before the 17:00 cutoff 214 pages of tender documents read, 68 binding clauses pulled out, 9,485 building parts loaded, 14 places found where a duct and a beam sit in the same cubic metre, deepest one 38mm, all of them fixed, 3,318 lines of quantities priced and the package encrypted and uploaded before the 17:00 cutoff this is Graph Engineering: the job gets cut into small nodes, one narrow task each, wired so that one node's output is the next node's input, and any node is allowed to stop the whole run. it turns a model that answers you into a machine that finishes the job: - give every node one job and one output. a node doing two things fails at both and you cannot tell which one broke - put the cheapest rejection first. his qualification node reads clause 7.4, foreign-owned firms barred, and ends the run four seconds in, before anything expensive touches the model - what moves between nodes is a file. the model travels as a model, the quantities as a table, the price as a number - build exactly one loop: the checker finds 14 collisions, the fixer drops the duct 550mm, the checker runs again, and nothing moves on until the count is zero - cap that loop, or a graph will grind on three impossible clashes until the deadline passes - keep one node whose only job is to say no, and give it authority over everything above it - log each node's output on its own, because when the price comes out wrong you need to know which node believed the wrong thing - run the expensive nodes last, always the catch is that a graph is an extremely confident machine: point it at an outdated rate book and it prices an entire hospital off it without a single node noticing, because no node is asked to doubt the input, only to process it so the nodes that earn their keep are the ones that reject, and almost nobody builds those first bookmark this, the full build with all nine nodes and what each one hands to the next is written out in the article ↓
0:16

a contractor in Shenzhen priced a ¥12,470,900 hospital contract, about $1.7m, in one afternoon and beat firms carrying forty people he explained how he did it: the bid consultancy he used to pay took three days and ¥46,000 for the same envelope. he did this one alone, off one screen, at 11.4% margin, uploaded before the 17:00 cutoff 214 pages of tender documents read, 68 binding clauses pulled out, 9,485 building parts loaded, 14 places found where a duct and a beam sit in the same cubic metre, deepest one 38mm, all of them fixed, 3,318 lines of quantities priced and the package encrypted and uploaded before the 17:00 cutoff this is Graph Engineering: the job gets cut into small nodes, one narrow task each, wired so that one node's output is the next node's input, and any node is allowed to stop the whole run. it turns a model that answers you into a machine that finishes the job: - give every node one job and one output. a node doing two things fails at both and you cannot tell which one broke - put the cheapest rejection first. his qualification node reads clause 7.4, foreign-owned firms barred, and ends the run four seconds in, before anything expensive touches the model - what moves between nodes is a file. the model travels as a model, the quantities as a table, the price as a number - build exactly one loop: the checker finds 14 collisions, the fixer drops the duct 550mm, the checker runs again, and nothing moves on until the count is zero - cap that loop, or a graph will grind on three impossible clashes until the deadline passes - keep one node whose only job is to say no, and give it authority over everything above it - log each node's output on its own, because when the price comes out wrong you need to know which node believed the wrong thing - run the expensive nodes last, always the catch is that a graph is an extremely confident machine: point it at an outdated rate book and it prices an entire hospital off it without a single node noticing, because no node is asked to doubt the input, only to process it so the nodes that earn their keep are the ones that reject, and almost nobody builds those first bookmark this, the full build with all nine nodes and what each one hands to the next is written out in the article ↓

Argona

38,189 Aufrufe • vor 25 Tagen

This Nvidia GPU farm sits in a spare room and prints $18,000 a month Ten cards running 24 hours a day, seven days a week. The setup cost $120,000 to build but it paid for itself in seven months. It does not mine crypto. It rents compute to AI companies that need processing power right now. Companies pay by the hour and the demand never stops. At full capacity the farm pulls $18,000 a month after electricity costs. The owner does not touch it. It just runs. Nvidia GPUs are the most in-demand piece of hardware on the planet right now. The companies that figured this out two years ago are already sitting on serious passive income. The barrier to entry is high but the people inside are not leaving. Follow if you want to understand where the real AI money is actually going.
0:11

This Nvidia GPU farm sits in a spare room and prints $18,000 a month Ten cards running 24 hours a day, seven days a week. The setup cost $120,000 to build but it paid for itself in seven months. It does not mine crypto. It rents compute to AI companies that need processing power right now. Companies pay by the hour and the demand never stops. At full capacity the farm pulls $18,000 a month after electricity costs. The owner does not touch it. It just runs. Nvidia GPUs are the most in-demand piece of hardware on the planet right now. The companies that figured this out two years ago are already sitting on serious passive income. The barrier to entry is high but the people inside are not leaving. Follow if you want to understand where the real AI money is actually going.

winkle.

