How much disk & RAM does it need?

What's your tokens/sec rate (and on which device)?

I've been running it on a 64GB M2. My favorite models to run tend to be about 20GB to download (eg Mistral Small 3.1) and use about 20GB of RAM while they are running.

I don't have a token/second figure to hand but it's fast enough that I'm not frustrated by it.

Is it a locally running model?

It seems like a model is not included; you need to set an API endpoint in a configuration https://tmuxai.dev/getting-started#environment-variables

Then why would anyone let this thing into their terminal..?

You can point it at any API you want, including local. The tool is agnostic, like nearly all such tools.

If the idea was to merge different layers - why not do something like this instead?

FROM your_image as initial

FROM scratch

COPY --from=initial / /

I guess one advantage of the author's approach is that any apt-get's etc done in building the initial image can reuse the host package cache.

I click on the link - the website doesn't open.

National stock market is owned by people, but the national debt is owned (and has to be payed) by the government. Basically, the government is just milking the reach now to lower gov's national debt. Poorer people rather win from this (even if no manufacturers come to U.S. to avoid tariff barriers, which some manufacturers will and which will be another small benefit for the poorer (more jobs)).

Tariffs are incredibly regressive, add in the likely job losses and wage losses, and poorer people are going to be the biggest losers.

Jobs are different; which jobs in your opinion are likely to be lost? I can't think of examples where less-skilled labor workers would lose their jobs as result of tariffs, other than in a case where they were a maid/gardener of some business that went bankrupt by said tariffs.

Give some good examples, please, to support your claim.

Where did you take this from? Trump is not from working class. Working class might've been his 'platform' for the election, but he's already elected now, he basically has no incentive now to fight for the rights/interests of his voters, he has his own wallet that needs to finally get filled. Unless you think he really aims for a 3rd term.

Well, you should then accept that some things will be very expensive for you as well. Is that what you want?

Then it'll be a good lesson for you to diversify investments.

You're totally missing the point, but ok.

What was the point?

When faced with "cash in hand that might lose value through inflation" versus "the stocks you currently own at risk of being worthless", the decision to sell is straightforward even in the absense of a next step.

There is always a risk that a specific stock will go to 0. It happens even in good ecconomic times.

The decision to sell is not straightforward, even given the current situation. It would probably be the wrong decision for the average person unless you really know what you are doing.

Under ordinary circumstances, sure.

But right now, sell sell sell is a forgiveable reaction.

I don't think that makes sense. Wars happen when one of the sides think they can win (and want something). USA leaving nato and reducing trade makes european states more vulnerable. I would expect this to increase the liklihood of war.

Especially in the near term - eventually europe will adapt to the new world order, but in the mean time their is a limited window of opportunity where everything is in flux, which would be a great time to strike.

I'd like to correct you: wars don't happen when just one of the sides thinks they can win, they happen when BOTH sides think so.

I think that exactly for this reason Europe needs such a vaccine shot, so they stop they can win a war against Russia.

But... they can? If Ukraine can fight Russia to a standstill, a fully mobilized Europe clearly at least has a shot. Unless it escalates to nuclear weapons and everyone loses... But you need at least an argument if you want to say that is less likely without any initial US involvement, it's not obvious.

There's nothing in my comment to "exactly" in support of your point. If the US backs away from Europe it may be more likely to encourage Ukrainian surrender. Russia may be more likely to attack Poland. Germany may be more likely to develop its own nuclear deterrent. Or none of these things may happen. Extrapolating from tariffs to world peace demands a bit more than loose speculation at the continental level.

The Kremlin can come up with a rationalization for whatever their territorial desires are.

Yes, the isolationist era that followed World War One clearly calmed the rest of the world, so that the various "expansionist" regimes felt less threatened and just let their neighbors be.

History rhymes with itself.

Multi-polarity is the number one cause of war and conflict.

It's different now, since at that time there were no weapons of total annihilation (and now there are quite some).

That's exactly why 'expansionist' regimes were ready to start some next war, being eager "to get some extra land" as a result of said war.

