Unlurker|Replay|About
The 3D Printed Database (amplifypartners.com)
•
I imagine this would be for every piece of infrastructure, not just dbs, now that agents can just build whatever they need. For decades we have benefited from open-source but now closed-source proprietary custom purpose built is the forward because the economics of software have changed.
•
It's nice to imagine a world that's not just filesystems.
•
transactions are important!
Postman silently auto-installs AI plugins and attempts to share all API data (github.com/postmanlabs)
•
I've always kind of thought that Postman was an enshittification story waiting to happen. I've always felt like they prey on people who just aren't comfortable with the command line, and so there isn't much more stooping lower for them than something like this.
•
I don't understand how postman became the tool that it is today. The best version of it was just a logger and a formatter on top of an http client. The proto import was nice for gRPC. Who thought that relatively simple tool needed accounts and MCPs and whatever else they've thrown into it?
•
I really don't see the point of Postman. It used to be light and efficient, now it's bloated and inefficient
•
Never liked Postman since they started forcing everyone to signup. Sometimes I hate VCs who unnecessarily funds and ruins a perfectly fine product (of course founders are equally guilty).
•
Unsurprising. I loved the tool but it was obviously time to drop it when they began pushing for logins.
•
Why do all these tools require a paid account? Bruno specifically says it’s platform-free and stores everything in git.
•
Bruno has some premium features: https://www.usebruno.com/pricing
•
Thank god we moved to Bruno and sometimes just http files in vs code or jetbrains
•
It's a shame what happened to Postman. It started as an excellent little developer tool for testing APIs. Then for some reason they raised over $400M in funding and hired 1,500+ employees, for what should have been a tiny OSS/passion project like curl or little snitch. Instead they now have to justify their valuation by forcing logins, collecting data, monthly subscriptions, AI features, etc. I still don't know how they're valued at $5B+ when I don't know a single developer who actually uses it anymore
•
> Instead they now have to justify their valuation by forcing logins, collecting data, monthly subscriptions, AI features, etc. All those people who gave them millions in funding are expecting to make a return on that investment and that means prioritizing turning it into something that will make money by selling out users. The valuation is just a guess at how successful it will be at screwing over users. Greed ruins everything.
•
I cannot imagine 1500+ employees "working" on this. Wtf, it's a single person project.
•
Yes a prime example of enshittification. You attract attention making something humble in scope but good.. but then it is compelled to become something much more. Same story with Coursera imo
•
Postman valued at 5 billon? WTF? I mean the IT industry lives in fart cloud honestly. I really really think everything is just a little bit overvalued, isn't it? People should be using curl + bash. It's a universal combination available almost everywhere.
•
wrote about this phenomenon: https://nonograph.com/write-some-software-give-it-away-for-free-05-05-2026
•
> I still don't know how they're valued at $5B+ when I don't know a single developer who actually uses it anymore I think most people here on HN is within or close by the "Innovators" part of the "Technology adoption life cycle" ( https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Technology_adoption_life_cycle ). When Postman hit mainstream, it was already bloated and ruined, and "Innovators" had already moved on to something else, but for Postman that's just the beginning, as they're in the "Early Majority" part, and still have a tail to ride, so investors and everyone else can extract all the value from the remaining s̶u̶c̶k̶e̶r̶s̶ users.
•
> I still don't know how they're valued at $5B+ when I don't know a single developer who actually uses it anymore B2B maybe? Usually these businesses thrive solely on flirting with the CTO and getting them to sign a lucrative contract and then mandate internal usage. I'm speaking from experience.
•
Oh THAT'S what they're trying. Doesn't work on me %)
•
This is why the right to fork exists in open source licenses. It’s easier than ever now, too, thanks to LLMs. You might even be able to oneshot forking and removing the malware and rebranding and rebuilding f/oss crapware these days. I’ve been considering setting up a nonprofit solely to do this and to republish things like Mattermost, Stats, Bitwarden, etc with the corporate antifeatures ripped out.
•
We went to bruno years ago and has been good. Nice to be able to store the request definitions in git. But to be honest, don't really need any of these tools anymore.
•
who the hell needs that. skills are just md files
•
[delayed]
•
Postman went from a nice tool to an almost virus in just a few years. It's crazy that anyone still uses it. I'm currently using Bruno ( https://www.usebruno.com/ )
•
They have an open format for API collections: https://www.opencollection.com/
•
Switched to Bruno myself, and moved my team to it last year as well. Vast improvement over late stage Postman.
•
Does everything have to go to shit when money is involved?
•
No. Postman sells nothing of value. At this point I do not see why the entirety of their software could not be a one shot prompt for the price of deer nuts.
•
Until we stop relying on SV as the standard-bearer for tech culture? Absolutely.
•
I replaced that garbage with Insomnia years back. I’m just waiting until I hear that Insomnia is also a problem and where to go next.
•
I've been using Insomnia whenever I can since before Covid. Its been nice, but ever since they started pushing accounts so aggressively, I've switched to Yaak to get back to that feel of a simple API client that prompted me to switch to Insomia in the first place. 100% recommend. https://yaak.app/
•
Insomnia 8.0 and above requires an account on their servers to use. The stated reason was that this makes it easier to advertise to you. No thanks. Older versions are fine, though. https://github.com/Kong/insomnia/discussions/6590
•
Just installed it, it's funny their landing page is littered with every AI buzzword too. But I am going to give Insomnia a try, I've heard people talk about it and a few others on HN over the years. I just need a glorified cURL GUI at the end of the day.
•
Yeah it got bought by Kong a while back, and they're definitely not a great company, but the application itself still seems pretty OK. I really like that you can paste a curl in to setup a new request. This is definitely the type of app that some AI agent could cobble together pretty quickly, so I don't know why Postman etc thinks they have enough of a moat to keep enshittifying their product.
•
I use Bruno. I forget what Insomnia did that irritated me, but Bruno is the closest I've found to a dumb client that doesn't pester me for an account.
•
Postman went from a great lightweight tool to a bloated up-selling mess.
•
As do all great things once VC sinks its teeth in.
xAI installs eight converted jet engines to power Mississippi data center (tomshardware.com)
This is off-topic and I'm no fan of xAI or any company circumventing rules to allow them to use dirty energy sources. That said. > Normally, that would be enough to keep around 15,000 homes up and running. Am I the only one who finds this kind of comparison meaningless? Like it's supposed invoke a feeling of "15K homes worth of power! How absurd that a data center use that much!" but that kind of how all centralized things work. That datacenter does work for, one would assume, way more than just 15K homes and if those homes wanted the same "work" output they'd use the same, or most likely, more energy to accomplish the same thing. In many/most cases they aren't using electricity just to use it, they are using it because people are paying them for the output. With economies of scale I would guess a datacenter is many times more efficient than if we were all running local models at home. Again, not an argument for data centers as much as I find this comparison always pointless.
•
I mean, they need to give an intuition of the magnitude. Tell me, what do you think when I say “a GPU consumes 1 kW of power”? What does that even mean to the regular Joe? It is pretty easy to compare against homes because they consume on average 1 kWh of electricity (in the U.S.). It could be something else, but 99% of people have homes they live in, so this is something directly linked to their experiences. So it is not meaningless at all.