22,626 Aufrufe • vor 2 Monaten

"PRICE IS WHAT YOU PAY. VALUE IS WHAT YOU GET." I keep buying $Kekec and I have a strong conviction. Here's Why: While the market is down, and Kekec is declining with it, there are data points that few are considering. Kekec borned in October and since then has been posting a different and original 30-second video every day, which I find extremely funny. For the past couple of months, they have also been posting daily on Instagram, and the attention on Kekec (which doesn't present itself on social media as a memecoin) is growing, moreover, it's increasing exponentially. The number of followers is increasing by about 500-1000 a day. This is largely due to the fact that they are not just focused on the main account but have several others that post reels and redirect to the main one. In short, an excellent strategy to keep growing more and more. Instagram link: Guess What? Not only are the followers increasing, but the team's workload is also growing. In fact, for a little over a month, they have also started pushing on YouTube, and the data here is promising as well. YouTube link: If we want to make a comparison, we can take Pudgy Penguins as an example, which has shown it can reach millions and millions of users without mentioning that they are a WEB3 company that owns an NFT collection. Or, if we want to be more appropriate by comparing one memecoin to another, we could take PONKE. Thanks to the use of social media and the quality of their content, they managed to achieve incredible numbers, which then translated into an increase in the coin's price. Kekec came before PONKE, but that doesn't necessarily mean it's better than PONKE. I believe PONKE is unbeatable in terms of content, but I want to make you reflect on an important point. PONKE came after KEKEC, and after PONKE's success, many coins have emerged trying to imitate it. One of KEKEC's strengths, in my opinion, is precisely the fact that it leverages social media without being a copy-paste. Instead, it is a unique meme derived from a 90's film, and it uses a unique form of content. In short, KEKEC > KEKEC and no one else. I want to conclude by suggesting you follow them on Instagram and evaluate not only the exponential growth of their followers day by day but also observe how the views of each reel increase accordingly. Pay special attention to the comments. Many of the people commenting have no idea what it is, and you can see from the comments how Kekec generates particular emotions in people—strange but still emotions. Personally, I believe that when something is unique and even very strange, it needs time to be adopted. However, once it happens, it usually explodes and spreads like never before. A few days ago, a Kekec video was posted by a very popular meme page. They probably don't know what Kekec is about but thought the video could spark interest among their followers. How many other pages will do the same? Lastly, but not least, I want to point out how Kekec maintains a good market cap despite everything that has happened in the crypto world since October 2023. As far as I know and have personally observed, everything is extremely organic. There is no cabal behind it, and the quality is not reflected in a single jpeg but in work that has been ongoing daily for months. Every day they work harder, and the quality of their videos grows as well. I have no affiliations with the team, but I believe that Kekec truly deserves more in this world where we push celebrity or cabal-backed coins to hundreds of millions in market cap. I keep buying because the numbers suggest so. Don't just evaluate the chart (price), evaluate the data (value). BÂLKÂN DWÂRF
0:15

