Unlurker|Replay|About
Any Color You Like: NIST Scientists Create 'Any Wavelength' Lasers (nist.gov)
•
I'll take one in gamma please.
•
A gamma wavelength handheld laser would be cool; "and on this petri dish, we see a dot of cells instantaneously develop cancer"
•
Can each device vary the color or is it fixed based on how it’s built? Seems the latter?
•
Everyone talking about magenta and brown, but you can see an illusory color right now even without lasers! https://dynomight.net/colors/ behold, some kind of hyper-turquoise
•
For those not seeing it or only seeing a little, stare at it for a while then shake your head (or your phone) just a bit.
Yes but can it do any color a mantis shrimp would like? https://theoatmeal.com/comics/mantis_shrimp
•
The Mantis Shrimp most likely sees very much like us (or birds, snakes), it's just that its brain is too small to integrate signals from just three types of cones, so it evolved a whole rainbow of cones.
•
Huh. Anywhere you'd suggest I can read more about this?
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Maser
•
thanks, I'm familiar. But it doesn't answer my question.
What we call "magenta" is the sensation of both red and blue color-sensitive cells in the eye being excited at the same time. There's no single wavelength that produces this effect (unlike e.g. yellow). The closes you can get is violet, which looks faint to the eye. A rainbow gives you both red and blue; mute everything else, and you'll get magenta. That's what magenta pigments do when illuminated by white light (which is a rainbow scrambled).
•
Saying a wavelength doesn’t do it doesn’t make any sense. If you can perceive it visually, a wavelength is doing it.
But can it produce magenta?
•
Not every color has a corresponding wavelength, rather a combination of wavelengths. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Color_vision https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/CIE_1931_color_space
Is there a single person here interested in photonic computing that wants to explain to the class if there's any "there" there?
•
Well, since I'm not that smart, I asked an AI (M5-ST-TOS) to think out loud for me. It said that, if true, possible applications could be: 1. Portable Optical Diagnostics (Lab‑Grade Scanning in a Pocket Device) aka Star Trek Tricorder. 2. Non‑Invasive Brain & Neural Imaging (Next‑Gen fNIRS / Optogenetics). 3. Precision Photomedicine (Targeted Light‑Based Therapies). 4. Medical‑Grade Wearables & Implantables. 5. Ultra‑Precise Medical Navigation & Imaging Calibration. 6. Drug Discovery & Molecular Research Tools. 7. Telemedicine & Remote Diagnostics. That's just in the medical field :)
Immediately: * You can pack many more different colors into fiber optic communication lines. Every color carries a few tens of GHz in modulation, but the carrier light is in hundreds of THz; there's a ton of bandwidth not used between readily available colors. * You can likely do interesting molecular chemistry by precisely adjusting laser light to the energy levels of particular bonds / electrons. * Maybe you can precisely target particular wavelengths / absorption bands for more efficient laser cutting and welding, if these adjustable lasers can be made high-power.
•
* Concert lasers just got a lot cooler.
Optimizing Ruby Path Methods (byroot.github.io)
Aside from the oddness of making this cache git aware, with the new implementation I suspect querying git to revalidate the cache would take longer than just rebuilding it.
•
Looking up the hash of a tree in git is few enough operations that I would be very surprised if that is true for all but the smallest caches. If you were to shell out to the git binary, maybe.
From the article: "This new feature will be available in Ruby 4.1.0."
•
Thanks, missed that.
don't take this the wrong way, but -- people still use ruby?
•
It's my daily language and I don't even use rails nowadays.
•
Absolutely yes, all over the place! Startups are building greenfield software with Rails as we speak. Loads of established businesses have Ruby applications that are quietly chugging along doing their jobs well. & Shopify, a company with $1.6 billion in annual revenue, uses Ruby _very_ heavily & also invests in the wider Ruby ecosystem. Ruby is not without its drawbacks & drama, but it’s elegant in a way that few languages are to this day (how many JS programmers _actually_ grok prototype-based object-orientation?) & compared to NPM, RubyGems is (lately) unexciting in the best way.