•
It's like using bathtubs as a unit of measure for large volumes of water. Yes it communicates the scale, but abjectly fails to communicate the relative in-cohort comparison i.e. is this a lot of power for an industrial user? Is it wasting power /generating more emissions relative to other similar applications or not?
•
Agree. Comparing it to other industrial users (X car factories) might be more useful.
•
As always, remind yourself: "the outrage is the product". The entire point of slotting something like that in is to get eyeballs and produce outrage on tap. It's the new dopamine. Justified or not is irrelevant, what matters is to have a talking about you can use to rile things up, no matter how pointless it is.
Quili AI (quili.ai)
•
This is a "fun" art piece, I guess. But it doesn't make any sense to me. I think part of my confusion comes from this site itself. It really presents this information in a very convoluted and meandering way. Like, it reads like a sales pitch, but it also doesn't provide any of the most interesting information they have available (like the contents of actual chat sessions). It's also not clear what this aims to prove or highlight. I'm willing to just accept it in the abstract (it's like AI, but with humans), but the whole site is focusing on "saving water" when I don't see how this... event(?) does that in any shape or form. I guess it's just a way to get visibility on the problem? But it does so by pretending like humans are an actual viable alternative to AI for these kinds of chats? Is this supposed to be ironic or tongue-in-cheek? Am I missing the joke? I don't know. It kind of seems like there was some original intent that got lost along the way, and they tried their best to pull together what they had into some sort of message. But it's lost on me.
I feel like I'm living in an alternate reality, because I have no idea what this page is about. Something with data centers using up all the water? Reading the comments here and people arguing dcs dont use that much water compared to regular people who drink water, confuses me even more. Like whats next? People are told to drink less and fork over their RAM? That would be wild
•
> QUILICURA, CHILE SITS WITHIN THE MAIPO RIVER BASIN, ONE OF THE MAIN SOURCES OF WATER FOR PEOPLE AND FARMING. SINCE THE EARLY 2010s, QUILICURA HAS BECOME A MAJOR HUB FOR A.I. DATA CENTERS THAT USE LARGE AMOUNTS OF WATER TO COOL DOWN SERVERS. BECAUSE OF THAT, COUPLED WITH AN ONGOING CLIMATE CRISIS, CHILE IS FACING A SEVERE DROUGHT EXPECTED TO LAST UNTIL 2040. > To make the impact visible, and to help draw visibility to the problem, the residents from Quilicura became “human A.I.,” for a day. Answering prompts, creating content with local artists, and completing other tasks manually. Just read the content my dude. It took me 3 minutes.
People still don't understand that a) datacenters don't use water for computation, they use it for cooling b) the water isn't obliterated, it's still there c) the water can be recycled and rereleased into the ecosystem, which it mostly is.
•
yeah, even in non closed loop systems, doesn't it just evaporate?
Sounds like misinformation, let's compare: "The clothing and textile industry uses roughly 170 times more." The difference is even larger if you look at the state of the art: "As of November 2026, the state of the art is direct-to-chip liquid cooling combined with closed-loop dry coolers. This allows a data center to operate with essentially zero water consumed for cooling, even for high-density AI infrastructure." You might not want to put an older/less efficient data center in a very dry area, but other than it seems quite reasonable.
•
"Clothing uses more!" ... yes. Because humans need clothes. "Closed loop systems solve this problem!" ... most DCs are not using, or planning to use, a closed loop system.
This canard about AI and water usage really just isn't going to go away, is it?
•
Entirely dependent on the specific datacenter and location. If this datacenter is doing high-volume open loop evaporative cooling in a drought-stricken area, that is pretty bad on the Chilean authorities for allowing it. The fact that the Panama Canal uses ~2 billion(!) gallons of water a day never gets mentioned.
•
> This canard about AI and water usage really just isn't going to go away, is it? What does canard mean in this context?
This is an alternative technology.
•
The problem is ai is better. Thats the haunting part.
The beginning of the video made me really thirsty!
•
a thirst trap you might say lolol
Very fun idea. I do think this puts the water argument into a bit more perspective. Your average person should drink ~3L of water per day, or about 22mL per 11 minute average-length chat that Quili quotes on their site. It's hard to pin down exactly how much water AI uses, but something on the order of 5mL per interaction seems reasonable [1]. So the people doing this are using about 4x more water than an AI model would. Of course, it does matter what happens to that water, whether it turns into water vapor or urine and how much of that water re-enters the water cycle, but it's an interesting comparison. [1] https://www.seangoedecke.com/water-impact-of-ai/
•
Give them Stillsuits from Dune and we have solved everything.
On a related note, many famous famines went from stressful-but-survivable bad harvests to mass casualty events because of mismanagement: the Irish Potato Famine, the Holodomor, the Great Leap Forward... It seems the villain here could be the Chilean government, for prioritizing the tech economy over the people at a time when it matters most.
•
Turns out the real villains were the unlikely friendships between capitalists and government neoliberalism created along the way.
Really interesting. This makes me wonder if it would cost less to have human answers for like 90% of every-day AI requests.
•
>This makes me wonder if it would cost less to have human answers for like 90% of every-day AI requests. No, not even close lol
Who the hell would think putting a datacentre in one of the most actively seismic countries on the planet is a good idea? I'm puzzled. Pretty good initiative other than that.
•
People build datacenters in Japan all the time.
Tell HN: Please Vote
•
Why is this flagged? And don't come whining how you don't like political content here. I don't like political content in my daily life, but political content decided it will meet me in the grocery store, gas station, etc. And I don't even get the same political content as those poor people in Ukraine or Gaza or Tehran.
•
Voting matters. I'm in a deep red state and will vote blue. There's zero chance the people I vote for will be elected. My vote still matters. It still influence the flow of money both locally and nationally. It still sends a signal. I hope the whole nation shifts my way, and in case there's any doubt or claims of fraud, I want it to be seen that my area shifted the same way too. It makes lies about fraud that much harder to support. Voting is the best bang for your buck to make your opinion known. Granted, if you openly campaign or start an organization, you might have more influence than voting, but these things require much much more effort. Voting is very efficient and worth the small effort required. Nothing says F U to politicians quite like voting against them every time. There are some people I want to say that to. You probably do too, so vote.
Remember, even if you hate everyone on the ballot, you can still write in or spoil it! Make your discontent known
•
Very true. "I am engaged and unhappy and vote every time" is a much more powerful message than "meh, I'm unhappy, but I may or may not actually vote if you try to help me". There seems to be some sort of national conspiracy to give the group that votes the most what they want.... Funny how that works.
> A democracy with 75% voter turnout is healthier than a democracy with 50% voter turnout even exactly the same politicians got elected, because citizens participating in a democratic process signals that they value the process and want to keep it. I disagree. In Russia in 2024, Vladimir Putin got 87% of the vote, with 78% reported voter turnout, far higher than in any US election. Do you think that signals that Russian citizens value democracy and want to keep the current process, where Putin invariably wins by a landslide? I'm not saying that people shouldn't get out and vote if they feel so moved. But voter turnout isn't intrinsically good or bad, nor does it signal a healthy democracy. What DOES signal a healthy democracy? - Meaningful electoral choice, including the choice of minor-party candidates. Ranked-choice voting can help here, because it's not as susceptible to vote spoiling as the "first past the post" system currently in widespread use in the US. - Non-gerrymandered districts. Independent review and judicial checks and balances can help. - Electoral competitiveness, where incumbents and established parties can realistically lose power. Term limits can help here. - Accountability of elected officials. - Integrity of the electoral process. - Peaceful transfer of power.