"PRICE IS WHAT YOU PAY. VALUE IS WHAT YOU GET." I keep buying $Kekec and I have a strong conviction. Here's Why: While the market is down, and Kekec is declining with it, there are data points that few are considering. Kekec borned in October and since then has been posting a different and original 30-second video every day, which I find extremely funny. For the past couple of months, they have also been posting daily on Instagram, and the attention on Kekec (which doesn't present itself on social media as a memecoin) is growing, moreover, it's increasing exponentially. The number of followers is increasing by about 500-1000 a day. This is largely due to the fact that they are not just focused on the main account but have several others that post reels and redirect to the main one. In short, an excellent strategy to keep growing more and more. Instagram link: Guess What? Not only are the followers increasing, but the team's workload is also growing. In fact, for a little over a month, they have also started pushing on YouTube, and the data here is promising as well. YouTube link: If we want to make a comparison, we can take Pudgy Penguins as an example, which has shown it can reach millions and millions of users without mentioning that they are a WEB3 company that owns an NFT collection. Or, if we want to be more appropriate by comparing one memecoin to another, we could take PONKE. Thanks to the use of social media and the quality of their content, they managed to achieve incredible numbers, which then translated into an increase in the coin's price. Kekec came before PONKE, but that doesn't necessarily mean it's better than PONKE. I believe PONKE is unbeatable in terms of content, but I want to make you reflect on an important point. PONKE came after KEKEC, and after PONKE's success, many coins have emerged trying to imitate it. One of KEKEC's strengths, in my opinion, is precisely the fact that it leverages social media without being a copy-paste. Instead, it is a unique meme derived from a 90's film, and it uses a unique form of content. In short, KEKEC > KEKEC and no one else. I want to conclude by suggesting you follow them on Instagram and evaluate not only the exponential growth of their followers day by day but also observe how the views of each reel increase accordingly. Pay special attention to the comments. Many of the people commenting have no idea what it is, and you can see from the comments how Kekec generates particular emotions in people—strange but still emotions. Personally, I believe that when something is unique and even very strange, it needs time to be adopted. However, once it happens, it usually explodes and spreads like never before. A few days ago, a Kekec video was posted by a very popular meme page. They probably don't know what Kekec is about but thought the video could spark interest among their followers. How many other pages will do the same? Lastly, but not least, I want to point out how Kekec maintains a good market cap despite everything that has happened in the crypto world since October 2023. As far as I know and have personally observed, everything is extremely organic. There is no cabal behind it, and the quality is not reflected in a single jpeg but in work that has been ongoing daily for months. Every day they work harder, and the quality of their videos grows as well. I have no affiliations with the team, but I believe that Kekec truly deserves more in this world where we push celebrity or cabal-backed coins to hundreds of millions in market cap. I keep buying because the numbers suggest so. Don't just evaluate the chart (price), evaluate the data (value). BÂLKÂN DWÂRF

m0ment0

133,250 Aufrufe • vor 2 Jahren

THAT $70 "RUN YOUR OWN LLMS" PI KIT CAN'T RUN A SINGLE LLM. IT'S A VISION CHIP WITH NO RAM. that clip sells a raspberry pi 5 in a slick case with an ai accelerator and the caption "your own llms." clean build, fun kit. the claim is where it breaks. the fine print: the popular $70 pi ai kit uses a hailo-8l, 13 tops. it's built for vision, object detection and image processing, and it has no memory of its own. so it cannot run large language models. full stop the board that actually can is a different one: the newer ai hat+ 2, hailo-10h, 40 tops, with 8gb of dedicated ram. that's $130, not $70 and even that runs only tiny models. llama 3.2 at 1b, qwen 2.5 at 1.5b, deepseek r1 at 1.5b. edge llms live in the 1-7b range, against cloud models at 500b to 2 trillion so the honest pitch: for $130 you can run a very small language model on a pi, slowly, as a fun learning project. that's real and it's cool. "your own llms" on a $70 vision kit is not. why this keeps happening: "ai kit" and a big "tops" number sell. tops sounds like intelligence. but tops measures vision-style math, not whether the chip has the memory to hold a language model. the spec that matters for llms is ram, and the cheap kit has none. the honest caveats, both ways: the $70 kit is genuinely great, just at vision. cameras, object detection, that's its job the $130 hat really does run small llms locally, which a pi couldn't do at all two years ago. that's progress "small" is the load-bearing word. don't expect gpt at home on a pi the takeaway: before you buy a kit because the caption says llm, check two numbers. not the tops. the ram, and the size of the model it can actually load. no 70-dollar miracle, no gpt in a pi case, no tops number that means what you think. save this before you buy the wrong kit for the word on the box.
0:17