The current war is different: this is the war that started not out of appetite towards foreign lands, but, basically, out of primal fear, the fear concerning safety. The West was failing at self-reflection and was completely oblivious about their own actions being treated as crossing a real red line for Russia's safety.

You may scare a wandering bear away, but driving it into a corner is both stupid and fatal.

Haha please describe the NATO invasion of Russia. This sounds entertaining.

Easy.

1. Crimea, Donetsk People's Republic, Lugansk People's Republic, Kherson Oblast, Zaporozhskaya Oblast are now parts of Russia.

2. NATO still thinks those are parts of Ukraine.

3. Some of NATO countries are now in talks about sending their troops to Ukraine.

> 1. Crimea, Donetsk People's Republic, Lugansk People's Republic, Kherson Oblast, Zaporozhskaya Oblast are now parts of Russia.

Not factually, nor legally.

Haha I was thinking you might describe the decisionmaking involved in having a multinational defensive alliance invade a nuclear power.

Instead you decided to use it as an opportunity to claim that the Russian-occupied territories should be internationally recognized. You're funny.

Interesting, but I don’t see it this way at all. The west talked Ukraine into giving up their nukes and said we’ll keep you safe. All that without NATO. But as time has ebbed, and Russia meddling in eastern Ukraine went largely ignored by the west, Russia grew emboldened and decided it could just invest in a history rewrite, an airing of past grievances, and an invasion.

If Ukraine had said “fuck no” from day one, “we’re keeping our stuff, we don’t trust any of you long term at that level”, it would be in interesting world we live in.

This narrative that NATO provoked Russia into this is non sequitur. A gaslight of grandeur.

I am sorry, but it looks like you are just uneducated about the facts and events that happened prior to Russia taking Crimea back. You should not just read some, but actually dig a bit, if you are really interested. I'm not here for a political debate really, I'm not buying into your baity (and wrong) arguments. I shared my idea about how tariffs might be a step that might actually prevent a nuke war and I just expand on said thought.

Care to explain your rationale? Seems like Russia is in no position to invade any NATO country unless the US leaves the alliance. They've proven themselves wholly outclassed in Ukraine, against a much smaller country with refurb gear.

Furthermore, Russia has no plans to invade any NATO country. It just won't let NATO invade^W expand to Ukraine. And no, this war is not how you describe it: said 'much smaller country' was 2nd biggest (in terms of military strength) in Europe after Russia itself.

And it's not a 1x1 war of big Russia vs small Ukraine: Ukraine got help from all over Europe, G.B., U.S. and Canada. Help in arms, in intel, in training, in money and other resources. Russia got sanctioned badly, by such a big bunch of countries that you'd rather be smirking not about Russia not being able to win already, but at Europe (and now U.S.) economy getting some hits... while Russian economy still stands yet. While all the sanctions are still in effect. For years.

> Furthermore, Russia has no plans to invade any NATO country.

Not only are you attempting to prove a negative with "trust me bro" but it's especially laughable given recent history. Please tell me how many days before the Ukraine invasion Russia had "no plans to invade".

> this war is not how you describe it: said 'much smaller country'

Personally I consider 1/3 the population "much smaller" but you do you.

> it's not a 1x1 war of big Russia vs small Ukraine: Ukraine got help from all over Europe, G.B., U.S. and Canada.

Exactly why the US remaining in NATO prevents a large scale conventional war. Because Russia is pathetic unless it is bullying smaller neighbors or threatening nuclear war.

I think it's the opposite: with US remaining in NATO, Europe will feel cocky enough to get dragged in a war, Russia will of course retaliate and further escalation (especially if Russia starts losing) highly likely will lead to the nukes.

Now look at the news: Germany sends troops (for permanent stationing) to Eastern Europe. GB, France and Germany discuss deployment of their troops to Ukraine.

Seems like I'm rather right, than wrong.

How many days before the invasion did Russia claim to have no plans to invade?

While tomhow is of course welcome, I want to express gratitude to dang for years of quite fair moderation. I've been around multiple communities and he's nothing like those power-tripping libera.chat or reddit moderators.