Thoughts and feelings around Claude Design (samhenri.gold)
•
Figma is going to regret not having sold to Adobe.
I used it today to take a look at my previously built design system with Logos, branding, fonts, and everything else. After a lot of annoying tweaking back and forth, finally, I got something that was satisfactory. Then I looked at the usage and it said I had used 95% of my Claude design usage for the week! This isn't a real tool. This is a plaything, if that's what they're providing as examples.
•
Things to keep in mind: • Claude Design uses Opus 4.7, which is more expensive than earlier models. • It's just Day 2; it's not a finished product. It's ridiculous how quickly Anthropic iterates. • If you've been using Claude for a while, Design already knows your style and preferences. You'd have to start from scratch using a different AI design tool. I don’t doubt that'll pay dividends in the long run.
•
> I used it today to take a look at my previously built design system with Logos, branding, fonts, and everything else. The fact that you are using this language tells me you are probably more advanced than the average individual, and likely have higher expectations. My sister-in-law has a small apparel company. She’s developed quite a bit of skill over the past six years but she really struggled at the start. She had great ideas, but translating them to something she could apply was frustrating. *Anything* that could have helped her there would have been worth a look.
I find that with the ubiquity of Tailwind, developers treat design as a "solved problem". What's missing is the specific evolution of one's product and the resultant information architecture. The sibling response is my experience as well, design is an incredibly interactive exercise. Granted, not every component on every surface will need this amount of scrutiny. But I'm usually the outlier developer warning teammates that design is not a solved problem. Granted, there's a huge difference between an existing app and its evolution and throwing a nextjs landing page up in search of any life.
•
Even with bootstrap, design was a solved problem. What you bring with a UI designer is appeal (aka make thing pretty and enjoyable). If you want utilitarian, even the old x11 toolkit like Athena, Win 98 era widgets would do the part.
Thats fair. Could you have the same iterative experience with an LLM, but starting with a prebuilt base and iterating from there?
•
Yes. Even without Claude design and just Claude code, it can use existing design and build out new mockups in-app, which is much easier to demo , tweak and then implement the backend (if any) - all through Claude Code (or Codex if you prefer that). We use both and are now leaning more towards Codex over Claude
Oh no. Figma has variables and instances and it's hard to debug bad colors. And here I am with Claude Code... That so far generated a 2000-line CSS file for a 7000-line app consisting of literally three web pages [1]. Where almost every single color, component, class and style is duplicated at least two times. Where custom classes are fighting with Tailwind classes (yes, there's also Tailwind ON TOP of custom CSS) that are fighting with inline hardcoded style= declarations. Figma is definitely going to suffer the vibe-coded design slop-app from Anthropic. [1] 7k lines are almost justified for the functionality in them, and I tried to keep an eye on the code. It's harder to keep an eye on CSS
•
Have had similar dramas with CSS. Opus/Sonnet seem to have far less taste and discipline in writing CSS - constantly they are trying to slam in changes with !important or inline styles rather than think through how to do it properly.
I tried yesterday for about an hour to have Claude design make me a simple logo (just the symbol) and didn’t get anywhere good. I’m sure for certain things like UI it’s great, and so is just Claude code, but this Claude Design thing very much to me feels like a demo and not a product. Maybe one day!
•
You should try the Arrow SVG model by Quiver, should be much better at that sort of thing since it's made for that.
I miss the days of having a native desktop design app with a perpetual license. What Figma achieved technically in the 2010s was amazing. Coded the app in C++ and then used WASM to deliver it as a multiplayer web app. But now it's trying to be too many things. Why did they ever feel the need to add slides and this other stuff. Their MCP is poor (sure, they'll improve it). The app struggles with larger files and performance is sloppy. And don't get me started trying to design data grid heavy apps. And they could easily follow Adobe's lead. Enshittify and lock you out of your account whenever they feel it's necessary (remember what happened with Venezuelan Adobe users a few years ago?) Either Penpot gets their act together and will become the opensource design canvas for open-weight AI models or we will see another open source solution that will fill this space.