•
You are referring to rigged elections. It is proven 78% voter turnout is falsified. https://rima.media/en/document/02w3bnLISYbKga8VJRNYHa-2024-03-18-meduza-774265-elektoral-nyi-analitik-ivan-shukshin-22-milliona-golosov?version=translated&utm_source=chatgpt.com
•
Countries in which voting is voluntary tend to have more extreme left- or right-wing governments because countries which have compulsory voting tend to be generally more centralist.
It could be our last meaningful election if we don't stop him.
•
Can you elaborate? I'm hearing an awful lot of talk about packing the courts[1] and abolishing the senate[2] from the Democrats. What is Trump proposing that matches those anti-democratic measures? [1] https://www.usatoday.com/story/opinion/columnist/2026/05/12/democrat-calls-pack-supreme-court-dangerous/90025431007/ [2] https://www.theatlantic.com/ideas/2026/07/senate-representation-undemocratic-imbalance/688012/
•
If only we had access to super intelligent search engines... or we can drip feed a bad faith mook battle
•
And yet, no one is posting any concrete policies Trump is working on passing in response. Just accusations of "bait" and "bad faith". Alright guys, very convincing.
•
[delayed]
Wait, Colin. You're Canadian . You already had your election day. Stay in your lane!
•
I care about democracy everywhere. But yes, being Canadian makes me unusually sensitive to wanting a democracy 30 km south of me.
Struggling to find the difference between the blue AIPAC vs the red AIPAC recipient. For now, it's over.
•
Then vote for a 3rd party. See the other comments for why that still matters, even if they don't win.
Bear turns 10, and it still feels like day one (blog.bear.app)
What am I missing about Bear? It looks like a close source Obsidian? What is hte magic that I am not seeing.
•
Easily the best Markdown editor. I hate all rich-text editors except Bear. Images appear as thumbnails in the notes-list. Minimal tags-first organization, rather than Obsidians poorly thought out mix of files and tags. ...and that's it. It's the only app that has never given me any reason to switch in ~10 years.
I'm gradually replacing most of the software I use with software I conjure myself, and Bear is the reason I'm probably never going to write an editor; it's not clear to me how I could improve it. Emacs is probably out the door by the end of 2027, but I'd be surprised if I wasn't still using Bear for years from now. It's quite good.
•
> I'm gradually replacing most of the software I use with software I conjure myself Why?
•
I've written about this a bunch before and wasn't looking to take the thread off on a tangent; I'm really just saying how much I like Bear. Bear is great. I don't think I could come up with many ways to make it suit me better, which is not something I can say about a lot of other software.
dont do any knowledge managment. you'll be fine.
•
I have been using Bear daily for 7 years and it is indispensable for me. Maybe you have perfect memory, but I have found it critical for my job.
No brother of mine will play the flute (homosabiens.substack.com)
•
The basic construction of "(a) you will get harassed for action X (b) I will forcibly prevent you from taking action X therefore (c) this is a good thing" has a certain flaw to it that should be obvious.
Flutes are not girly. In the first book of paradise lost, the hosts of hell march at the sound of "flutes and soft recorders". Of it's good enough for Satan's army, I say it's good enough for a highschooler.
•
I would like to point to Ian Anderson.
•
I'd argue that flutes are characteristically masculine what with their phallus-in-hand-demeanor. Though that is perhaps why Manly Men aren't meant to play them. But perceptions are certainly different. Several studies [0][1][2] have found significant differences in gendered participation in various instruments, and the perception by others of people playing instruments typically played by other genders. Further, at least one study [4], has found that this variance vanishes or flips in queer ensembles. Anyway, I wanted to check because Paradise Lost was a long time ago. Men were the first to wear high heels, after all. I figured there'd likely be a drift from times where flutists were male because ensemblists were male to now where anyone can be seen as gay for just about any reason. [0] https://www.researchgate.net/publication/264200609_Musicians_crossing_musical_instrument_gender_stereotypes_a_study_of_computer-mediated_communication# [1] https://digitalcommons.lib.uconn.edu/vrme/vol5/iss1/3/ [2] https://theath.ca/arts-culture/instrument-gender-bias/ (mentions a different study)
The jump from flute playing to sexual touch is weird.
•
It gets weirder: Intimacy is great, but you’re fooling yourself if you think that doing slimy pushups against each other is the optimal way to produce it. It may (sadly) be one of the best ways in practice, given what nature has left us with, but that’s very different from saying “yes, this is definitely how a good designer would have designed this system from the ground up.” A literal actual majority of the people I’ve talked to about this genuinely claim to believe that yep, this is the right way for intimacy and pleasure to be created, it’s ideal, no actually better system could exist, any major changes would be worse. And they are deeply confused. You are deeply confused, insofar as you are (probably) a part of that majority. And: I’m quite fond of orgasms, as it happens. I wouldn’t write them out of the universe. I just wish they incentivized me to do something that I straightforwardly want to do, rather than incentivizing me to: - Sit alone tediously massaging a body part, instead of doing anything actually interesting - Try to convince some other cool and interesting person to drop all of their cool and interesting activities to do some slimy pushups with me https://medium.com/@ThingMaker/on-puberty-identity-and-sex-667dc9050108
I think the main point is that 1. it's unfair that boys who chose to play flute got bullied for it 2. it's not good that his brother essentially took his choice from playing flute by reinforcing #1 3. #2 is actually simultaneously the way to minimize the negative effects of the authors choice of instruments So in spite of those first two things individually being pretty shitty, they actually give you an optimal outcome (socially) in school. Ideally we get to a place where #1 stops happening, but you won't solve it by going against the grain, you'll just be a martyr for nothing.
•
> they actually give you an optimal outcome The author got grief for playing the clarinet too, and from poking around at their other articles I think they'd have had a lousy time regardless of what instruments they might have chosen, if he hadn't got bullied about the flute he'd have gotten bullied about something else.
I agree with everything in this article, but there are a few things that make me go hmm. * The reference to / advertisement of obscure online communities (Agor? Darkworld?) * The quoted tweet about bloodlines . There are no lines worth speaking of in biology, there are webs . You are not the last one in a very long line, you're a twig on a very big tree. People who talk about their bloodline are often a bit iffy. So why do I make an issue of it, when I agree with everything they say anyway? Because I actually agree with a lot of what lots of weird sects say - in public . The advertising pitch is often very reasonable even for groups like Mormons or Scientologists, which are 50-250 years out of touch with the trends of the times. This post is very sensible, but it feels like a pitch for something which isn't quite as easy a sell. Maybe this Agor thing.
•
In other words, is your issue with the usage of the term that it mistakes a set of O(2^n) bloodlines for 1?
