DeepSeek-v3.2: Pushing the frontier of open large language models [pdf]

I am well aware that Netflix doesn’t pay the same price for AWS services that “Joe Bob’s Fish Tackle and WordPress shop”. All big companies give discounts to large companies as part of negotiations which is different from “we are the low cost leader”.

All technology gets cheaper over time. There is a difference between lowering price in response to competitors and finding the profit maximizing price based on supply and demand.

AWS was lowering prices to increase demand before GCP and Azure were a thing.

Jassy said right before he became CEO of Amazon and he was still over AWS that only 5% of IT spend was on any cloud provider. They are capturing non consumption and marketing value of AWS vs that.

While I don’t have any insider experience about Azure, looking on the outside, I would think that Azure’s go to market is also not competing against AWS on price, but trying to get on prem customers on Azure.

> I don't see how anthropomorphizing MoE brain affords insight deeper than 'less activity means less energy used'.

I'm not saying it is a perfect analogy, but it is by far the most familiar one for people to describe what sparse activation means. I'm no big fan of over-reliance on biological metaphor in this field, but I think this is skewing a bit on the pedantic side.

re: your second comment about pruning, not to get in the weeds but I think there have been a few unique cases where people did lose some of their brain and the brain essentially routed around it.

It's a fair question, but my view of America's influence on world affairs has been dismal. China by contrast has not had a history of invading its neighbors, though I strongly criticize their involvement in the American attack on Cambodia and Vietnam (China supported the Khmer Rouge and briefly invaded Vietnam but was quickly pushed back, a reason Mao is sometimes criticized as having a good early period and a bad late period).

Meanwhile, America has been causing death and destruction around the world. It's easy to make lists: Vietnam, Iraq, Gaza, Cuba, South and Central America etc etc.

Without going too deep on it (I used to be a fan in university as a silly youth), the tendency of the rate of profit to fall is the key aspect of Marx's crisis theory.

Basically dude thought the competition inherent in capitalism would cause all profit to be competed to zero leading to an eventual 'crisis' and collapse of the capitalist means of production.

Implicit in this assumption is the idea that the things humans need and want changes/evolves in a predictable way, and not in a chaotic/fractal/reflexive way (which is what actually happens).

An eventual static basket of desired goods would be the only mechanism by which competition ever could compete profits to zero. If the basket is dynamic/reflexive/evolving, there's constantly new gaps opening between human desires and market offerings to arbitrage for profit. You can just look at the average profit margins of S&P500 companies over time to see they are not falling.

The further we get from subsistence worries (Adam Smith's invisible hand has pulled virtually the entire globe out of living in the dirt), the more divergent and higher abstraction these wants and needs become, and hence the profit opportunities are only increasing -- which is how the economy grows (no, it's not a fixed pie, another Marxian fallacy).

We can disable your account if you email hn@ycombinator.com. That's in the FAQ – https://news.ycombinator.com/newsfaq.html.

And yes I am a moderator and it's my role to prevent flamewars and to encourage everyone to raise the standard of discourse here. In my comment I was trying to convey that multiple comments of yours were crossing too far into political battle and personal attack, and here are the main instances:

> That is just objectively incorrect, and fundamentally misunderstanding the basics of statehood

This counts as a personal swipe, and as fulminating.

> It is however entirely reasonable to assume that the comment I replied to was made entirely in bad faith

People can be mistaken or wrong, or just of a different opinion/assessment, without acting “entirely in bad faith”.

> "Baselessly" - I'm sorry but realpolitik is plenty of basis. China is a geopolitical adversary of both the EU and the US. And China will be the first to admit this, btw.

This is phrased in a snarky way.

The points you've made are fine to make, but the way you make them matters. Snarkiness, swipes, put-downs, accusations of bad faith (giving your reason "why" you think it was in bad faith doesn't make it OK) are all clearly against the guidelines.

I can accept that you didn't mean to break the guidelines, which is why I've politely asked you to familiarise yourself with them and try harder to follow them in future. It's a request not a scolding. It's not necessary to announce you want to quit HN in protest. (Though of course, eventually we would rather people leave if they prefer not to follow the guidelines.) Just making an effort to respect the guidelines and the HN community would be great.