•
> I miss the days of having a native desktop design app with a perpetual license. You can go that route with Affinity Designer [1], owned by Canva, who partnered with Anthropic on Claude Design [2]: We’ve loved collaborating with Anthropic over the past couple of years and share a deep focus on making complex things simple. At Canva, our mission has always been to empower the world to design, and that means bringing Canva to wherever ideas begin. We’re excited to build on our collaboration with Claude, making it seamless for people to bring ideas and drafts from Claude Design into Canva, where they instantly become fully editable and collaborative designs ready to refine, share, and publish. [1]: https://www.affinity.studio [2]: https://www.anthropic.com/news/claude-design-anthropic-labs
Most of the times people just want a bike or a car. Not everybody needs an airplane. This is going to hit Figma very hard.
•
Not to mention all the people hiring UX just because they don't want to deal with it themselves, not because they need something that requires a lot of skill.
So let me get this straight (Pretend I'm 50, a developer since childhood, but I can't CSS to save my life) are there shops where developers, even front end developers, have to talk to designers who are't just sketching an idea for a logo or landing page, but designers who run this Figma thing and maintain the entire products "design" in some "style database"? And the idea is that these designers - who aren't developers - should be able to tweak the look of things without changing code? Or is it usually just the front end devs that run this Figma thing, but they dislike the disconnect between it and their code?
•
Yes, Figma is the de facto standard for how designers hand off a UI design to developers in large (and some small) companies. It's kind of horrible, but I guess it's better than previous alternatives. But, it's not better than a tool that works with code directly and mostly automates away the tedium or translating a visual design into code. I haven't tried Claude Design, but I know I don't find Figma enjoyable (but I'm not much of a designer...I'm more comfortable with code than with pages and pages of options in a GUI).
I was in web agencies since like 2002-2015, always got PSDs from either clients or internal designers
•
100%. I was always told to slice the PSD, fireworks never entered the conversation in the agency world I was a part of.
Sure, and also Illustrator sometimes, and Photoshop at other times. Some of the designers I know (very famous for their ui/web work) never touched vector components and just had a ton of layers in Photoshop and air/paintbrushed everything. Hence the meme...
•
I've even received designs in PowerPoint Everyone used whatever they were familiar with regardless of the purpose of the application.
lol yes. At least in agency world, a common approach in the last X years has been that designers create entire pixel-perfect, component-based sources-of-truth in Figma (which evolve! they aren't delivered static and complete) -- these are also what the client sees and approves, or at the very least they see branded deck slides that incorporate the Figma designs. Anyways, front end then re-implements from Figma into CSS, except it's usually best-approximation (not pixel-perfect) partially because, despite Figma allowing you to "copy CSS" for an element, it's unusable, almost inline CSS (and usually not aware of its ascendents and descendents, or any variables you're maintaining in CSS, or any class hierarchies, etc), and partially because the units of measurement aren't always identical on either side. You'll also often have multiple FE devs recreating components independently of each other (as a team effort), which can lead to drift and different implementations, which is fun. Then, depending upon the tech stack, FE might be building these components in something like Storybook [0] as a "front end source of truth", which then are either directly injected into a React or NextJS app or whatever, or sometimes they're partially or fully re-implemented again into BE components in the CMS (ex. Sitefinity). Then people ask which one is the source of truth, but really it's a chain of sources of truth that looks more like the telephone game than a canonical "brand bible". Then throw in any out-of-the-box future client efforts (say, a promotional landing page hosted outside of the main project) and you may have yet another reimplementation of part of the same design, but in a completely different system. [0] https://storybook.js.org
•
Yah you get this inner platform effect where designers start unwittingly creating their own version of css using Figma and it gets really bespoke really fast.
Great article, the last couple of paragraphs made me laugh! I love the part about things not masquerading as something else and being honest about what they are. I was wondering if PenPot ( https://penpot.app ) might be sitting pretty in this new agentic era, considering that they took the direction of designs being actual markup, unlike the canvas approach in fig - if that’s even something that interests them.