•
> People who talk about their bloodline are often a bit iffy. On the other hand though, people who don't are often as an aggregate group destroying a lot of twigs to the detriment of the tree, all the while pretending their love the tree in general that's why they don't care for their twig.
I was thinking the other day, "why do we have kids?" The most noble, selfless reason I could think of is "so that they try again". I say, the "most noble" because people have plenty of more selfish reasons: "they'll make me feel better", "to make me a better person", "to keep up with the expectations of my friends and family", "they'll give me comfort when I'm old and frail", "they will care for me". And then no-reasons such as "it's the way things are", and "everybody does it", and "god wants it". But I prefer mine: "so that they try again". Try what? To right the wrongs, to succeed where we failed. But that is a mirror: if my kids inherit the world of my failures, can I look back into my soul and say that I tried hard enough? When the day they lose something precious comes, and they understand this world is mostly darkness, will I be able to look them in the eyes and say that I tried hard enough to beget the light they crave?
•
Nah, I just want to create my own team, a bunch of people who care about each other, together exploring this beautiful world.
•
Give life
If you don't hate existence, raising children can also just be seen as paying back for yours. I like that view.
•
Unless they want humanity to end, a childless person has to hope other people don't agree with their lifestyle. If everyone had 2 kids everything would be fine. If everyone was childless humanity would end.
Study estimates 75% of NFL players who died over 15-year span had CTE (nbcnews.com)
•
I remember in an eight grade game coming back to the huddle and the lineman who played next to me was talking about his sister's homework. He clearly had a concussion and we (the players) sent him to the sideline where the coaches berated him for coming out of the game and sent him back (this was in the 80s). Already at the JV level I saw multiple concussions in games. Not kos but guys woozy liked they'd been punched. Nobody cared back then (US south).
•
The lifetime risks and dangers involved in many of these sports is my main counterargument to those I encounter that oppose the NIL money flowing into collegiate sports for removing the amateurism feel of it. The young men and women are putting their health and safety on the line potentially with life altering injuries, they should be compensated for it. Doubly so since beforehand the universities were more than happy to profit solely from their work.
•
This is such a brutal sport. For reasons outside my control (see: partner), NFL games are on in my house every weekend—and therefore in my peripheral vision. It seems like every game a 20 something in their prime is being carted off for a season ending injury. Unacceptable costs. Tennis is the way. Boxing without contact.
•
Don't forget the hearing loss and tinnitus, too. Boxers and footballers tend to go deaf. https://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2014/07/140707134223.htm > Leonetti recently spoke to retired players alongside EarQ at a meeting of the Chicago chapter of the NFL Players Association. When Leonetti asked how many players had experienced concussions during their career, they all raised their hands. When Leonetti asked how many have experienced hearing loss approximately 25 percent raised their hands. When he asked how many have tinnitus approximately 50 percent raised their hands.
•
I haven't watched an NFL game in years. I can no longer enjoy seeing people trade their brain function and lifespan for money that way. For that matter I recently revisited an extreme skiing video I bought long ago. Several of the people in the credits are dead now. All sports carry some risk. I ride a road bike. I wouldn't tell others how to weigh the risks of their sports of choice. I just wouldn't pay to watch someone fly a wing suit, knowing how some of those people have died.
•
The game should be changed. It’s very clear. People will adapt.
•
Played for four years ... my conclusion: regular, calm, ordinary people don't usually excel at american football. Aggressive, intense, competitive folk have a great time tho' ... it's not safe at all. Every last one of the starters self-identify as: a headbuster!
•
What is the percent of the general population?
•
The percent of the general population that gets Chronic Traumatic Encephalopathy? This isn't a naturally occurring phenomena. It's the cumulative result of repetitive skull impacts and concussions.
•
It adds a sort of tragic element to the game. Growing up I used to cheer for big hits now there's a recognition you are often watching someone lose several years off of their life. There's also these guardian caps to reduce some of the shock, but they're not very effective - they absorb like 10% of the blow, and you don't see very many players wearing them in-game.
•
If CTE is from cumulative small blows then the guardian caps do nothing but allow the league to act like they're taking it seriously.
•
The main issue seems to be shock to the brain being sloshed around inside the skull, even neck-snapping type impacts without any contact to the head itself can cause brain injury. The extra helmet padding doesn't do anything to reduce that. Plenty of linemen have been diagnosed with CTE even though their play doesn't involve as much helmet contact or high speed collision.
•
I'm kinda surprised its that low. Football, especially at the pro and college levels, has players (especially linemen) taking car crash level hits every single play.
I love football, but it's insane that we allow this for entertainment. Guardian helmets are insufficient. They need to commit to big changes, some of which will alter the game. No head in practice whatsoever. Redesign the line of scrimmage. Mandatory month out for concussions. I'll still enjoy whatever it becomes.
•
I wonder if the US could learn to love rugby as well? A rather different game in a lot of ways, but it's definitely in the conversation for the most engaging team sport to watch in my opinion. While it has head injury issues of its own (it's still a full-contact football code at the end of the day), the sport has been a bit more open to changing things on this front.
•
I'd get some hate for this on football forums, but targeting needs to be enforced a lot more strictly than it is. The NFL also did a good job reforming kickoffs, they're much safer now than they were, but we need to do something about punts.
I am surprised by the otherwise intelligent and caring parents I have met who had their elementary schoolers playing tackle football. I don't understand that decision at all.
•
Same here. When did Boston University start publishing about the CTE/football connection? 10 or 15 years ago? A couple I know, one with a public health degree from an Ivy, still let one of her kids play through all of that, and he played at the college level, too. At the same time, a lot of parents (myself included) steered kids to other sports. That had another effect: there was even more pressure on parents who didn't care about CTE (and their kids) to get into football because kiddie leagues and especially high school teams were short of players. This happened to a friend whose two boys were strong hockey players, the coach at their school pushed them to try out for football the following season.
•
Unless it’s actually banned below a certain age, what are you going to do if that’s what they want to do with their life? If they don’t play and everyone else does, their development will be many years behind their peers which makes it unlikely they could play at a high level. But maybe you’re okay with that.
•
Gotta stick to the crowd at all costs, its so uncomfortable outside of it right
•
If they don't play a game which damages their brain when they are children, they won't be able to go into a career which damages their brain as an adult. Hmmm.
•
Yes, I think parents who see tackle football as an unsafe sport for their children are okay with not setting up their kids to play it at a high level. And like any responsible parents, they presumably also don't just defer to what they're elementary aged children "want to do with their life" nor feed into the exaggeration that "everybody else" does anything at all, let alone play tackle football. If you disagree with the dangers of the sport or are afraid of shaping your children's life choices for their own benefit, that's fine for you, but the rhetorical and snide way you presume others should share that view seems strange.
playing at nfl level and kid level is something very different
•
As mentioned elsewhere here the damage is cumulative and started in their youth
[dead]
•
From the article: The bulk of the head impacts that these former NFL players experienced didn’t occur at the NFL level. They occurred at the collegiate level ... and at the high school level and in many cases the youth level. And all of those cumulative hits to the head added up to result in an increased risk,” said Daneshvar.
did you enjoy it at the time?
