Ollama silently (!!!) drops messages if the context window is exceeded (instead of, you know, just erroring? who in the world made this decision).
The workaround until now was to (not use ollama or) make sure to only send a single message. But now they seem to silently truncate single messages as well, instead of erroring! (this explains the sibling comment where a user could not reproduce the results locally).
Use LM Studio, llama.cpp, openrouter or anything else, but stay away from ollama!
I do not, and anyone else not trying to be contrarian and edgy on the back's of a humanitarian catastrophe does not either. Russia's goal was a blitzkrieg surprise win, measured in hours, taking over the capital and the government, before the West could even muster up sanctions. They have failed abysmally at that, and capturing a few towns in Eastern Ukraine (just a little bit more than they already had captured since 2014) is Putin's attempt to have something in his hands to present as a victory and hope not to get couped to death (a fate all warmongers rightfully deserve).
They seem to have lost their initial short term objectives, and the fog of war is real/I can’t tell how good or bad they’re currently doing, but I think regardless of their competency or resolve it’s foolish to underestimate a China-Russia coalition’s resiliency long term, if only due to their much more totalitarian hold over their populace. The lack of easy avenues for a change in leadership even if extremely disastrous for most Russians is a significant difference.
That said, I think there are rumblings of regime change in China. The housing market crash and extreme lockdowns seem to have a lot of people upset.
Seems like we’re living through interesting times, unfortunately… I’m probably delusional, but I’m somewhat optimistic that people will be better off once the dust settles. Depends on how rough it gets and whether we can manage a smooth landing.
There's definitely fog of war but the front lines have barely moved despite Russia bringing all its might to bear. We saw the images of those demolished Russian forces at that ill fated river crossing. We keep seeing evidence of Russia suffering continuous losses.
What we don't see much of is the Ukrainian side's losses. Their morale and will seem extremely high though.
The Ukrainians have a numerical advantage over the mobilized Russian army. They have an advantage as a defender and they have a double advantage because they are defending their families and homes. The Russians don't know what they're fighting for and why they're even there.
The Ukrainians are backed by the west (though maybe not enough) with potential access to weaponry that can tip the balance. They appear to generally be applying better tactics vs. the Russians brute force and level everything to the ground approach. So really the only thing stopping them from pushing the Russians out right now is access to more and better weapons (which might be improving in the coming weeks with the new US aid package).
Re: China I think they're looking at this and recalculating. Taiwan is probably not happening. Their "strategic" partner that's supposed to be a super power turned out to be full of hot air. Western weapon superiority is proven again. They want to win economically, they don't like instability. And sure, just like anywhere else, totalitarian regimes don't last for ever.
Another factor is that other countries are looking at this and also reaching the conclusion that the western hegemony that appears to maybe be not doing so great actually is still doing pretty well.
All that said, it's probably going to get worse before it gets better. This is just so stupid.
Agree 1000% about the stupid part, the pain being caused right now is so tragic and unnecessary. And I hope you’re right about the rest/think you probably are, but its important not to get too arrogant about our position given the stakes.
> do not, and anyone else not trying to be contrarian and edgy on the back's of a humanitarian catastrophe does not either. Russia's goal was a blitzkrieg surprise win, measured in hours, taking over the capital and the government, before the West could even muster up sanctions.
Where does that assumption come from? No Russian source has ever said that. The only sources I’ve seen were the US propaganda arm. Putin said that they were now in a defensive war with the west (his words, not mine). I don’t think they expected that to be over any time soon.
But just for fun let’s assume you’re correct. Their objective is to conquer Ukraine..?
It still doesn’t change the fact Ukraine isn’t winning. They’ve lost territory, most of the military assets, and the territory they’ve lost thus far is their most productive (industry and agriculture is based around the coast). By no measure is that trending toward victory.
Now my position on this — Recall, Ukraine had one of the largest standing armies prior to this war. Order of magnitude more prepared than Iraq in the 90s or 2000s. With better equipment, heavily entrenched and much larger by land mass.
I don’t think there’s any way that Russia expected to conquer Ukraine with 50k troops (1/5 the size of Ukraine’s standing army) in 90 days. But I also don’t think Ukraine is the only theater of battle. The real war is the war of logistics and in that, Russia is far better prepared and capable.
To say your "facts" are in error is to say water is wet.
Russian started the war with roughly 100 BTGs. These have roughly 1k troops when fully equipped (as you would expect before the start of hostilities). They've added another 10-15 BTGs to replace the 45 or so that have been attritted by Ukrainian forces. So no, they didn't expect to conquer Ukraine with 50K troops, but closer to twice that.
