Hacker Newsnew | past | comments | ask | show | jobs | submit | doomroot13's commentslogin

Yes. They actually deploy a number of small models that run on NPUs on copilot PCs that only run locally.


Which are these? Information online didn't seem very clear on that split?


Panther Lake isn't appearing in any products until 2026.


That’s partly the difference between making your own components and getting them from a vendor. Sure Intel can send select vendors prerelease prototypes but the feedback loop will never be as efficient as in house.

But it’s like a margin call. Everything is great until it completely sucks. Of course a lot of that comes down to TSMC. So if Apple falls it’s likely others will too.


I think it's the difference between having enough CPUs that you can launch a product and having enough CPUs that people start planning future products.

Volume takes time. That's why we're seeing 2026. And before someone says "that just gives Apple an advantage because they're smaller," Apple is shipping a comparable volume of CPUs - and they're doing basically all their volume on the latest fabrication tech.


I am excited about Panther Lake myself but where are you reading that it has higher performance/watt than M5? The chips aren't even out yet. All we have are Intel marketing materials with vague lines on charts. No one could have possibly done a performance/watt test on Panther Lake yet. I'm hoping they beat M5 but if I had to, I'd put my money on M5.


Copilot in VSCode supports local models through Ollama as well. Not sure about Copilot in Visual Studio. That's one of the most annoying things is VS is always behind VSCode in terms of Copilot features.


How do I get to the point of choosing model API providers (and configure my own) without doing any kind of sign in with Copilot though? I'm looking for everything be offline and not affiliated with some external service at all, even if some free tier.


As of today (and going forward), there are two different flavors of Blazor server-side rendering. There is the original version where the component is rendered on the server and interactivity is provided via websockets. Now there is also static server-side rendering, which works very similarly to razor pages, pages/components are rendered on the server and there is no interactivity. You can then, of course, add interactivity wherever you'd need it with server-interactive or webassembly interactive sub-components.

I wouldn't necessarily say there's any benefit of Blazor over HTMX, it just depends on what you're most comfortable with and what works for you in your project. But you could architect your front-end in a similar way where you have small blazor components in your pages with interactivity.

I think Blazor is in a nice state now, where I can iterate very quickly on projects with just static server side rendering and add interactivity whenever it's needed. It gives me a very fast website, rendered on the server, and the option to add some interactivity whenever I need.


This is also a preview feature at the moment. They mention in the embedded video that it is not optimized or ready for production scenarios. They release these features very early in preview to start getting some feedback as they prepare for final release in November.


Don't hold your breath. My whole family are staunch Catholics and disliked Francis because of his more "liberal" leanings. Some Catholics believed he was the "anti-christ" and loved Trump. Seriously.


I'm pretty sure you cease to be a Catholic when you call the Pope the anti-Christ. Infallible, God's representative on Earth, etc.

Though in USAmerica, we're pretty flexible on the meaning of "Christian" anyway. Certainly the loudest proclaimers have no resemblance whatsoever to the expected meaning.

Those troublesome CINOs.. Gosh Darn them to Heck.


> I'm pretty sure you cease to be a Catholic when you call the Pope the anti-Christ. Infallible, God's representative on Earth, etc.

Infallible (i.e. with the authority of a church council) only when speaking ex-cathedra on matters of church doctrine. Its never clear what it applies to and its very rarely generally accepted (maybe once every 200 years or so) that it applies to a particular teaching: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Papal_infallibility#Frequency_...


The popes have long ruled that once a Catholic, you're stuck as a Catholic, though they may dispense from some requirements, sometimes.

So even the Pope would say that you don't cease to be a Catholic if you call him an anti-Christ. Maybe excommunicated, but to be excommunicated you have to be Catholic.


It strikes me as fairly irrelevant what Catholics call ex-Catholics.

I don't think you can (edit: reasonably) call yourself a Catholic if you do not adhere to certain tenets of the Catholic Church.

(This is where I was going with the calls-themselves-Christian-but-aintnosuchthing comment, but it's less clear on re-read...)