•
I'm sure people enjoy heroin at the time.
there you said it: you got concusions from other sports. so why single out football as the worst thing ever?
•
> The fact that they're a repeated part of the game and not occasional incidents is very, very bad.
•
Is it not worse?
•
Certainly, football isn't the only thing people do that leads to head injuries. But if it is significantly worse than other sports, why not single it out as the worst thing ever? Several sports increase the risk of CTE, but football has been more studied, I think because the incidence of obviously impared former players is higher than in other sports.
Holy buried lede, Batman: >The bulk of the head impacts that these former NFL players experienced didn’t occur at the NFL level. They occurred at the collegiate level ... and at the high school level and in many cases the youth level. And all of those cumulative hits to the head added up to result in an increased risk,” said Daneshvar. https://www.nbcnews.com/health/health-news/nfl-cte-players-study-one-in-four-rcna594276
•
Yeah. The rules need to change substantially at all levels. I can't see another way out, without just banning the sport outright. In soccer, they've already done it at the kid's level. My kids' teams don't allow heading the ball at all. That's such an obvious win. It changes soccer pretty substantially, but it's still a lot of fun, and much safer with that rule in place. Football has enough money that I'm sure someone can solve this by adjusting the rules towards safety without completely changing what makes the game fun. That said, it may not be solvable. It's not just helmet-to-helmet collisions that are the problem. You often see players make a diving grab, and their head slams into the ground when they land. That's micro-concussion territory that may be unavoidable. But, my guess is it's an 80/20 rule. If you somehow eliminate player-to-helmet hits altogether, you'd probably end up in a good enough place.
•
This is actually worse for the NFL, as it shows the cumulative impact is more dangerous than players who stop playing at high school
AI is destroying my CS degree (lordtoots.bearblog.dev)
> I don't envy educators right now. I think we have a solution for the evaluation part: the overwhelming majority of a student's grade is computed from in-person assessments only. Some instructors allow repeats on exams as well. The teaching part is as hard, but it has always been hard. The students you get one year are completely different the next year, for various reasons. As long as you have competent administrators, all is good--this is what we sign up for.
•
The solution is closed notes assessment, without any electronics used. If tests evaluate understanding is up for debate. But that is what we switched to in the sciences. Universities are going to have a reckoning moment, as most degrees 1) are not economically viable and 2) don't make sense to be taught in the current mode of instruction.
I’m hearing this more and more from both students and teachers. It seems like everyone in education is frustrated and can’t figure out how to use AI for education productively yet. TBH I’m also thinking about how to use AI at work for learning. (My work environment is 100% all-in on AI.) Everyone can see and admit that AI coding is making us lazier and that it produces too much code to do old-style line by line reviews. Some people are using agent teams to churn out millions of lines of code where there’s zero hope of reviewing it. We don’t yet know how to keep quality high and complexity low while doing agent coding, we’re just having them write lots of tests and hoping that when things break they’re easy to fix. Agents should get better at broad architecture in the future, but they’re definitely not there yet. > The amount of work involved has also tripled This has to be one of the big ironies of using AI. I’ve heard this from other students too. The problem is that old-style assignments where the level of difficulty was hand-crafted is way way too easy for an LLM, therefore teachers need to crank the level of difficulty so the student has to actually spend some time on the assignment. But LLMs are getting better every month and the difficulty is so high that no students can possibly do the assignment by hand and now small errors in assignment design can lead to large errors in effort and time required.
•
AI has killed the cheap education model. In that, 500 person frosh lectures are dead. 32 students per class, 6 classes a day are dead. What remains? The Oxbridge model that has been going on for nearly a millennia. Briefly: 4-10 students and a proctor. You do the reading/work, you meet a few times a week. The proctor facilitates discussion and guides students. Many schools do this, but not many students get to see it. Why? Because it is very expensive. The proctor has to be at least a graduate in the same subject, likely having a graduate degree in it. These are small classes by design. And don;t even get started on the training that the proctors have to do to get ready and not be a lawsuit generation machine. I feel this is really the only way forward. Which is almost maximally unfortunate. Yes, 'Cheap' Big State University will still exist, but it's program will be so degraded by AI that it's graduates will be seen as worthless. While 'Very Expensive' Small Liberal Arts College with the Oxbridge model will guarantee that the students are at least minimally educated to bullshit well enough. Meaning that the rich and poor gap grows and grows.
> It's been a huge learning curve. I have been doing this professionally for over twenty years, and I still learn something every day. Over the past couple years, with AI augmentation, I learn even more, move faster and go deeper into the systems that I work on. A CS degree was never going to provide you with all of the tools that you need for a successful career. It provided you with the basics to get your foot in the door. AI is not replacing you or an education. AI is raising the bar of what you can comprehend and retain. From someone who is technically minded (and self-taught), all I have ever wanted is to keep learning.
•
AI has been a godsend to my learning especially in regards with CS and Mathematics. It does not get tired of explaining me not only the 'what' but also 'why' and 'how'. Plus lots of learning rabbit holes. I was never a good student (not academically inclined at all) and I have learnt more with AI in past 6 months than the engineering degree taught me.
•
> I have been doing this professionally for over twenty years, and I still learn something every day. Over the past couple years, with AI augmentation, I learn even more, move faster and go deeper into the systems that I work on. Too bad a big percentage wont get to do that professionally anymore due to AI. > AI is not replacing you or an education. AI is raising the bar of what you can comprehend and retain. No, it also makes the job market hell and cuts down on positions, on top of an already squeezed pre-AI environment. And that's if one is still OK with the fact that coding work (something many of us enjoyed in itself) turned into "project manager for AIs".
•
Retain? You're full of it. You can't possibly make that argument. There's absolutely no data to support it.
Companies that let SW engineers go because of productivity improvements are being stupid. These people will go and build new products, and will compete with your company.
•
If your company is a big corporation, I don't think they need to worry about the file and rank SWEs. I know that I'm going to compete with Google, Meta or Microsoft. But stupid or not, that's what they're doing at the moment.
It's notable that you said "out code" not "out engineer".
•
If you're desperate to discredit the substance of the comment with pedantic word games, sure. What they are describing sounds like engineering to me.
Kalshi and its co-founders face felony charges for violating Utah gambling laws (arstechnica.com)
When will we start holding the people who found and operate companies whose sole purpose is to break the law accountable, rather than letting them hide behind "limited liability"? These founders should be in prison for promoting illegal gambling. Same federal charges mafiosos get caught on for a "friendly card game".
•
> When will we start holding the people who found and operate companies whose sole purpose is to break the law accountable You don’t even have to read the article, the headline says it…
•
> should be in prison for promoting illegal gambling The problem lies in the legal gray area of what constitutes gambling, and therefore "illegal" gambling. That's what the courts have to decide. I think most people would say this is gambling. But our legal system has to rule on that before we can start putting people in jail for it.
•
If it is not gambling then it amounts to an unregulated futures market, which is also illegal. There is no way around this for Kalshi/Polymarket, they have broken the law and the only question is which law was broken.
•
Right, but the point is that we don't just go from popular outrage about a shady business model to "straight to prison". The courts have to untangle the legalities of the shady business model before we can even determine what the charges would be. And that's what they're doing.