•
Wasn't the whole Penpot UI itself made in SVG? Or did they change that along the way?
If it’s used by < 1000 people, it’s not a complicated app
•
so like 90% of software?
The Olde Days were custom code for a business doing business things (only they could afford a computer, and some universities), then there was a Cambrian explosion of software sold by individuals or small developers to many (80s and 90s), then we've moved to large companies and SaaS. I think we're about to cycle back to "custom code" except now it's for everyone, by AI - you don't need to find the to-do app of your dreams; you can code one for yourself in a fever-dream. The era of "write Wolfenstein 3D in a few months and make millions" are gone, but they've been gone a long time already.
•
Or - there was a HN discussion on this half year or so ago - there's consolidation again, and there will be AI, but no code. Domain expert talks to the AI, perhaps with an expertised intermediary. AI spins up a whole new 'software platform' for the customer.. internally. Offers all the UI that is needed to work with it.. still 'in the cloud' i.e. in AI data centers. Customer happy, devs less happy.
It's very easy to know when code is wrong: it doesn't work the way it's expected to. So you explain to the AI what's wrong and the AI fixes it.
•
As we know from THERAC-25, etc., comprehensively verifying that code works the way it's expected to is not actually very easy - it's perhaps one of the hardest parts of building any system more complex than a toaster.
What if the approach isn't reusable, but instead is rebuildable? We are stuck in the mindset of creating components that we can grab and plug in to new designs. When we have a component that we like, why not ask the tool to create a markdown definition of it. Later on, when we're doing a new design where we would like to reuse that component, we tell the tool to read the markdown and use that whenever they need to use that component. I think the future will be much more flexible and interesting.
•
I don’t know what level of complexity you’ve seen in your software buildouts, but at anything “enterprise” scale, building your own components from scratch is a recipe for absolute disaster. There are so many nuances, especially with accessibility, and edge case bugs, that I would really strongly recommend against it. And by extension, I’d be against this approach. Maybe you could make it work if everyone agrees on a base set of headless components to use, but we seem to be moving in the opposite direction with things like ShadCN.
College instructor turns to typewriters to curb AI-written work (sentinelcolorado.com)
•
... meanwhile, all these students graduate, can't find jobs and become plumbers or bricklayers.
Exams in classroom with all the time pressure is also an important part of education. May be they should be low percentage of grade to prevent too much stress but it's am important learning experience
•
I'd like to see some data on this. My general-ed recall is minimal, and in programming before school, I certainly learned a ton more by coding than by testing. That's my perception of my time in school, as well.
•
I disagree. Take home exams represent how work and progress occurs in the "real" world. There's nothing in the post education world that resembles in-person exams. Maybe the medical profession is a counter example.
> College is about learning how to work in an industry. Oh
•
Education is a nice side effect sometimes but yeah, I don't know how you could reach any other conclusion. If you're motivated to learn for learning's sake, college is an annoying slog that you know you don't need post-millenium. I literally left college early and started making money instead of spending it, because I got tired of demonstrating to my professors that I already knew everything they were teaching and that it'd be a waste of time for me to come to class.
I personally dislike placing a heavy emphasis on exams. Assignments/projects have been consistently the most enjoyable and rewarding parts of the courses I've taken so far in university. It's a shame that they are also way more susceptible to cheating with AI.
•
Then I suppose we can go back to having computer labs that can only access white listed domains and other study materials. Students code there to ensure no cheating.
Also way more susceptible to cheating in traditional non-AI ways. And your mark ends up depending a lot on how much time you have to invest independent of how good you are at the course material. Assignments and projects are great for learning, but suck for evaluation.
•
I really appreciated classes where there was rapidly demising returns to time spent :) Another example, lit classes where the grade is based on time limited, open book exams, hand written in "blue books" Read the book, pay attention in class, spend 90 min writing an essay, and you are done.