> It strikes me as fairly irrelevant what Catholics call ex-Catholics.

> I don't think you can call yourself a Catholic if you do not adhere to certain tenets of the Catholic Church.

If John calls himself a Catholic, and the Catholic Church up to the Pope calls him a Catholic, you are pretty silly saying he is not a Catholic because he doesn't agree with the heirarchy on things on your personal priority list for what makes someone a Catholic.


I think the problem is a matter of definition, and a conflict in common uses of the word:

1. Formally a Catholic in the eyes of the church. 2. Calls themselves a Catholic 3. Is Catholic in their beliefs.

The last has a lot of grey areas as its not clear what you need to believe. There is no formal definition. its clear you do not have to agree with the Church on every single thing. On the other hand at some point (e.g. not accepting the trinity) you are seriously at odds with Catholic beliefs.

The first two definitions might sometimes include atheists.


Do you call yourself a Googler after you quit?

You, and they, can use whatever labels serve your, or their, purpose.

But at some point it doesn't make much sense, or have much meaning, to do so.

I'm a Catholic.


> I'm a Catholic

Does it make sense to call yourself that if you fail to hold to beliefs of the Catholic Church on central issues like “Who is a Catholic”?

I mean, if we are accepting your argument that neither your belief that you are Catholic nor the Church’s beloef that you are Catholic matters and you are not Catholic despite both of those if you disagree on important matters with the teachings of the Church, what is the natural conclusion?


You are making my point.


Er, no, I am showing that your two claims conflict. That doesn't support either of them.


If one can disbelieve the Primacy of the Pope, and instead that the Pretender wearing the Pope's garments is in fact the anti-Christ, and still believe they are an adherent of Catholicism, then they have asserted a Schism in the Church and that other Catholics are Apostate. You may choose to continue to use the label "Catholic", for convenience or perhaps because you think you are the One True Catholic, but the word no longer has meaning.

For a Church to place a permanent label on a person who holds Apostate beliefs is simple paternalism. A self-declared Atheist is not a Catholic, no matter what any dude with a pallium or a ferula might have to say about it.


I think Sedevacantists and similar do consider themselves Catholic, although I don't think they usually believe the main Pope is the anti-Christ


Exactly. The day orange loser posted his picture as the pope, you just had to read what catholics were saying in r/conservative. It was a mostly along the lines of "I don't think it was very wise to do that, but I'll never stop supporting him".


I bet they'd say the same thing if Trump memed himself being crucified or something.


The beautiful irony is if he started to embrace the true teaching of Christ (love one another, forgive your enemies, help the poor etc), they would start to renounce him.


Is there like a hotline to report comments like theirs? Seems like the Catholic church would want to crack down on the bullshit.



I think arcticbull is saying NIH is not necessary, essentially in favor of the freezes.


I am not in favor of shuttering one of the agencies responsible for public health, although I can see why my comment could be read either way. If you believe in reform there are compassionate ways to do it.


CDC probably does more public health? The work NIH funds through its grant process is not broadly "public health"; it's virtually all American biotechnology research and bio/biochem basic research. Public health deals with the interface of health knowledge and public policy and communication; people credentialed in public health are not, generally, practicing scientists as we'd think about them. NIH grant researchers, on the other hand, are wearing white lab coats and working with fume hoods.


No, HHS does the vast majority of public health research in the US, which includes both CDC and NIH. The CDC budget is roughly a quarter of the NIH budget; most public health research is NIH-funded. The CDC is more operational- they take what is learned and apply it to prevention and treatment.


It may in fact be the case that more HHS-funded public health work is downstream of NIH than of CDC, but NIH is obviously not primarily a public health organization; here's the most recent RePORT data:

https://tinyurl.com/nih-grant-report


> NIH is obviously not primarily a public health organization

They didn't say it was. Or did they edit?


You're literally commenting on a thread for a NYTimes piece reporting on the corrections.


Guidelines | FAQ | Lists | API | Security | Legal | Apply to YC | Contact

Search: