Author here. They do, even most recruiters require this before submitting for some of these jobs. Most hiring managers also filter that out by behavioral interviews and seeing how you handle team work, large scale work, and discussion upwards and downwards. Especially the higher you go, the harder it is to lie to get through.
> It's a new distributed tech stack that can be spung up at scale incredible speed vs centralized generation infra.
When you get too much renewables solar/wind you can get blackouts like spain did. Fast grids fail fast. It's also important to have grid inertia to resist changes in frequency (which you get from due to the kinetic energy stored in spinning generators)
You can make frequency inertia with solar (even without batteries if you accept running with a constant reserve so with reduced efficiency). Spain showed that there is a learning curve, that's for sure, but their issue was a "simple" oscillation problem that can be fixed by adjusting frequency-follow rate and grid-disconnect rules. It wasn't like a peak of energy consumption or loss of energy production that only a rotating mass could compensate.
Hence Islanded i.e. skip grid because US incompetence is inability to hook up grid with multiyear lead times due to skilled labour shortage. The entire point is to skip the grid or rather, due to US constraints, hook up to grid not really an option to meet rollout timelines.
The final analysis is still pending, afaik. In any case maintaining grid stability is a good problem to have and likely much easier to solve than generation. Worst case, you spin some flywheels to get inertia.
> I don’t know how much Ollama contributes to llama.cpp
If nothing else, Ollama is free publicity for llama.cpp, at least when they acknowledge they're mostly using the work of llama.cpp, which has happened at least once! I found llama.cpp by first finding Ollama and then figured I'd rather avoid the lock-in of Ollama's registry, so ended up using llama.cpp for everything.
You're saying that like you cannot do that with llama.cpp? I feel like most Ollama users seem to have no idea what features/benefits directly come from llama.cpp rather than Ollama itself...
I read the opposite, that you don't have to be locked-in Ollama's registry if you don't want to.
Could you share a bit more of what you do with llama.cpp? I'd rather use llama-serve but it seems to require a good amount of fiddling with the parameters to have good performance.
Recently llama.cpp made a few common parameters default (-ngl 999, -fa on) so it got simpler: --model and --context-size and --jinja generally does it to start.
We end up fiddling with other parameters because it provides better performance for a particular setup so it's well worth it. One example is the recent --n-cpu-moe switch to offload experts to CPU while filling all available VRAM that can give a 50% boost on models like gpt-oss-120b.
Nailed it. To make matters worse, Ollama obfuscate the models so their users don't really know what they are running until they dig into the model file. Only then can they see that what they thought was Deepseek-r1 is actually an 8B qwen distillation of Deepseek-r1, for example.
Luckily, we have Jan.ai and LM Studio which are happy to run GGUF models at full-tilt on various hardware configs. Added bonus; both include very nice API server as well.
i mean they have attributed but also it's open source software, i guess the more meaningful question is why didn't ggerganov build Ollama if it was that easy? or what is his company working on now?
I can not answer for GG, but the early days of llama.cpp were crazy and everything was so very hacky. Remember, Textgen-webui was 'the way' to run models at first because it supported so many different quant types and file extensions. At the time, most people were using multiple different quantization methods and it was really hard to figure out which were performing better or worse objectively.
GGUF/GGML was like the 4th iteration of file type quantization from llama.cpp and I remember that I had to consciously begin watching the bandwidth usage from my ISP. Up to that point, I had never received an email warning me about reaching limits of my 2TB connection. All for the same models just in different forms. TheBloke was pumping out models like he had unlimited time/effort.
I say all that to say, llama.cpp was still trying, dare I say 'inventing', all the things throughout these transitions. Ollama comes in to make the running part easier and less CLI flag dependent building off of llama.cpp. Awesome.
GG and company are down in the trenches of the models architecture with CUDA, Vulkan, CPU, ROCm, etc. They are working on perplexity, token processing/generation and just look at the 'bin' folder when you compile the project. There are so many different aspects to make the whole thing work as well at it does. It's amazing that we have llama-server at all with the amount of work that has gone into making llama.cpp.
All that to say, Ollama shit the bed on attribution. They were called out on r/localllama very early on for not really giving credit to llama.cpp. They have a soiled reputation with the people that participate in that sub-reddit at least. They were called out for not contributing back if I remember correctly as well, which further stained their reputation among the folks who hang in that sub-reddit.