High stakes artificial exams can help prepare you for artificial stakes at job interviews where you need to crank out a working solution in 30 mins with jet lag and someone looking over your shoulder
•
That's true. They do better-prepare an applicant for a job that filters on a person's ability to accomplish arbitrary things in a vacuum that is completely disconnected from the real world. That's probably a good thing to filter on for, say, the navigation role on all kinds of crafts (from land to sea to space). There are naval roles where navigating with a sextant and memory is an important skill to have, and to test for. But that operating-in-a-vacuum skill doesn't relate well to roles that don't need to exist in a vacuum. In most of the jobs in the real world, we get to use tools -- and when the tools go out to lunch, we don't revert to the Old Ways. When an accountant's computer dies, they don't transition back to written arithmetic and paper ledgers. Instead, someone who fixes computers gets it going again, and they get back to work as soon as that's done.
Traders placed over $1B in perfectly timed bets on the Iran war (theguardian.com)
•
What an incredible coincidence <sarcasm>
•
According to the Guardian, clicking around on some websites. I guess, how many not perfectly timed bets did traders bet on these things?
•
Somebody should these track these people down, and say to them: Nice insider trading scam you have going. Be a shame if something happened to you. Then defenetrate them.
•
It’s not perfectly timed bets, it’s called insider trading. Just one more thing this administration has brought into mainstream.
Why can’t the markets just forbid transactions that happen within 48 hours of resolution?
•
What does that solve? Wouldn't the insiders in e.g. the Iran War just have to place their bets 3 days before?
Say whatever you want about the merits of prediction markets. But I just don't see a way those benefits outweigh the societal dangers of these constant reminders that people in or close to power can freely profit from their positions in the ways the rest of the population can't. There's always talk about the dangers of disincentivizing job creators, but what happens when a society routinely disincentives job havers in this way? We're just getting a constant barrage of information telling us that if we show up to our job and simply work as we're expected that we're stooges who won't get ahead. You'll need to look for your own individual scheme, ethics be damned, if you just want to keep up with the rest of the population. That's not healthy on an individual level or cumulatively at a societal level.
•
The oil trade structure actually does make sense, because this is how you buy oil, or really any commodity that takes so much space and weight. You order it ahead of time, then if you hold till the contract settles you are allowed to pick it up from the place and in the way designated in the contract specification. In fact you are obliged to pick it up, that's why prices can go negative in exceptional situations. Prediction markets are then just a clean cash-only derivative. Most of the other prediction markets seems rather stupid to me (they are completely detached from any real world activity), other than their prices being a fairly reliable source of information for bystanders.
•
>The oil trade structure actually does make sense, because this is how you buy oil, or really any commodity that takes so much space and weight. You order it ahead of time, then if you hold till the contract settles you are allowed to pick it up from the place and in the way designated in the contract specification. In fact you are obliged to pick it up, that's why prices can go negative in exceptional situations. Prediction markets are then just a clean cash-only derivative. You just described what is happening, you didn't actually provide any reason for why this is good for anyone but the individuals profiting from it.
Good for those who made the money. I would have done so had I had such insider info, as long as it didn't compromise any operation.
•
Do you not think that that would have a negative impact on the world? or do you not care, or is this "the world is going to hell so I may as well get mine"?
It's deeply American how so many of these articles about Kalshi or Polymarket frame the issue as something that can be solved on the American end with the stroke of a pen, especially in a multipolar world where American sanctions increasingly fail. These markets are global with global demand and many of the insiders are on the receiving end of American foreign policy. If an Iranian with a starlink sees a b-2 spirit fly over their house that information will find its way to somebody who will profit from that knowledge, it's just part of the new information economy.
•
you may have missed that all those have been happening for months and are tightly tied to the trump administration ? same administration who has a son sitting on the board and a father president who has lifted all sanctions and investigations. we even have video of representatives placing their bets or buying stock during session, right before voting on the matter.
> especially in a multipolar world where American sanctions increasingly fail You're claiming the U.S. government is impotent against holding Polymarket to account? > These markets are global The trades in question are bets on Polymarket and Intercontinental Exchange Brent oil futures. These are well within the remit of American law enforcement.