RuAF also tried to decapitate Ukraine by seizing Hostomel with airborne troops, and then rushing Kiev with troops located very closely in Belarus. You don't commit airborne troops like this when you don't have a)strategic surprise, b) tactical surprise, c) air supremacy. Russia expected a quick coup de main, and when the VdV got wrecked in Hostomel, they lost the war.
Since the invasion in February, Ukraine has recovered most of the territory they lost in the north. In the south, the RuAF has made minimal gains past the lines of the 2014 conflict.
You believe that Ukraine has lost most of their military assets? They currently have more tanks than when the war started, due to how many they've captured from Russia. Not to mention what has been contributed by NATO (Poland/Czechia etc.). They still have a well functioning and effective air force that has prevented the Russian air force from exerting control over the battlefield. They even managed to sink the flagship of the Black Sea Fleet.
Russia has lost over 30k dead, and roughly 3x that as WIA. Over 1000 tanks. Over 350 aircraft (counting helicopters). Thousands of BMPs, MTLBs, BMDs, artillery, trucks, all destroyed. The RuAF has culminated.
All Russia has achieved is shelling indiscriminately. They haven't shown the ability to hold terrain, to resupply their troops, to prevent the Ukrainians from doing anything they want. They couldn't even reduce Mariupol's garrison for three months.
Russia's military, outside of it's nukes is a Potemkin affair.
Here's your source on a "Russian Blitzkrieg" being the opinion of the Russian political classes, and an ex-Army Colonel trying to pour water on it - _before_ the war started.
About the author: Mikhail Mikhailovich Khodarenok - ex-head of the group of the 1st direction of the 1st directorate of the Main Operational Directorate of the General Staff of the RF Armed Forces, Colonel
I would also assume that Whatsapp might change the servers used with updates of the app. How would Delta deal with that? Just wait for the complaints to come in?
WhatsApp (now, since it moved into FB's infra) connects to g.whatsapp.net, which is a CNAME to chat.cdn.whatsapp.net, which in turn is an A record to a VIP on Facebook's edge network. The A record you're returned can change — it's intended to be one that's closest to you (as determined by your DNS resolver's location and probably EDNS Client Subnet) but traffic engineering policies might cause different responses over time.
Since on a flight it's likely everyone will use the same resolver on the ground somewhere in Delta's infrastructure a simple mechanism to resolve the IP periodically and update a whitelist (or to cache one VIP location and always return that) might work. Alternatively, as other commenters have suggested, it'd be better to identify traffic with SNI or other profiling.
Updates to the app almost certainly won't change the address it connects to.
Fwiw a lot of YC companies have had large collapses. For example Homejoy which is a lot bigger than this company. It happens. Startups are risky. Not huge news.
Meh YC backs a lot of scams masquerading as businesses. This period of easy money and wealth concentration has fostered much in the way of misallocation of capital. Y-Combinator exists to make its owners money. Their primary concern is bloody Benjamins, not morality and the public interest.
> Inspired by the possibilities across DeFi, our aim was to go beyond Anchor and to integrate with multiple protocols so that users could have easy access to multiple tools and allocate their assets across all of them based on their judgment of the benefits, costs, and risks of each option. Unfortunately, we didn’t get there in time.
Their previous marketting said (or at least implied) that they were spread across different defi products to protect against this exact risk.
That is not the same thing as "we planned to get there eventually, but didn't in time". This is borderling to an institution saying "We're FDIC insured!" but actually meaning "We hope to be FDIC insured at some point in the future".
Lying to customers about what you're doing with their investment funds is 100% illegal and literally what Martin Shkreli was in prison for (and that case didn't even end with him losing all of his investors money)
Do you have a source for the misleading marketing?
Feb. 2, 2022 [1]: "Stablegains' 15% APY is earned using Anchor Protocol, a decentralized lending market."
This is in a giant blue block right above a "get started" link. There is no mention of anything other than Anchor being used to store investor funds.
It seems to me that you are trying to twist the post-crash retrospective into a marketing statement that didn't simply exist before the crash. Where, exactly, is the lie?
I'd have a hard time trusting their current documentation which seems to have been heavily edited since this whole incident began, but frankly the subheader on their main landing page is "Stablegains makes it simple to earn high and stable interest from DeFi lending markets." Market(s). Plural. That at least heavily implies in their marketing that they weren't taking all of their users funds and shoving it into a single asset.
Anybody promising low-risk, high-return investment is a fraud. After all, why would they have to convince you to invest money if they could just do it themselves?