So it's not a matter of "ease" to build what Ollama built... At least from the perspective of someone who has been paying close attention from r/localllama; the problem was/is simply the perception (right or wrong) of the meme; Person 2 to person 1: "You built this?" -> Person 2: takes item/thing -> person 2: Holds up item/thing -> "I built this". A simple act that really pissed off the community in general.
48% is not a strong enough mandate to break federal appropriations and spending laws, to use the military as a weapon against civilian protesters, or, in this case, to shred the 4th amendment.
Immigration issues of any scale do not justify violating citizen's rights, though. Side effects matter and the risks are tremendous. 52% enough or not - that's what already happened in the past and no one can change the past. There's only the present, that needs to be carefully driven towards a desirable future, with conscious and significant effort to avoid undesirable ones. History is full of stories about how easy it is to fuck up.
It possibly would be very different if federal administration would openly recognize the potential issues and put at least a sliver of effort in showing how it deals with those. I can understand their statement that the scale of the problem requires action of comparable scale - that is logical. However, careless actions become incredibly dangerous at scale, and I have yet to see a sliver of understanding of this, for all I'm seeing so far is arrogant stubborn self-confidence that is very hard to distinguish from malicious intent. And I'm putting a lot of effort here with my suspension of disbelief for the sake of civilized discussion.
Those hotheads are supposed to be a conservative government. They don't act like one at all.
I get to think and say whatever I want as long as my First Amendment rights still exist. You get the right to disagree and think and say whatever you want. I sincerely hope it's how things will remain, and so will all our other Constitutional rights. Because I witnessed first-hand what could happens when the Constitution becomes a piece of paper, and I hope that no one would ever have to experience that.
But more than this, I'm curious what logical connection have made you bring fentanyl into the discussion about purported government surveillance of illegal migrants and possible side effects of this on US citizens and legal permanent residents. Seriously, why have you even thought of it?
"imported" as though someone rang em up on Aliexpress?
15M people over the course of decades, and you can't possibly prove they contribute meaningfully to homelessness (besides, possibly, many of them being homeless themselves).
The immigration policy of the last ~13 years was not reached by a singular, 1-time 52% consensus. They were the product of decades of often bipartisan legislature, and both-parties-taking-turns partisan executive policy, much of it set decades ago, with plenty of opportunity in the intervening years for steering and review.
You're acting like some prior President cracked his knuckles one day, and signed an EO to import 15 million people in, and justifying the unconstitutional insanity of the past 8 months based on that falsehood.
You're drawing a false equivalence fallacy, and covering blatantly illegal and unconstitutional actions. A 52% consensus isn't enough to achieve those, either. You need 66% consensus in Congress, and 3/4s of States.
If the issue is as existential as you think it is, it's on you to build the consensus necessary to achieve that. If you can't, tough luck.
The parent poster didn't call you anything, but one does raise eyebrows at people who look at the crazy authoritarian shit that is being done, and say 'this is legal, and good, and desirable and it makes me happy :)'.
They are certainly a prominent and loud and very defensive group of people, they are definitely not 'everyone'.
This government went about arresting a man who is legally here and has been convicted of no crimes, throwing him into a tropical prison for an indefinite sentence without a trial, then when a judge orders him released, insisting that it can't do it (meanwhile, it was sending more people to that prison), then, weeks later, when it did release and return him, immediately arrests him again, charged him with a bunch of crimes, had a judge orders him released pending trial, then arrested him again and gave him the option between confessing and being exiled to a country he's never even been to?
If you think this is normal, and legal, and makes you happy and that a 48% mandate lets you and your friends make this utter mockery of the law - you are absolutely an authoritarian. This utterly pisses on every American value, and half the constitution and the rule of law to boot.
I don't think we'd ever interacted, and I can't remember the last time I called anyone a Nazi.
FWIW I'm pretty sure when someone is at the point of saying they "have empathy ... but", it means they do not have empathy. It sounds like something deeply hurt you in the past, and for that you have my sympathies, but lashing out at others is not going to solve that.
How would you substantiate this statement? He won with among the smallest popular vote % margins in history [0]. In fact he won by less than HRC beat him by in 2016. There is no strong mandate for this administration, regardless of how you slice it.
reply