•
Why would the U.S. government want to sabotage prediction markets when the chief executive has a vested interest in keeping them legitimate?
•
> Why would the U.S. government want to sabotage prediction markets when the chief executive has a vested interest in keeping them legitimate? "Solving" the problem of administration juniors compromising our military for profit doesn't require sabotaging anything. Just the exchanges turning over records.
You'd have to be spectacularly stupid to bet on these kinds of things without having insider knowledge, because you ought to know good and damn well by now that the people with insider knowledge are DEFINITELY betting on them.
•
Do you buy oil or products made with it? Then sorry, you made a bet, and in fact you were just ripped off by your own government for the third time in a row. This is not a "crypto prediction market" problem.
•
This was my thought. If these markets continue allowing insiders, it’ll drive all of the cash from regular people away. So there will be way less money for insiders to win even if they are allowed. So the perception of insiders is pretty bad for prediction markets as a business imo. The sooner they knock off the rhetoric about the “theory” behind prediction markets and start thinking about it like a business, the sooner they will take insiders seriously.
Even if you are not "betting" similar trades are happening in the stock market as well. Large movements in oil futures shortly before policy changes are announced.
•
Insider trading is at least regulated in the stock market, albeit imperfectly. Imagine how much worse it would be if C-levels could just short their own stock during a board meeting. No one without insider knowledge would touch it.
Not knowing who are the insiders and who is the dumb flow is like the fundamental problem of hft
•
insiders would presumably be bigger trades that show high conviction about improbable events. An insider would wait until the last minute to take advantage of low prices of a market close to expiration.
"cannot" here meaning it's likely to be prosecuted, not that you cannot . You absolutely can.
•
This interpretation is incredibly unlikely. The first and third paragraphs discuss legality, but the middle one was merely talking about likelihood of prosecution? Even then it would be inaccurate: the regulators are not too stupid to put two and two together that you work for a company and got incredibly lucky with your trade
Government leaders and political policy advisors, intelligence agencies, hedge funds & quants, and large corporations doing crowdsourced forecasting for sure. That's probably why they haven't just been made illegal - the very policy makers are utilizing the data streams from this to predict the near-future to a decent degree. Companies like Cultivate Labs [1] go into the maths of it all but if you prefer videos Hypermind has some good ones [2] - anyone thinking this is just some degenerate gambler thing and criticizing them on those terms likely has no idea that people are doing pretty serious quantitative analysis on these things, to which use I will leave to your imagination [1] https://www.cultivatelabs.com/crowdsourced-forecasting-guide [2] https://www.hypermind.com/master-class
•
Thanks for the links, very interesting.
Keep in mind that preëmptive pardons have not been upheld by the courts [1]. [1] https://www.criminallawlibraryblog.com/preemptive-pardons-constitutional-authority-and-real-world-implications/
•
If that reached the supreme court however, precedent sadly might not matter too much.
America will come to regret its war on taxes (economist.com)
I think we can debate on how progressive (in terms of as you earn more you pay more) the US tax brackets should be. They are already fairly progressive relative to peer nations. However, I am skeptical that higher taxes or just taxing the rich or high earners more will solve the deficit or government efficiency issues. Also I disagree with 90% of income should pay 90% of taxes. People who are better capital allocators than the government should be incentivized to allocate over paying taxes.
•
> Also I disagree with 90% of income should pay 90% of taxes. People who are better capital allocators than the government should be incentivized to allocate over paying taxes. We've spent the past 50 years lowering the taxes on those who have the most income/wealth with only negative outcomes to show for it. I think the mistake you're making is assuming that those best at accumulating capital are also the best at allocating it. If they were, I expect we'd see a lot more investment into new technologies and markets rather than the large increase in rent-seeking we have seen instead.