> After all, why would they have to convince you to invest money if they could just do it themselves?
Capital. Taking a 5% cut of billions of dollars is going to be worth a lot more than 20% of whatever tiny amount of capital you are able to muster yourself.
This works sometimes, but banks don't want to be overexposed (even if something is very low risk).
There's the old saying "If you own the bank $1m, that's your problem, but if you owe the bank $100M, that's the bank's problem".
This kind of stuff happens in other industries (like real estate) all the time. Even with bank financing, you'll need another source of funds (typically LPs) to meet loan requirements.
I’d probably assume somebody looked at “15% interest” as a sales pitch and “losing all of your money” as the actual thing that happened and concluded that it was fraud.
The "intent" that is necessary is the intent to benefit from the known misrepresentation, which in this case Stablegains did by obtaining investment from these customers.
It would be ludicrous to suggest that Stabelgains needed to "intend" the end result (ie, "catastrophically fail and lose all of their customers funds") for it to be fraud.
See [1]. If you sell a deposit-like product by saying "you will not lose your funds," and then lose the funds, you go to jail. (First you lose your money.)
The circular relationship between Terra and Luna is really fishy. It's probably not really a scam today, but similarly structured schemes should probably be classified as such and criminalized in the future.
The best explaination Ive seen (from HN I think) was that the Terra/Luna thing was an attempt to tranche the 'asset'. So Luna (junior tranche) has the risk and potential returns, whereas Terra is supposed to be less risky, less returns (Senior tranche). See MBS, CDO, CDO^2, etc.
>"those other people choose to, as they would rather vaporize than give an inch of their land to russia"
If that was the case we would have active war in Crimea in 2014.
>"if you expect them to surrender or accept less, well, you'll have to make your case to them"
Why would I make any case? I do not expect anything. It is their choice. Also I do not think the talking was about Ukraine in particular. The statement was generic.
> If that was the case we would have active war in Crimea in 2014.
Nobody believed it was happening, i.e. Ukrainians never expected having to fight Russians. Now it's completely different; Ukraine has been preparing for an escalation of the war for 8 years.
Nobody in Crimea believed it was being taken, until it was.
By that time, the Ukranian government was beheaded, whatever left of the army was demoralized. There was literally a few thousand dollars in the state's coffers. Insurgency in the east was ramping up; a few volunteer battalions were formed overnight, financed by neighborhood donations, and sent off to fight the (covert) invasion in the east. It's actually a miracle Ukraine survived in 2014, so fighting the Russian regular army (with a big Naval base) in Crimea was not on top of the list.
It's been 8 years since and no fight for Crimea. This still contradicts the original statement: "as they would rather vaporize than give an inch of their land to russia".
And I am far from blaming Ukrainians. Their government luckily had enough brain cells and had voted not to attack what Russia considers their territory and not to vaporize their nation for the sake of some hot heads's stance.
Had they decided to do so on their own before Russia's invasion then there would be no support from the West. The chance of them succeeding militarily in Crimea in that case I think would have been big fat zero.
So no, in general I do not think want people to get vaporized en masse just because somebody believes they should.
Also we might just have a case of keyboard warriors here. It is easy to be brave / stupid sitting in a safe place in front of computer screen.
>It's been 8 years since and no fight for Crimea. This still contradicts the original statement: "as they would rather vaporize than give an inch of their land to russia".
only if you believe that viewpoints and opinions and attitudes of humans never change, a ridiculous notion
>It is easy to be brave / stupid sitting in a safe place in front of computer screen.
if you don't like that that's their attitude, feel free to complain to them about it, don't attack me, the messenger, telling you how it is. after all, it is easy for you to doubt their resolve in a safe place in front of a computer screen
"Family goes through seven months of hell falsely accused of child porn charges after Spanish police misread US-style date in tip-off from American group"
And if this passes, we will have plenty of examples from the EU too. Here it was not as easy to crack down on people because we take privacy very seriously, but it will happen as soon as the state gets the power to do it.
See for example how we treat people who have few grams of weed on them. We protect innocent people, you say? Bullshit, we crack down on gardening shops if they're even just slightly connected to the weed culture!
Ollama silently (!!!) drops messages if the context window is exceeded (instead of, you know, just erroring? who in the world made this decision).
The workaround until now was to (not use ollama or) make sure to only send a single message. But now they seem to silently truncate single messages as well, instead of erroring! (this explains the sibling comment where a user could not reproduce the results locally).
Use LM Studio, llama.cpp, openrouter or anything else, but stay away from ollama!