Everytime I read GrapheneOS news I search for news related to Fairephone. It's such a shame that there's still no official plan for Fairephone to work on requirements for GrapheneOS. The combination of those 2 would be fantastic. It would also open a big new market (I assume) for Fairephone so not sure why there seems no clear sign in that direction at all (to my knowledge).
Everytime I see Fairphone mentioned whenever there's news about GrapheneOS I'm confused as to why people keep on conflating both when they obviously have very different goals.
I believe Fairphone relies on popular off-the-shelf parts. If that stays consistent, the Fairphone will never be small. Save for a change in business model (e.g. pay more for smaller phone)
The overwhelming majority of consumers just prefer larger screens (myself included). People seem to forget that Apple releasing the Mini was them listening to the minority and the sales numbers if it were poor versus the rest of the lineup.
Honestly, maybe it's a market specific thing, but from having worked for a carrier, the overwhelming majority of consumers just dont know anything about any phone but the brand. They'll come in store looking for "an iPhone" or "a Galaxy", and the employee will usually push them towards whichever phone has the best deal (and very often, incentives to be sold), which rarely happens to be these alternative models like the Mini. The minority who does buy their phones outright or know what they want does tend to gravitate towards larger phones, but the rest typically just buys the standard, base model.
I find reading ebooks and long texts like wikipedia a lot more enjoyable on my 6.8" AMOLED panel than on the smaller screens i've had before. You can also doomscroll on smaller screens.
Sorry but this is maximum level conspiratorial thinking. Meta probably has some created some incentive for OEMs to make larger screens by way of people liking content consumption but the idea that they’d be paying for that is ridiculous lol.
The follow-up strategy of “smaller width and height didn’t work, let’s try thickness next” reportedly not going any better.
I really think COVID shutdowns did the mini in. People couldn’t go to the store and try holding a phone where they could use it comfortably one-handed again. And then by the time they could, Apple axed it.
I don't believe this at all. If people yearned for smaller phones, they would have gotten it despite COVID. My wife and I both had a Mini and I remember going to the local electronics store (most of the summer there were no closures) and the iPhone islands were well-visited, but simply nobody was looking at the Minis.
I think people get the wrong estimation about the size of the contingent that want small phones. It is a vocal minority, similar to people ranting every time about headphone jacks. Most people do not care about these things. If they want to hook a wired headphone, they'll get a 10 Euro dongle and most people use Bluetooth. My wife uses a wired headphone for listening audio books at night and I never heard her complain about the stereo jack going away.
I bought the mini and I bought the Air so it worked on me. I think it’s crazy that Apple sold millions of devices and that’s not enough of a market. We should make devices few people use, not everything needs to be mass market, to me that’s enshittification and greed.
Just today I giggled and reminisced over the old XDA Developers Nexus 7 posts about LTE and wifi calling hacks…the many few of us worked hard to only rely on a tablet! Ironically, there is now not a second of my day in which id find a folding phone useful or logistically feasible. Alas…13 years too late.
50% of the population has hands that are too small to operate a typical phone with one hand. It's ridiculous that there is nothing for such a huge number of people.
Most people take what they're given. Whatever is on the shelf or the front page, that's what they buy. Manufacturers make bigger screens because it's impressive and good for delivering content and provides room for cpu & battery, and most people just go along with it. They think about products the same as the weather. Whatever is, is just what is, like it's just part of the world, not something that people made and people can make differently. If there is choice available, they buy what they were told to want.
Sales numbers are not a strong argument in an environment like that. Countless things sell in huge numbers without anyone actually liking the product or service, even when there isn't a hard monopoly like your cable/internet.
There is a whole other big perverting factor too, which is that for many years now a phone is many people's only computing device. They are preferring phones that are larger that they'd really like for a phone, because they can only have one, and need it to do every job that you and I use a laptop for.
> the sales numbers if it were poor versus the rest of the lineup.
For one, the sales were still perfectly respectable. "Versus the rest of the lineup" is doing a ton of work here, because the rest of the iPhone models sell like crazy. For two, it is still bizarre that manufacturers refuse to make small phones even with that in mind. If you wear very small clothes (or very large clothes) that won't sell as many units, your options are limited, you have to pay more, but you aren't forced to go naked. But there's nobody out there doing the equivalent strategy for phones.
Bro the Mini was a flop for Apple, it could barely surpass 5% of all iPhone sales during its run. It would be nonsensical for a publicly traded company to leave money on the table and keep an underperforming product alive when they could put that towards the better performing bigger screen iPhones instead.