I think a lot of the reason for the war on taxes is the exorbitant privilege [1] of owning the world reserve currency. It lets America print as many dollars as it wants, and borrow in a currency it controls entirely. In a normal country this would result in severe inflation, but because America borrows and prints a currency that is necessary abroad to conduct international trade, it is able to "export" a large part of its inflation. In such a system, it is rational to cut taxes as much as possible and instead rely on borrowing and monetization of debt. It allows America to limit the load on its own citizens, who in turn enjoy "exorbitant privilege" in the colloquial rather than economic sense, and then have the costs spread amongst the billions of people who don't live here. Privatize the gains, socialize the losses. The flip side is that if the U.S. dollar ever loses its reserve currency status, that is literally the end of the United States. It will no longer have the ability to fund the government, which is fed by debt that is largely snapped up by foreigners who need a place to park the dollars that move abroad from the persistent trade deficits needed to sustain reserve currency status. It will also no longer have a citizenry or economy capable of doing anything other than moving capital (finance) and jobs (tech) around in the global economy, since in the current reserve currency economy, those are the only sectors that are profitable to go into. If it happens, expect basically a collapse of society and multi-sided civil war. [1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Exorbitant_privilege
•
What’s the basis is for claiming that only finance and tech are profitable sectors in the US economy. Energy? Healthcare? Manufacturing?
Everything you need to know about the US tax system in one convenient, incredibly disconcerting package: Ezra Klein https://music.youtube.com/watch?v=mX5U5DNUfBc&si=4XEYfEl6lbWbTRcw
•
Fantastic share. I've heard this explained in pieces from people a few times now but this just finally made it click for me. Thank you!
Apply what to healthcare?
•
"Give us a small efficient government, stay out of the market as much as possible with little to no interference"
Opus 4.7 to 4.6 Inflation is ~45% (tokens.billchambers.me)
It thinks less and produces less output tokens because it has forced adaptive thinking that even API users can't disable. Same adaptive thinking that was causing quality issues in Opus 4.6 not even two weeks ago. The one bcherny recommended that people disable because it'd sometimes allocate zero thinking tokens to the model. https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=47668520 People are already complaining about low quality results with Opus 4.7. I'm also spotting it making really basic mistakes. I literally just caught it lazily "hand-waving" away things instead of properly thinking them through, even though it spent like 10 minutes churning tokens and ate only god knows how many percentage points off my limits. > What's the difference between this and option 1.(a) presented before? > Honestly? Barely any. Option M is option 1.(a) with the lifecycle actually worked out instead of hand-waved. > Why are you handwaving things away though? I've got you on max effort. I even patched the system prompts to reduce this. > Fair call. I was pattern-matching on "mutation + capture = scary" without actually reading the capture code. Let me do the work properly. > You were right to push back. I was wrong. Let me actually trace it properly this time. > My concern from the first pass was right. The second pass was me talking myself out of it with a bad trace. It's just a constant stream of self-corrections and doubts. Opus simply cannot be trusted when adaptive thinking is enabled. Can provide session feedback IDs if needed.
•
Are the benchmarks being used to measure these models biased towards completing huge and highly complex tasks, rather than ensuring correctness for less complex tasks? It seems like they're working hard to prioritize wrapping their arms around huge contexts, as opposed to handling small tasks with precision. I prefer to limit the context and the scope of the task and focus on trying to get everything right in incremental steps.
•
I don't think there's a bias here. I'd say my task is of somewhat high complexity. I'm using Claude to assist me in implementing exceptions in my programming language. It's a SICP chapter 5.4 level task. There are quite a few moving parts in this thing. Opus 4.6 once went around in circles for half an hour trying to trace my interpreter's evaluator. As a human, it's not an easy task for me to do either. I think the problem just comes down to adaptive thinking allowing the model to choose how much effort it spends on things, a power which it promptly abuses to be as lazy as possible. CLAUDE_CODE_DISABLE_ADAPTIVE_THINKING=1 significantly improved Opus 4.6's behavior and the quality of its results. But then what do they do when they release 4.7? https://code.claude.com/docs/en/model-config > Opus 4.7 always uses adaptive reasoning. > The fixed thinking budget mode and CLAUDE_CODE_DISABLE_ADAPTIVE_THINKING do not apply to it.