THAT $70 "RUN YOUR OWN LLMS" PI KIT CAN'T RUN A SINGLE LLM. IT'S A VISION CHIP WITH NO RAM. that clip sells a raspberry pi 5 in a slick case with an ai accelerator and the caption "your own llms." clean build, fun kit. the claim is where it breaks. the fine print: the popular $70 pi ai kit uses a hailo-8l, 13 tops. it's built for vision, object detection and image processing, and it has no memory of its own. so it cannot run large language models. full stop the board that actually can is a different one: the newer ai hat+ 2, hailo-10h, 40 tops, with 8gb of dedicated ram. that's $130, not $70 and even that runs only tiny models. llama 3.2 at 1b, qwen 2.5 at 1.5b, deepseek r1 at 1.5b. edge llms live in the 1-7b range, against cloud models at 500b to 2 trillion so the honest pitch: for $130 you can run a very small language model on a pi, slowly, as a fun learning project. that's real and it's cool. "your own llms" on a $70 vision kit is not. why this keeps happening: "ai kit" and a big "tops" number sell. tops sounds like intelligence. but tops measures vision-style math, not whether the chip has the memory to hold a language model. the spec that matters for llms is ram, and the cheap kit has none. the honest caveats, both ways: the $70 kit is genuinely great, just at vision. cameras, object detection, that's its job the $130 hat really does run small llms locally, which a pi couldn't do at all two years ago. that's progress "small" is the load-bearing word. don't expect gpt at home on a pi the takeaway: before you buy a kit because the caption says llm, check two numbers. not the tops. the ram, and the size of the model it can actually load. no 70-dollar miracle, no gpt in a pi case, no tops number that means what you think. save this before you buy the wrong kit for the word on the box.

RetroChainer

11,100 Aufrufe • vor 1 Monat

Is Michael Saylor about to get a margin call? No. And the reason is more interesting than the rumor, because what he built instead may be harder to escape than one. A margin call needs a lender who can seize collateral when the price drops. Strategy has none. Its $6.7 billion in debt is convertible notes, the largest tranche due in 2029, with no loan-to-value trigger and no clause that lets anyone take a coin because Bitcoin fell. Saylor learned that in 2022, when he did have a collateralized loan and sweated a liquidation price, then rebuilt the structure so it could never happen again. On the literal question he is right, and the people calling for his liquidation this week do not understand what they see. But killing the fast death created a slow one almost nobody is pricing. To fund his buying, Saylor issued a mountain of perpetual preferred stock that pays a fixed dividend forever, near 11.5 percent, no matter where Bitcoin trades. That annual bill quadrupled from about $300 million in January to roughly $1.2 billion now, while the cash reserve that pays it fell 38 percent this year to near $1.4 billion, after the company spent $1.5 billion in May retiring debt. Put those two numbers together and you get the figure that actually matters, and it is not a Bitcoin price. It is a countdown. Dividend coverage, the time the cash can keep paying that bill, has collapsed from more than seven years in early 2026 to between ten and fourteen months, depending on whose math you use. Months, not years. The market is already pricing it, just not where the rumor is looking. That preferred stock is engineered to sit at $100. Last week it cracked to $82.50, a record 17.5 percent below par. That discount is investors quietly clocking the strain while the timeline screams about a margin call that cannot happen. There is a clean way out, and it is the one door the structure was built to keep shut. Restoring a safe two years of coverage takes about $2.8 billion, roughly double what Strategy holds, and the fastest path there is to sell Bitcoin. But selling crystallizes a $10.6 billion loss, breaks the never-sell promise that gives the stock its premium, and bleeds the very asset the machine exists to hoard. The exit and the wound are the same cut. He already brushed it, selling 32 coins on June 1 to cover a payment. Thirty-two against more than 847,000 is a rounding error in size and an earthquake in meaning, because the company that swore it would never sell, sold, to pay a dividend. And there is a second trigger almost no one has read, buried in the fine print. If Saylor ever simply skips a preferred payment to save cash, the missed amount compounds, the senior layer can ratchet its rate higher, a senior miss freezes payments to every junior layer beneath it, and after enough missed quarters those preferred holders can start taking board seats. No one seizes a coin. But control begins migrating to the people he owes. The clock does not just run down. It hands away the keys at the end. So the honest verdict is the one neither side is shouting. There is no margin call and no imminent bankruptcy. The structure protects him exactly as designed. What it cannot protect him from is a fixed bill that grows while the cash shrinks, where every exit deepens the hole. Sell Bitcoin and break the story. Issue stock into a price near its lowest since 2024 and punish your holders. Skip the dividend and start losing the company by the boardroom. Saylor did not escape the margin call. He traded a cliff for a clock. A cliff takes you in an afternoon and a stranger pulls the trigger. This clock takes months, and at the end the trigger is pulled by the only two forces he swore would never touch it, his own hand, or the people he owes. The rumor asks whether someone is about to call his loan. The real question is how many months he can keep paying before he has to sell the dream, dilute the believers, or hand over the board to keep the lights on.
0:10