For a small company sure it could be considered a success.
I don’t think tech can be compared to the fashion industry. Also that example doesn’t really work. Because you basically have a locked in group who needs the clothes. Just also culturally there’s reasons why these clothing sizes exist. Nobody needs a small phone.
But across the board it makes no sense for any OEM to make small phones when the data all shows that bigger screens sell more. That’s just absorbing an unnecessary opportunity cost.
I think the only real way small phones will reach the market at this point in time is via a private company that’s basically run as a passion project.
Honestly in this case the consumers do share the blame. They begged for the mini and didn’t show up. If apple couldn’t do it it’s unlikely that the android oems could.
> Bro the Mini was a flop for Apple, it could barely surpass 5% of all iPhone sales during its run.
They were making the SE at the exact same time as the mini, two years in a row, and the mini still got billions in sales. If they want a bigger percent, then do it less often and don't split the demand. It's been four and a half years since they did either mini or SE. People would buy plenty.
> leave money on the table
> opportunity cost
If it cost them that much to have extra models, they wouldn't have five iphone 16 variants that are all just different enough to need five internal layouts. And four 17 variants plus the air.
That's a weird statement. Do you think knowing the most about something inevitably leads you to a specific decision? It doesn't.
And this isn't something that would affect their revenue particularly much. So while it's possible I've missed an important factor, even if I'm 100% right it could make sense for most people to say "do the option that leads to more happy customers, while still making boatloads of money", while a CEO says "we have enough happy customers, go for the extra sliver of money". Or an extra payment from Meta or whatever, I wasn't really talking about that idea, I was just arguing against their abandonment of small phones. The point is, don't use CEOs to guide your intuition of what decisions are best.
I would argue that it’s weird to expect that Apple should maintain a product that sells less when people have consistently shown that they will buy the better performing product anyway instead of not buying at all.
Like this isn’t a hypothetical, Apple literally released the Mini and it was the worst performing item in their iPhone lineup by far. If it was profitable enough, Cook would’ve kept it.
Like ultimately I don’t necessarily disagree with what you’re trying to say, but like this:
> “do the option that leads to more happy customers, while still making boatloads of money", while a CEO says "we have enough happy customers, go for the extra sliver of money".
The consumers do take some blame here cause they did take the Mini away and people just ended up buying the other more expensive iPhones instead of not buying one at all. Why would Apple do anything different in that case?
The obsession with the Mini is something that is only really popular within an online bubble and isn’t reflective of real life trends, people here are being extremely disconnected from the public with this (and this is coming from someone who wants Apple to add a desktop mode to iOS). The only time Apple seems to maintain lagging product lines are with things like the Air which seemed to essentially be an R&D product for the Duo.
A brief search says that iPhone sales in 225 were approximately $200 billion. 5% of that is therefore approximately $10 billion. If you call that a "massive flop", your standards are completely unrealistic. That is a massive success.
And no, the clothes analogy is not flawed. The point is that in other markets, niche tastes and needs get served even if it isn't as cheap or plentiful. It's only the phone manufacturers which refuse to try to get sales from a smaller (but still quite extant) market.
A brief search says that iPhone sales in 225 were approximately $200 billion. 5% of that is therefore approximately $10 billion. If you call that a "massive flop", your standards are completely unrealistic. That is a massive success.
It's all about scale. Yes 10B is a lot for most companies, but for Apple 5% is just a blip on the radar. They probably also did their market research and found that the vast majority of Mini users would buy another iPhone model if they discontinued the Mini. Those facts combined give Apple little incentive to continue the lineup.
Another thing that further clouds the 5% discussion is that some Mini purchasers may have bought it not because of the size, but because it was $100 cheaper while still getting the same SoC. Maybe those buyers were disappointed by the worse battery life, and Apple could choose to axe it or make it the same price as the regular iPhone and it would drop way below 5%.
But you see people talking about the mini almost every time there's a discussion about iPhones (or phones in general). Surely it would have been worth it to Apple to keep the mini alive just to avoid the negative press and pretend they care about their consumers beyond making a profit. But I guess it really isn't possible to do things like that in a publicly traded company.
But you see people talking about the mini almost every time there's a discussion about iPhones (or phones in general).
...in tech forums where people hold strong opinions about tech and the people who have their pet peeves come out. IRL I have rarely heard somebody wanting Apple to bring the Mini back. Or the stereo jack for that matter.