I'd be ok with paying more if results were good, but it seems like Anthropic is going for the Tinder/casino intermittent reinforcement strategy: optimized to keep you spending tokens instead of achieving results. And yes, Claude models are generally more fun to use than GPT/Codex. They have a personality. They have an intuition for design/aesthetics. Vibe-coding with them feels like playing a video game. But the result is almost always some version of cutting corners: tests removed to make the suite pass, duplicate code everywhere, wrong abstraction, type safety disabled, hard requirements ignored, etc. These issues are not resolved in 4.7, no matter what the benchmarks say, and I don't think there is any interest in resolving them.
•
Its time to do the cost-benefit analysis again. Are you really better off using these tools, really? I think many here are going to have a hard time admitting they got played.
Which open model has the same performance as Opus 4.7?
•
They dont have to be parity today. If the frontier models reach a point of barely any noticeable improvements the trade off changes. You do not need a perfect substitute if you are getting it for free...
It's increasingly looking naive to assume scaling LLMs is all you need to get to full white-collar worker replacement. The attention mechanism / hopfield network is fundamentally modeling only a small subset of the full human brain, and all the increasing sustained hype around bolted-on solutions for "agentic memory" is, in my opinion, glaring evidence that these SOTA transformers alone aren't sufficient even when you just limit the space to text. Maybe I'm just parroting Yann LeCun.
•
I think they're as good as they're going to get from scaling. They can still get more efficient, and tooling/harnesses around them will improve.
Do you think if you or me stopped using AI that everyone else will too? We're still what we always were - problem solvers who have gained the ability to learn and understand systems better that the general population, communicate clearly (to humans and now AIs). Unfortunately our knowledge of language APIs and syntax has diminished in value, but we have so many more skills that will be just as valuable as ever. As the amount of software grows, so will the need for people who know how to manage the complexity that comes with it.
•
> Unfortunately our knowledge of language APIs and syntax has diminished in value, but we have so many more skills that will be just as valuable as ever. There were always jobs that required those "many more skills" but didn't require any programming skills. We call those people Business Analysts and you could have been doing it for decades now. You didn't, because those jobs paid half what a decent/average programmer made. Now you are willingly jumping into that position without realising that the lag between your value (i.e. half your salary, or less) would eventually disappear.
Amazon won't release Fire Sticks that support sideloading anymore (arstechnica.com)
•
These devices and services are not nearly as sticky as these greedy lizards want to believe they are.
So does the fire stick have any advantages over Walmart's Onn streaming sticks?
•
Of one note, Walmart realized that they were in the running to be the next "Android TV piracy platform stick" and Walmart has already gone to the efforts to region-lock the devices to only be set up and used in the US... https://www.aftvnews.com/onn-streaming-devices-now-must-use-a-vpn-to-be-set-up-outside-of-the-us/
Of course it didn't prevail. We live in an age where Russia and China demand VPNs get removed from the App Store. The US Government removed ICEBlock from all mobile storefronts. The worst-case scenario is staring us right in the face. It's downright appalling that HN entertained these arguments against sideloading. No self-respecting software engineer can look at the centralized architecture of a billion-dollar software business and surmise that it wouldn't be used against them. The detractors against sideloading deliberately (or foolishly) ignored an outsized, glaringly obvious threat to their personal freedoms that was repeatedly emphasized by their opposition. Oppression, censorship and surveillance are HN's just deserts.
•
Congratulations on completely ignoring what I said.
You will have to be way more specific. Every time I see a post bringing up the topic of sideloading (like this one), it is a complaint that either another product is locked down or Google itself is trying to lock everything down.
•
Look at the flippant dismissal in these threads (follow the discussions - don't just scroll past the parent comments). There's a shocking amount of disagreement: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=21210678 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=28561941 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=24146987 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=39132453 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=43421740 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=29167948 Here's a few of the worst-aged comments, from a glance: Absolutely no need to wail and rant about Apple and their App Store practices constantly. Just use Android. You don't hear about 14 million iPhones being infected by malware But this is the argument with the cookie banners again, isn't it?
 Top