According to the benchmarks, this one is improved in every one of them compared to the previous version, some better than 30B-A3B. Definitely worth a try, it’ll easily fit into memory and token generation speed will be pleasantly fast.
I'm really interested in `home-manager` honestly, and while I agree about the benefits of declarative package management, I find it easier to type commands at a terminal like `nix profile upgrade pkg` or `nix registry pin nixpkgs`, with the guarantee of rollbacks.
Since when I'm editing a text file to update a package, I have to look for the latest version separately and copy/paste it into my editor. If I somehow mess it up the file is broken, while no harm is done I still find this workflow a bit brittle.
If there are home-manager commands I missed to do this, I'd be eager to give it a try. That kind of workflow would remind me of running `npm upgrade pkg` and have it reflected on a `package.json` file.
If you don't care about political views of presenters, there's no need to bring inclusion to the table; just consider their technical talents and call it a day.
If you actually care about inclusion, you need to think about how including backwards-views that oppose inclusion itself could affect your effort. Banning only physically violent behavior is behind the times, it's obvious there are many ways of harming someone without lifting a finger. If you're supporting inclusion for inclusions's sake, including everyone may make sense. But if you really care about people who depend on you including them, it's obvious some measures must be taken to create a safe environment for the underrepresented.
> some measures must be taken to create a safe environment for the underrepresented.
Then it comes down to defining what "safe" means. To most people, that does mean basic physical safety, meaning you won't be physically assaulted or have your stuff damaged/stolen.
However, once you get into subjectivity of a listener's interpretation of others' words or social actions (like disinterest in their topics or cultural mismatch), calling any difference from their beliefs or expectations "unsafe", all procedural sanity flies out the window. The only types of meetings that can be rationally and formally capable of running under such specific clauses would be particularly exclusionary meetings of only certain beliefs.
Inclusivity means exposure to difference, and if exposure to difference means "unsafe" to someone, then inclusivity itself is unsafe to them. There are those who also simply equate "socially uncomfortable" with "unsafe", and social discomfort can come from literally anything.
(Edit: I would strongly prefer responses from the downvoters. Defining some specific, actionable policy capturing subjective interpretation by attendees without becoming exclusionary is something I'd be interested in actually seeing. I'm not talking about subjective application of policy, but actual full capture within policy.)
define safety. The problem is right there with all these words "safe","diversity","inclusiveness" which now means something different than what they are supposed to mean at first place.
And people are tricked into agreeing with this narrative because of course, people want to be safe, people want diversity, people want inclusiveness. But by safety you do not mean physical safety. By safety you mean "a environment where radical left-wing ideas cannot be challenged". By diversity you mean "people being there not because of their skills but because of their gender,race or sexual orientation". By inclusiveness you do not mean more of everybody, but "less white males". That's "newspeak" and it's misleading on purpose.
They didn't say hate speech was not bannable. They simply confirmed that the potential of hate speech is not sufficient to preemptively ban an individual without significant evidence. That seems about as much protection as you can provide without just permanently banning people who have ever expressed non-inclusive world views.
> But if you really care about people who depend on you including them, it's obvious some measures must be taken to create a safe environment for the underrepresented.
Please be specific: how is Yarvin's presence making you unsafe? Are you concerned he'll physically attack you, or insult you personally or as a member of a group? If not, you have no reason to feel unsafe.
(And if you feel unsafe anyway and believe that's a reason to ostracize him, well, I have bad news: your viewpoints make me feel unsafe. So sounds like you're not going to be attending, either.)