I agree they are separate. What annoys me is that every time FairPhone has news, there are obligatory FUD comments about how people should stay away from FairPhone because they don't support Graphene.
This is no great conundrum. There is simply a large set overlap. A lot of the people who care about one one, also care about the other.
It's the same as Framework owners and Linux users.
FW is not a linux laptop company. They didn't even barely say the word Linux initially. Their selling point was the repairability and configurability. Only after they had been shipping for a while it became unavoidable that a huge fraction of their users were linux and even freebsd users. Only after some time and only gradually they started providing a little bit of official acknowledgement and support for Linux.
But repair parts and linux os don't have anything to do with each other! zomg why is everyone conflating Framework with a linux laptop company???
I wouldn’t say obvious, no. It’s what I observe, yes. But I have some doubt about my observations scaling up to a valid statistics. Lots of folks out there are not techies yet do care about the environment. I can’t see them caring much about grapheneOS, but maybe I’m wrong.
It's because Fairphone doesn't fulfil GOS's hardware requirements. If Fairphone addresses that, there's no reason for GOS to not support a Fairphone device.
I don't think they can, even if they wanted to. From the GrapheneOS device requirements:
Device support code updated to new monthly, quarterly and yearly releases of AOSP within several months to provide new security improvements (Pixels receive these in the month they're released)
Fairphone's hardware and software is developed by a Chinese ODM (T2Mobile), who even have difficulty pushing out monthly patches very timely. They don't even do QPR2s, major Android updates are very late (usually almost a year), they rarely do driver firmware or kernel updates. There is no way they could fulfill this guarantee unless they started doing software development in-house and paid Qualcomm for monthly firmware updates.
I don't understand the issue. If Fairphone wants GOS can't they just compile it themselves with whatever unsupported hardware based security features disabled? Ditto for any given end user. It's not as though we're talking about a device with hardware specs locked behind an NDA and drivers that only support outdated kernel versions.
An incredibly incomplete port without many of the core security features and decent updates is not GrapheneOS. It isn't possible to bring GrapheneOS to Fairphone devices.
> It's not as though we're talking about a device with hardware specs locked behind an NDA and drivers that only support outdated kernel versions.
Fairphone 5 and earlier have an end-of-life Linux kernel. Fairphone 6 is approaching the same fate. None of their devices keep up with the incomplete security backports to older releases, let alone the full security updates via new major releases. All of their devices are missing important hardware security features which should be standard. They're repeatedly said they don't consider any of this a significant issue and have no plans to significantly change it.
Yes, I realize that the official stance is that it isn't grapheneos without the security features. That doesn't change the fact that someone who won't have the security features either way (and presumably doesn't care because otherwise he would switch to a different piece of hardware) might want the option of using a build of grapheneos that isn't officially condoned by the maintainers. (That's kind of the whole point of FOSS, right?)
I didn't realize fairphone was stuck on an EoL kernel. I guess that means that even if the build can be made to work right now (far from certain given an old kernel) it would likely break in the future.
> might want the option of using a build of grapheneos
An OS without the core features and updates of GrapheneOS clearly isn't GrapheneOS. It's not permitted to refer to it as such.
> That's kind of the whole point of FOSS, right?
No, the point of FOSS is that you can take all of our code and use it for other purposes. Calling an incomplete port to another device GrapheneOS is misleading users. It isn't GrapheneOS and must have a unique name.
No one was suggesting that your trademark should be infringed when marketing to users. If I do my own custom build of firefox referring to it as such in casual conversation is entirely separate from marketing it under that name for others to use (see ex icecat).
Honestly while grapheneos is a useful thing that I'm glad exists you're being absolutely insufferable.
Forking GOS and porting it to a new device is a huge and unreasonable ask for an individual user. Even less so when you include the fact that you'll need to keep it up to date.
I understand that bringing AOSP to an unsupported device is a huge endeavor. But fairphone already has the driver situation sorted out. What's the complexity here? (Genuine question, I'd like to correct any misconceptions about the android ecosystem that I have.)
You are dependent on Qualcomm for hardware firmware updates and apparently they charge quite a bit extra if you want continuous monthly security updates [1]. This is possibly one of the reasons that smaller OEMs like Fairphone do not update firmware regularly and instead choose to keep their customers vulnerable to many known CVEs.
They're getting remarkably good at reverse engineering. I wonder if the relevant firmware updates can be provided by the user or OEM or if they're blobs that have to be signed by qualcomm?