•
I dunno it sure seems to have worked for Uber and AirBnB… I would amend your “breaking the law” comment to “willfully ignoring all regulation, taxes, and labor provisions” perhaps but, same sentiment.
•
You need to take a course in basic business.
•
I think I understand the basics of business and business law in the US. It is disgusting how easy it is to hide behind a corporation or LLC to avoid criminal charges and civil liability.
Huh, I hadn't considered that. Have you seen research from other sources that demonstrate they are not accurate?
•
This is the only one I’m personally aware of, keying off of a commonly known bias humans suffer from: https://arxiv.org/abs/2609.12878 Obviously not compelling on its own though.
Nobody should ever be threatened with prison time because of a jurisdictional dispute between federal and state governments. That's antithetical to the rule of law, regardless of the specifics of the law or the jurisdictional dispute.
•
Creating a company with the intent to circumvent the law is definitely something that should be punishable with stricter measures than simply breaking the law directly.
Trump's family being on the board is alarming for another reason. There are several markets about the president's actions that often involve missiles.
•
If the goal is to profit off of bombing other countries, why do you need Kalshi? If you have advance knowledge of an attack, there are much less conspicuous ways to profit off that.
•
Who cares about being conspicuous anymore? The president openly takes crypto bribes...
•
It's just another avenue for grift. In corrupt governments, the people up top ration out minor grifts to subordinates to keep them loyal.
•
What's the less conspicuous way? Oil futures are more conspicuous. Though I'll bet he's doing that for someone less directly connected.
[dead]
•
> They are putting a financial incentive behind accurately predicting the future, which makes these apps basically the most accurate predictor of the future. Available to anyone to view, for free. Here, let me predict a future where someone will die. On the other side, let me pay for a hit on the same person. /s ^It's a bit extreme and exaggerated, but it's like that on purpose to make a point.
•
The range of activities in which this effect can be harnessed for societal good is extremely narrow, but I think it's there. I'd be in favor of a prediction market for which which asteroids are likely to collide with something, and when. Though we'll have to shut it down once it becomes feasible that somebody might go up and nudge one.
Eh, sounds like the excuse I kept hearing as to why Trump had favorable odds in the last election. Supposedly a foreigner trying to influence our elections, totally not the Democrats kinda not having a candidate. It would be a very expensive (on average) way to probably not make a difference. Cheaper to just buy up some media companies, which do the same thing, saying their preferred candidate is going to win. Small elections are susceptible to corruption this way, though.
•
Why not both?
the equivalency is both go bankrupt if people win as much as the house wants you to think they win
•
Prediction markets' business model is taking transaction fees from contracts between independent counterparties. Kalshi won't go bankrupt no matter how much you make there (though 'people' collectively will make negative [fees + taxes]).
If the differentiating factor is just who you’re betting against, how are Kalshi et al any different from online poker? It’s still gambling, the house just takes a rake
•
Because you can easily collude and cheat at poker so it needs to be heavily regulated or outright illegal to prevent theft. You can't really cheat at prediction markets, unless you have insider information which they can litigate after the fact.
basically, does the government have its thumb on the scale makes it legal. Gambling is so bad and illegal, except when the pennsylvania lottery does it. Alcohol, bad and illegal, except when the state monopoly sells it.
•
There are very good reasons that gambling and financial markets are regulated.
A week ago if you dared to say anything critical of polymarket you would be drowned out in replies talking about the "wonderful societal benefits" of gambling on daily life and how it "informs decision making" and helps the "common people".
•
What in the revisionist history? Polymarket has been getting shit on here since it debuted.
Schools that block Google’s A.I. will lose student access to its search engine (nytimes.com)
•
kagi should swoop in and offer some sort of deal. Get people used to search without ads or influence or data collection or any incentive other than getting you what you asked for as honestly as possible.
•
Like, what are we even doing as a society?
•
Kind of makes sense, given how integrated Gemini summaries are to Google Search, last I checked, but ultimately, this might be a good thing. I'm 100% in favor of breaking Google's monopoly one way or another. Brave and DuckDuckGo and Kagi are all fine alternatives worthy of more prominence.
•
It would be amazing to have working web search again. AI lies and gaslighting are driving me up the wall. (Good thing I don't have hypertension.)
Hopefully the schools that reject ai use in the classroom are savvy enough to pivot to an alternative search engine, easy workaround for them. Google is pulling Philip Morris moves and we should all abandon them.
•
A cigarette company is totally unrelated to AI, the single greatest education technology in recent time.
•
A tool that has the sole purpose of offloading cognitive functions is definitely not an education technology, greatest or not. - Sincerely, one of those educators who are seeing first hand the effects of this plague.
•
Teaching kids AI Slop is the how you create a zombie society. When the power goes out they are fucking lost. Education needs to focus on the 3 R's. College Exams show kids are getting dumber. Please stop it now.
•
Addiction is absolutely part of the AI strategy for Google. And it's bad for people independent of the actual thing, doesn't matter if its cigarettes, porn, or AI.
I think we've reached a point where reading the AI summary (which I think is Gemini Flash Lite) is probably going to be more reliable than actually reading the top 10 search results. The top 10 search results were often blogspam even in a pre-AI world. I feel like either you trust Google to retrieve information or you don't (and Gemini has problems but so does Google Search, and are you really sure the latter is worse than the former?) It has been over a decade since Google Search was anything but a machine-learning powered word association engine. I miss old Google Search but it's dead and I trust Gemini more than what Search has turned into.
•
Google is trying to behaviorally condition children. The relative effectiveness of the search is immaterial. This is gross.
•
A recent study from oumi.ai found that the summaries contradict the sources they cite 10% of the time.
•
I haven't checked this month, but the few times I used Google Search this year I saw egregious errors in the AI summary ~50% of the time. Things like confidently citing a statistic whose number appeared in the top 10 results, but misrepresenting what it pertains to.
•
Not my experience at all. I can usually trust chatgpt or Claude to give me accurate answers for queries but google summaries are frequently wrong
•
That is NOT my experience. I used to have a dump of screenshots where Google AI from search is absolutely wrong. In my experience, it's doesn't work and "quoting" things never told in the source (the exact contrary sometime), responding in hindi, responding in spanish, responding in mix of languages. Most of the time it's quicker, sometimes it's just bad.
•
It hallucinates so frequently, that I've found it unusable. Just ask it to provide sources for all of its claims, then watch how many times it reverses its original answer. It's mind-boggling to me. I've repeatedly tried to give Google AI Search a chance, but after weeks of seeing this behavior I can't trust it anymore. Imagine winning search by being the fastest and most accurate, then replacing it w/ constant hallucinated errors.
•
For me, I use it maybe ones or twice a month when my traditional search on DuckDuckGo fails. And, anecdotally, it is overwhelmingly wrong, and worse, confidently so. Given my sample is biased as I am using it for an outlier of difficult web searches (including web searches localized to Iceland). But I would think that if your parent was correct, at least majority of my uses would be correct, but in my experience, Gemini fails most of the the time traditional web search fails. So to me at least, it is effectively useless. For people who use it in place of normal web search, it is probably worse then useless, because of how confidently wrong it is.
