If I recall correctly, a recent post [1] has shown that Q2 quants (with like 2.6 bpw) of the same base Qwen model sit at the edge between "noticeably worse" and Q1's "useless". I took a quick glance at Bonsai's blog posts, and don't really see them comparing themselves to "typical" quants or explaining what's the special sauce that makes them better?

https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=49611128

Fun fact, this _used_ to be the case - wasm32-unknown-unknown had extra non-mvp features added later, which in my eyes has been a breaking change on stable. You're not the first person to have been bitten by this, there's [1] and a similar story in Ruffle [2].

Weirdly, the response from the rustc side (IIRC we also talked with one of the devs of wasm component on discord a bit around 2024) has contained a lot of (paraphrasing) "in retrospect we think wasm32-unknown-unknown target was designed badly*, so we'd prefer if you either dealt with it or switched to another wasm target than us fixing it". (*I acknowledge that the way std was implemented on that target was unusual and "not clean", but it works _really well_ for a lot of people.)

> I looked into the process involved for rebuilding the standard library twice: once with only MVP wasm features enabled and once with an "all yes config" like usual. Based on some research I did this seemed like a massive pain.

That's what Ruffle does [3], it's a bit unfortunate but wouldn't call it a massive pain.

[1] https://internals.rust-lang.org/t/can-we-have-either-a-new-t...

[2] https://github.com/ruffle-rs/ruffle/pull/18397

[3] See lines 55 and 117-127 in https://github.com/ruffle-rs/ruffle/blob/6890c618daab3153343...

> art

Small pushback here: it (and bluesky too) is absolutely atrocious for art, at least as a consumer. Once in a while I stumble upon an artist who only posts their drawings on twitter/bsky, and it’s pretty much impossible to browse their historical works because the „media” tab is just an infinite scroll without any organization; and that’s assuming they don’t also post 10 photos of their cat or other life updates in between their art.

It’s obviously still popular for posting art for many other reasons (I just dislike putting „X”, „art” and „does well” in the same sentence). So IMO the replacements - and lots of these use cases already gave replacements! - struggle simply because of network effects, not their inherent quality.

Might be the first time I see someone complain about their website being protected from a scraper, instead of the other way around.

I saw some eve-specific logic in Destiny repo, like warp enter condition and warp velocity math, or entity visibility between grids.

(Also, it’s full of std::(unordered_)map/set. Surprised they didn’t try squeeze some more perf there.)

The extra diff files are only there because the quantization is not fully reproducible*, and author's 3-line llama.cpp fix PR** supposedly fixes this. With it fixed, then in my understanding the author's tool is literally just a wrapper around llama-quantize.

* I also wonder if this even matters for quant quality. In fact, isn't it possible for contracted FMAs to be more numerically accurate (even if less correct from IEEE pov) than non-contracted math?

** I'd give the PR like 50% chances of not surviving the day, since AFAIK on llama.cpp, vibed PR descriptions usually end up rejected as a rule. Maybe the diff being super trivial could save it from this fate, dunno.

The "dissertation" linked there (https://github.com/b7r6/cassandra-dissertation) is also incredibly interesting; looks like the HN user asked an LLM to prove/validate that they are "right" in their comments more often than not.

In general, these GH accounts and their repos/gists are kind of a rabbit hole.

I buy a VPS. I apt install nginx. Is it okay that by default, opening http://IP/index.html logs the IP address to /etc/log/nginx/access.log? Maybe yes, maybe no, maybe yes but I need a privacy policy (for an empty index.html). Maybe I need to ask a lawyer (who usually errs on side of caution) because people have been arguing about it for 10 years (and please don't answer here). And in the end, even if I didn't need to do anything, it sure is _some_ nonzero drain of my resources to have think about it at all (completely ignoring whether it's justified or not).

There's another issue that popped up on my quick naive profiling run: std::shared_ptr in the HitRecord/HittableLightSample is assigned/copied and destroyed a lot, and somehow these refcount operations show up as half of all samples on my profile (presumably because even if there's no hit and the pointer stays nullptr, the smart pointer still must check if there's anything to deallocate).

> If the resulting pointer is not correctly aligned for the pointed-to type, the behavior is undefined.

However, unless I’m missing something, producing such a pointer from an integer is apparently not insta-UB? 6.3.2.2.5:

> An integer may be converted to any pointer type. Except as previously specified, the result is implementation-defined, might not be correctly aligned, might not point to an entity of the referenced type, and might be a trap representation

And later on 6.5.3.2.4:

> If an invalid value has been assigned to the pointer, the behavior of the unary * operator is undefined.

Which implies that the invalid pointer must have been obtained without being already undefined, right?

> First off, templates are the opposite of opaque due to the fundamental requirement that the implementation be visible to every translation unit using a template.

That's not strictly true, you can have an implementation hidden in a separate TU, as long as that TU instantiates the template for all template arguments that the users are going to use.