> Fairphone has said they don't plan to add a secure element. It can be seen from their current devices that they don't fully keep up with privacy/security backports and lag a year behind on shipping yearly OS releases. They skip over the monthly and quarterly releases entirely. They replaced their own non-GMS Fairphone OS with a dramatically less secure /e/OS option in partnership with Murena. They clearly demonstrate that security and even privacy are not the priorities.
It should be noted that GrapheneOS had similar criticisms about almost every smartphone vendor, including Motorola before their upcoming cooperation IIRC.
Most of their criticisms are valid, but they seem to be absolutely unwilling to make any compromise at all.
Not sure if they want to protect their brand, if any of those criticised issues would increase the work needed by them significantly, or why they are like that.
But I would prefer to have a slightly less secure GrapheneOS on many phones, that helps many many more users than just Pixel owners, over the current all or nothing situation.
They replaced their own non-GMS Fairphone OS with a dramatically less secure /e/OS
it sounds like they are saying that /e/OS is less secure than fairphone's own OS. with all criticism against /e/OS taken into account, i highly doubt that fairphone would have been able to make their own version of android more secure than /e/OS when they are not even interested in working on that.
It starts with simply rolling major releases out earlier than /e/OS. Remember that to get security fixes for vulnerabilities not marked high/critical, you need the QPR/major updates. Those vulnerabilities may not be an immediate RCE, but they might get used in exploit chains after an RCE. Also, Fairphone and /e/OS will have many known RCEs, because they do not roll out embargoed patches like GrapheneOS and to some extend Samsung & Pixel do.
One of the reasons I haven't switched to Graphene is this kind of drama. I wish there was more middle ground. I don't think the post is in any way constructive and will lead to fairphone to consider adding a secure element.
I don't see their post as 'drama' or nonconstructive at all. It's simply a list of well-founded criticisms of Fairphone's extremely lax position on security that is incompatible with Graphene's. If being critiqued for it doesn't lead to them considering adding a secure element, that's a problem on Fairphone's side imo.
The core criticism to the vendor is the missing security element. This is a fair point.
However, calling out on e/OS in the same post, seems to me very counter-productive. We need more OS vendors and less infighting. Calling all custom ROMs insecure and claiming to be the only one is IMHO 'drama'. Particular there are contributions of me microG that are helpful if you want to de-Google ones phone. Graphene has a different approach: fair. People will use GrapheneOS if they share their goals.
Fairphone is about sustainability and a bit about not supporting major tech like Google. I don't think this hurts. In an ideal world we could have both. But sustainability seems to be a non-goal of GrapheneOS.
I think in this context it's fair to call out /e/.
In some ways /e/ and GOS are trying to achieve different things (/e/ is not hardened and does not claim to be), but /e/ is severely lacking security wise compared to AOSP.
This [0] is, in my opinion, a fair review that mentions many of the issues. That Fairphone is ok with these is telling about their position on privacy and security.
To be honest the specs of the Fairphone are middling and the device is rather expensive for what you get. The Pixels are a much better value, especially with a series. If you want something truly high end, wait for the Motorola with official GOS support.
Isn't the whole idea behind Fairphone that they are more expensive because the parts are responsibly sourced? That they pay a fair price for labour and materials? And that the phones are highly repairable?
Why would that mean it could compete with a Pixel which generally has none of those goals?
There's nearly no information available on the working conditions, pay or environmental impact of Fairphones. T2Mobile is the company designing and making Fairphones since the Fairphone 4 and little information is available on them. Fairphone provides a long list of companies involved in the supply chain without more details than their location and website.
Pixels have long term availability of official parts for repairs and also official repairs.
Unlike Fairphones, Pixels have very good updates over the long term. Fairphones do not provide anything close to decent updates and it greatly degrades over the lifetime of the device. Fairphone 5 and earlier have an end-of-life kernel without security support. The devices start out lagging months behind on partial security backports and a year or more behind on full security updates which gets worse over time.
Supporting an alternative OS wouldn’t change the fate of Fairphone, imo. Most people don’t care to move away from the stock version of Android that comes with their phone or iOS.
I mean, aside from /e/OS as a first-party option, there are also official Lineage builds[1]. And they're at least a target for PostmarketOS[2], even if that wiki doesn't actually describe something daily-driveable yet.
i have zero knowledge of physics, but I just can't believe something like dark matter exists. My intuition is that some math just isn't correct and falls apart at the scales of the observable universe. No idea what equations are used for getting to the reslut of having 85% unexplained matter in the universe, but I really assume there's just a constant missing or our math in general just inaccurate or not considering specific effects.