Is Michael Saylor about to get a margin call? No. And the reason is more interesting than the rumor, because what he built instead may be harder to escape than one. A margin call needs a lender who can seize collateral when the price drops. Strategy has none. Its $6.7 billion in debt is convertible notes, the largest tranche due in 2029, with no loan-to-value trigger and no clause that lets anyone take a coin because Bitcoin fell. Saylor learned that in 2022, when he did have a collateralized loan and sweated a liquidation price, then rebuilt the structure so it could never happen again. On the literal question he is right, and the people calling for his liquidation this week do not understand what they see. But killing the fast death created a slow one almost nobody is pricing. To fund his buying, Saylor issued a mountain of perpetual preferred stock that pays a fixed dividend forever, near 11.5 percent, no matter where Bitcoin trades. That annual bill quadrupled from about $300 million in January to roughly $1.2 billion now, while the cash reserve that pays it fell 38 percent this year to near $1.4 billion, after the company spent $1.5 billion in May retiring debt. Put those two numbers together and you get the figure that actually matters, and it is not a Bitcoin price. It is a countdown. Dividend coverage, the time the cash can keep paying that bill, has collapsed from more than seven years in early 2026 to between ten and fourteen months, depending on whose math you use. Months, not years. The market is already pricing it, just not where the rumor is looking. That preferred stock is engineered to sit at $100. Last week it cracked to $82.50, a record 17.5 percent below par. That discount is investors quietly clocking the strain while the timeline screams about a margin call that cannot happen. There is a clean way out, and it is the one door the structure was built to keep shut. Restoring a safe two years of coverage takes about $2.8 billion, roughly double what Strategy holds, and the fastest path there is to sell Bitcoin. But selling crystallizes a $10.6 billion loss, breaks the never-sell promise that gives the stock its premium, and bleeds the very asset the machine exists to hoard. The exit and the wound are the same cut. He already brushed it, selling 32 coins on June 1 to cover a payment. Thirty-two against more than 847,000 is a rounding error in size and an earthquake in meaning, because the company that swore it would never sell, sold, to pay a dividend. And there is a second trigger almost no one has read, buried in the fine print. If Saylor ever simply skips a preferred payment to save cash, the missed amount compounds, the senior layer can ratchet its rate higher, a senior miss freezes payments to every junior layer beneath it, and after enough missed quarters those preferred holders can start taking board seats. No one seizes a coin. But control begins migrating to the people he owes. The clock does not just run down. It hands away the keys at the end. So the honest verdict is the one neither side is shouting. There is no margin call and no imminent bankruptcy. The structure protects him exactly as designed. What it cannot protect him from is a fixed bill that grows while the cash shrinks, where every exit deepens the hole. Sell Bitcoin and break the story. Issue stock into a price near its lowest since 2024 and punish your holders. Skip the dividend and start losing the company by the boardroom. Saylor did not escape the margin call. He traded a cliff for a clock. A cliff takes you in an afternoon and a stranger pulls the trigger. This clock takes months, and at the end the trigger is pulled by the only two forces he swore would never touch it, his own hand, or the people he owes. The rumor asks whether someone is about to call his loan. The real question is how many months he can keep paying before he has to sell the dream, dilute the believers, or hand over the board to keep the lights on.

Shanaka Anslem Perera ⚡

58,558 Aufrufe • vor 2 Monaten