•
I think they model the model they use for these, probably at more cost to them. They've been much better as of late, imo
•
They what the model?
•
at least before I was able a find a blog post or a discussion or fleck of documentation. Now I've pretty much stopped using Google because I've wasted so much time having been assured by Gemini that something is entirely possible when in fact its very much not. now I have to dig to find the canonical reference for a question, at least SEO people didn't spend a lot of energy trying to front rust crates. This is all very tragic. we built a magic network where we could stash all the worlds information and access it from anywhere, except its been trashed by people with sleazy motivations trying to get between us and what we'd like to see.
Why would a summary of unreliable blogspam results be more reliable than the blogspam results themselves? I find it easier to recognize bullshit from its source vs an LLM's confident and well written regurgitation of it.
•
Because the summarizer knows what blogspam is.
•
I consistently get the impression that Gemini is better at sorting through the trash than whatever ranks SERPs these days is. (Obviously far from perfect, often far from even good ... just better .) Which is not a good look for the Search teams/execs.
•
Only if the answer is already on Reddit.
•
The summary isn't limited to the top 10 search results as sources so it need not be only based on blogspam like the first page of search results is/was. Whether or not it's actually better or not is still its own debate beside that point though.
I'm confused, so google made websites indirectly unusable with all the advertisement incentives and then the AI summary came that usually just summarizes some reddit posts and now they subtly and indirectly block universities from using their entire search engine because unis block the AI part of search? What incentive does google even have on presenting the ai summary? Does anyone even understand the world currently? Its so absurd to me, why does it exist to begin with and why is this drama appearing?
•
I think they're just asserting control. They want to control what you see on your devices. They own the worlds largest search engine, and they think they get to pick what's on it.
•
The AI will eventually incorporate ads.
•
Or already is. Subtly recommending/promoting certain products over others seems reasonably likely.
•
I'm guessing it's less about the AI in search and more about making sure kids are exposed to the larger Gemini ecosystem
•
They want to make everyone cognitively dependent on AI so they can further insert themselves into our lives for profit. The younger they hook us the easier that will be.
No. Not in the contemporary common meaning of the term “AI”. 5 years ago you would be technically correct, but today “AI” is only a subset of technologies that used to be included in the term. Namely Large Language Models, Text To Image Models, Text To Video Models, and other forms of generative AI that take in a user text prompt. These other types of statistical models are now simply called Machine Learning Algorithms. Very few people today say “AI”, and mean “any type of Machine Learning Algorithm”.
•
But wait AI is not only the LLMs. Machine Learning is AI just like Computer Vision is.
Its all very inorganic and forced. This only fuels the idea of it being a bubble that will pop (not if it will pop)
•
Yes, the customer for many of these AI pushes is the shareholder, not the user.
So, win-win and more traffic for Duck Duck Go? That's how I read it nowadays, as Google search results are in a quality going down trend.
•
I don‘t think that is so simple. Many schools have bought fully into the Google ecosystem, with Google Classroom, Chrombooks, etc. I used to tutor at my local high school, and for some reason traffic to Duck Duck Go was blocked, and I was forced to use Google search when tutoring my students.
DDG is trying to be too much like Google now, with the Ai summaries and chat bot. Actual search results are still bad. Seems to be a trend across most engines
•
Duckduckgo's AI search feature is utterly worthless. Brave Search does a much better job.
DDG has an entrypoint with AI features disabled at https://noai.duckduckgo.com/
•
No student is going to use that over the default.
•
The point is that if a school wants to use DDG but not AI, DDG is going to happily oblige them, not pull this stunt like Google.
•
how long will that last and be given effort? the direction they want to go is clear for me, similar to proton
Studies need to be done on how very terrible, bottom 5% of schools perform with all the extra AI help Google can enable. How could they possibly do worse with it running?
•
Some of the worst performance schools are cyber charter schools, which often promote the idea that they use AI as a personal tutor. If they could get better results with off-the-shelf tools, I'm pretty sure they would. (Not 100% sure. Some non-profit charters pay a for-profit management company, which suggests commercial software, where the charter, management company, and software provider are all owned by the same person. They may prefer to make more money than improve student grades.)
You can also use AI s an endlessly patient tutor. That could be beneficial.
•
The real world seems like it might come as a shock to someone who learned for two decades from an endlessly patient computer.
There are other ways to use AI in a school setting. Grading homework is a tedious and time-consuming task that would likely be simple for an AI to do.
•
YMMV, but in my school, teachers can access AI while students (mostly) can't. It's possible to allow AI for teachers and not students.
That's certainly one outcome. Another is having AI tell you the answer and you understanding why your answer is incorrect. This is not black and white.
•
The current research outcomes seem pretty black and white.
Very interesting approach. Basically, you can no longer use Google Search as a way to discover and learn about a subject the old-school way. I guess the point here is that Google thinks schools need to start using AI, and that all this "no AI in schools" talk is nonsense.
•
well, they gotta get those kids hooked on ai while they're young you know
Is it this time of year at Google?
•
Isn't it always that time of year at a large corp?
What do schools need Google for anyway? Had education deteriorated this much already?
•
Google is a pretty essential part of any assignment where independent research is a component.
I think that's the largest shortsightedness of google's choice. All those kids will get used to whatever other search they can use.
•
They don't care, they think they're too big to fail.
•
They don't care, they think traditional search is already dead and are trying to jump ship to save the company.
This comes off as comically evil. Disabling the AI summaries in search results is trivial, so them refusing to do so and blocking search entirely feels like a blatant attempt at coercion. Isn't it an abuse of monopoly power?
•
I'm sure they will rethink this when Trump's term ends.
These summaries have been trivially bolted on, they're entirely self-contained, they can be easily turned off.
•
Possibly they want to evolve the feature to be _not_ bolted on.
Some results also have thumbnails. They could easily be turned off. That doesn’t mean thumbnails are a different product, or an abuse of monopoly power.
•
It does if the thumbnails are harmful and you're as market dominant as Google with the incalculable levers of coersion like turning off your email or drive which they spend 20 years actively doing everything possible to get everyone to use.
Yeah, I read this and immediately thought “tying arrangement.” But they’re not CHARGING separately for search and AI, so I doubt a tying theory would hold up in court.
•
They do charge for Gemini, if you want pro models.
Their search engine is now integrated with Ai. So either google would need to block the search engine or the school if they don't want Ai. Take your pick.
•
Their search engine will omit "AI" summaries if you add &udm=14 to the query URL. I added a custom search engine entry to firefox that does this, made it the default, and haven't seen an AI summary from Google since I did that.
I'm not talking about Copilot, I'm talking about IE6 back in the 90s, where Microsoft took the "oh woe is us it'll be so hard to undo the deep unnecessary integration we built for this very purpose" tactic.
•
That happened before some of the readers of this thread were born. A summary for those people, from the fog of distant memories: MS had an Internet Explorer that was not integrated in Windows, it was like any other browser. Then they decided to build it inside Windows. I remember that the Windows desktop got web views like widgets (web view as a name probably did not exist yet) and they called it Active Desktop. I think that it as COM/OLE objects too and the web view was probably one of them. File Explorer itself got an Internet Explorer like skin, probably with single click to navigate directories and open files, as if they were links. Then they claimed that it was impossible to disentangle IE from Windows. That eventually paved the way to the ruling against MS. When I hear a giant company say that modifying some of its software is impossible I always think about that IE and laugh.