I'm not a physicist either, but the amount of evidence pointing in the direction of dark matter is extremely significant, it's a little silly to just dismiss all that based on your intuition.
> No idea what equations are used for getting to the result
"Basic" gravitational equations applied to observed behaviour: clumping and rotation of galaxies, lensing (light bending), etc.
The behaviour implies "something" is exerting force in a mass like way - but there's a shortfall of visible mass.
The observational hole left by the apparent behaviour of "unseen matter" attracts a lot of theory.
* Physics "allows for" various types of particles with various types of properties - these may or may not all exist, some do. eg: Neutrino's from the sun barely interact with anything, consistently capturing them is a challenge. Maybe Dark Matter is a new hard to observe gravity particle.
* Physics has equations formed by "human scale" observation and sometimes tweaked for scales beyond direct human experience. eg: relativistic tweaks related to speeds approaching that of light. Maybe Dark Matter is a warping of observation at galaxy scale.
For those who are interested in learning why physicists think dark matter exists, there's an excellent and accessible talk[1] freely available over at PIRSA where an astrophysicist goes through exactly what we know about the universe and how many different kinds of evidence all seem to point in a similar direction: dark matter exists.
Maybe you shouldn't give much credence to your intuitions if you don't really know much about the subject. Obviously experts have those simple intuitions too except they also know the details of the theories underlying it all so they can form informed opinions.
Here's a serious question: If you start with "I don't know anything about what I'm going to talk about...", why even post?
I wouldn't go into a neurological medical thread, and post "I'd guess it doesn't even exist" as a solution for Alzheimer's. But you just did the same, analogously.
> I just can't believe something like dark matter exists.
That's a lot like a blind person saying they can't believe light exists.
It takes only a small amount of knowledge of physics to understand why and how dark matter might be possible, even likely. So small, in fact, that I can describe it in this comment.
The tl;dr is that all the senses you experience - sight, touch, smell, taste, and hearing - depend on the electromagnetic (EM) interaction. Touch, smell, taste, and hearing all depend on how electrons interact, and sight depends on how photons interact with electrons. But EM is only one of four fundamental interactions that we know of. We humans are essentially blind to all the others, without using devices to detect their presence.
But using devices we've invented, we can detect all sorts of things that we can't detect directly with our senses. X-rays and gamma rays, for example. But those are still just high-energy photons, not a different kind of particle altogether. They just help illustrate how limited our senses are.
A better example is the neutrino. They're pretty close to being "dark matter," because they don't interact via electromagnetism. As a result, they can pass right through your body, because there's nothing much to stop them. You're just as invisible to a neutrino as a neutrino is to you. It's estimated that about 100 trillion neutrinos pass through your body each second.
But neutrinos aren't perfectly "dark" - although they don't interact with electromagnetism, they do interact via the weak nuclear interaction, which is mostly something that happens inside the nuclei of atoms. (They also interact via gravity, but they have very small mass, so that doesn't help us detect them.)
We can detect neutrinos by building huge tanks full of very pure substances like water or argon, and burying them deep underground, to shield them from other interference. We can then look for the tell-tale signs that occur when a neutrino just happens to have a direct hit on an atomic nucleus, something that doesn't happen very often because nuclei are very small. That's why we need large tanks - to increase the odds of a hit.
The IceCube neutrino detector in Antarctica (https://icecube.wisc.edu/science/icecube/) extends to 2.5 km underground, and Super-Kamiokande in Japan (https://www-sk.icrr.u-tokyo.ac.jp/en/sk/) is buried 1 km below a mountain. They're able to detect neutrinos with high confidence, because aside from the tell-tale sing we can often even relate the neutrinos they detect to astronomical sources such as supernovae and supermassive black holes.
Neutrinos show that it's possible to have matter that doesn't interact via electromagnetism, which is all but invisible to us. And not just invisible - it can pass right through us. In the case of neutrinos, we're just "lucky" that they participate in the weak nuclear interaction, so we can detect them if we try hard enough. But what if a particle didn't do that? Then you'd have real dark matter - particles that we can't detect at all, except via the energy they carry, which participates in the gravitational interaction. But it's very difficult to detect tiny particles using gravity - which is why the first place we think we've detected dark matter is at large scales, in the motion of galaxies, where the collective mass of dark matter is large enough to be detected.
With all this in mind, a question dark matter skeptics would need to answer is, why wouldn't we expect dark matter to exist? We've identified quite a large zoo of particles, and what distinguishes each of them is that they each participate differently in the different interactions that we know about. Here's a summary of the fundamental particles and their participation in the fundamental interactions - which are gravity, electromagnetism (EM), weak nuclear, and strong nuclear (the latter two are different types of interactions that happen to have very generic names):
Electron: gravity, EM, weak
Neutrino: gravity, weak
Photon: gravity, EM
Quark: gravity, EM, weak, strong
Gluon: gravity, strong
Dark matter: gravity, ?
There's no physical reason we wouldn't expect a particle like dark matter to exist. It doesn't even have to have no interaction other than gravity - it could just have a very small degree of interaction that we can't easily detect, which is what the OP experiment is counting on.
If you accept the existence of X-rays and neutrinos, then it's not very consistent to draw the line at dark matter, once you have some understanding of the physics involved.
>it could just have a very small degree of interaction that we can't easily detect, which is what the OP experiment is counting on.
It's an open question, right, whether dark matter has no interaction or just very little interaction with normal matter? If there's none, this experiment will detect nothing but noise.
I'm confused why, if dark matter exists and has mass (since it interacts gravitationally), there's no noticeable missing results from high-energy events that create particles. Shouldn't dark matter particles be generated by, say, cosmic ray collisions? Or black hole decay?
> It's an open question, right, whether dark matter has no interaction or just very little interaction with normal matter? If there's none, this experiment will detect nothing but noise.
Correct. What this experiment (LUX-ZEPLIN) is looking for is the effects of xenon nuclei being "bumped" - recoiling - due to something undetectable. It doesn't matter what interaction mediates the recoil - it could even be a so-far-undiscovered interaction. They're just looking for evidence of the recoil happening. But if the only interaction is gravity, they won't detect anything, since gravity is too weak for us to detect the effects of at that scale.
> I'm confused why, if dark matter exists and has mass (since it interacts gravitationally), there's no noticeable missing results from high-energy events that create particles.
Particle physicists actively look for this, e.g. in reactions in particle accelerators. But not finding evidence of that only places constraints on how strongly dark matter can couple to ordinary matter, it doesn't rule it out.
> Shouldn't dark matter particles be generated by, say, cosmic ray collisions?
Not necessarily. Just being energetic doesn't guarantee anything. There's a bit of a chicken-and-egg issue here: without knowing more about dark matter, we can't predict what reactions might produce it. That's why experiments like LUX-ZEPLIN make as few assumptions as possible - all it requires is that some mechanism for energy transfer from dark matter to matter exists.
> Or black hole decay?
Black hole decay has never been observed. Since it's purely theoretical, no matter how well-justified it is, it doesn't really help in the search for dark matter. There's no reason that Hawking radiation couldn't include dark matter, in fact if dark matter exists it probably would, but we have no way to detect that.
Even if say black hole collisions (which have been indirectly observed) produced dark matter, we wouldn't really have any way of detecting it at the distances in question.
I hope you're aware that it's likley in the future open weight models will output tokens/commands that aren't in your interest. It could be that models are trained with spionage in mind and models could only target specific input token patterns, time zones, ip addresses, names etc... You will be able to see the output tokens but things will become so complex that you won't notice its intentions. Maybe there will be some sort of output token scanning software/llm (let's call it a modern form of a virus scanner) that validates intentions. In the end, I'm just trying to say that open weight means you have a black box in front of you that you don't know what it does. Therefore, the training material of open weight models should be known. While it doesn't matter where the model comes from, it certainly matters whether you trust those people if you don't have the training material.
The flagged/dead comment contains a copy of the entire page, but the relevant part is:
> Built by us, not rented from someone else
> We’ve installed our own servers, co-located in a secure facility in Amsterdam, set up by our own engineers. This new location is built to the same high standards as our existing infrastructure in Philadelphia and St Louis, with our own hardware and our own software — specified right down to the exact model of disks in each machine.
> In all our locations, data is stored encrypted at rest inside locked racks, and managed by our in-house team. We don’t rent computing or management services from a big cloud provider and pass on their assurances. That’s how we’ve approached privacy, reliability, and performance for more than 25 years.
> We’ve installed our own servers, co-located in a secure facility in Amsterdam, set up by our own engineers. This new location is built to the same high standards as our existing infrastructure in Philadelphia and St Louis, with our own hardware and our own software — specified right down to the exact model of disks in each machine.
reply