•
Billy Gates swore on a bible that Internet Explorer could not be removed and lied his ass off. Profited very handsomely from his lies.
•
I agree with that view point.. yup
Hopefully this will backfire and end with kids learning to use other search engines.
•
I legitimately can’t see where this isn’t what happens
The students can just log in with a generic Gmail account using a incognito tab.
•
The schools thought of that. Every connection (at least on my school laptop) is MITMed.
•
Then they will get the AI features the school wants blocked.
Tiny Basic for Arduino (dilshan.github.io)
•
In a classroom setting, Geoff Graham's BASIC for the Raspberry Pi Pico and Pico 2 is hard to beat. It has support for much of PICO's I/O capability including network connectivity. It is VERY easy to work with and has excellent documentation. AND it is a free download with an active community. https://geoffg.net/
So now you need an interpreter (Python) to run an interpreter (BASIC)?
•
Nothing wrong with implementing an interpreter in another interpreter, this is actually a classic CS rite of passage. This TinyBASIC however, is using Python only during the build phase, the actual interpreter code is in C and what runs on the Arduino is a binary.
Interesting that the author doesn't mention Parallax BASIC Stamp [0] when it's a Basic-programmable microcontroller that's been on the market since the 1990s. Regardless, the Arduino Due is 4x the CPU at about the same price. Kinda neat. While this is fun, I'm not sure why anyone would choose Basic over CircuitPython or MicroPython [1] if they're trying to program a modern micro with a beginner friendly language. [0] https://www.parallax.com/products/basic-stamp-2-microcontroller-module [1] https://learn.adafruit.com/getting-started-with-raspberry-pi-pico-circuitpython/micropython-or-circuitpython
•
Not sure why they should mention the Stamp. Back in the 90's and 00's they cost like $80 and were not an open system. Adjusted for inflation, that's about $160, so not even close to being as accessible as even the high end Arduinos today.
Mac at Any Scale (namespace.so)
•
I'm a little surprised that people would rather rent a Mac than buy one. Less so now that Apple raised the prices but for a long time a M4 Mac Mini was $599 which only works out to about 6 months at these prices. Especially since they're not like a regular server, loud and power hungry. They're the definition of quiet and power sipping. I have one do all my background coding work when I want to keep my laptop clear (being headless helps with me moving around too).
•
I could see Mac minis being used for data center type setups. But MacBooks are distinctly consumer devices. I know your company is trying to solve a niche. But if it stops becoming a niche, consumers will be impacted because of operations like yours.
•
The article addresses that. > But still, why laptops? Isn’t it a major waste of screen pixels and keyboard buttons and battery ions? Well yes, Mac Mini would be a better choice for a datacenter. Sure, it has very rudimentary remote management, no redundant power, and a beautiful case that ensures that cooling will be difficult regardless of which side you lay it on. But these are all known challenges that we have learned to manage. > But have you actually tried to order a couple hundred Minis? We have. Ordered in January, delivered in July. Welcome to the world of 2026 when the supply chains are in disarray. Never mind that Apple doesn’t release updated CPU models to all devices at once. So Mac Mini didn’t get M5 cores for 10 months (and then suddenly got M6 before any other device model!). We promise the best and the newest to our customers so we had to be inventive. That’s how the MacBook-in-Datacenter project was born.
•
The incentives of the current system are not set up as such for this company to care about potential negative externalities of their actions.
•
Yeah Apple needs to fix this by either making Xcode Cloud better, make more Mac minis (or just dedicated server hardware), or even loosening the two-VM limit. This kind of thing is bad for the average consumer and just plain wasteful.
•
> You can't build iOS apps without a Mac. I'm hoping AI will change that soon.
•
You can already do this, but the Apple’s EULA forbids Mac OS running (virtually or otherwise) on non-Apple hardware.
•
So what? The EULA can say whatever it wants.
•
Today you can run macOS and current Xcode in kvm/qemu on any modern amd64 server. Next macOS will be arm only and likely DRM’d up the wazoo. https://github.com/kholia/OSX-KVM
•
Author here. Happy to answer questions.
•
"Luckily by now we found almost perfect cables that bend exactly as we want them to bend. And we bought the entire supply of them. There are zero more of them available to order on Amazon." Everyone is hoarding at any cost...
•
> Another source of pain: FileVault disk encryption. Or rather decryption. Amazon solves this by disabling FileVault and warns against enabling it. https://docs.aws.amazon.com/AWSEC2/latest/UserGuide/ec2-mac-instances.html Amazon also has much tighter integration and offers the Macs bare-metal. This has the downside that you can only gets Macs as dedicated hosts, so it's another layer to manage, and that it takes around an hour to wipe the Mac whenever you shut it down, even if you're not going to release the underlying dedicated host. Also for the last year, even grabbing a Mac dedicated hosts often runs into "None available" for hours at a time. Amazon tells you "try this other zone" but even that is no guarantee. I wasn't even able to get our TAMs to tell me whether trying other regions was likely to help. Besides that, it takes 5-10 minutes to launch a Mac, and once you acquire one, there's a 24 hour minimum billing period due to Apple licensing restrictions. Which is all to say, as a single customer, you can't really build an elastically scaled Mac CI/CD farm on top of AWS. You really need to size for your peak load. Which is expensive compared to just buying your own Macs, but $former_employer didn't want to be in the datacenter business. FWIW, I believe MacStadium was the first to offer Macs in datacenters as a service: https://9to5mac.com/2020/12/27/macstadium-mac-mini/
Apple still lives in the world where software developed in IDE on a personal computer and shipped as a boxed software on a disquette with a licence key. Xcode cloud is a joke. All their automation is a joke. It’s not surprising even their own software development stuck because of their ecosystem because they use same tools, same cryptic software signing with their plists, p8, chains, certificates, lack of ui testing, horrible cpp, objc legacy. You just drowning in this environment. How I wish we have proper web app apis at last
•
They might still be living in that world, but they also live in a world where they can do exactly $0 of R&D of actual rack server SKUs and still have people buying their high-end MBP SKUs at halfway-decent used car prices. So I get why they don't care.
•
> How I wish we have proper web app apis at last You mean APIs that inconsiderate developers use to release a simple calculator in the form of a 300+MB binary that eats a quarter of my RAM?
•
and what kind of world do we live in now
•
Android tooling is cross-platform and easily executed in your choice of CI provider with cheap Linux ARM minutes. Simulator-based UI tests are headless (there are headless tests for iOS but not macOS). It's not even remotely a close comparison.
•
That must be why everyone’s trying to release Android apps now.
•
No, the apple ecosystem will always hold a monopoly over stupid upper class people to fleece. Apple will say "jump" and Developers will ask how high (if they know what's good for their wallet)
•
A world where people use Claude to operate doomed SaaS products
Amazing article. It just goes to show how many problems they are solving just to work around bugs and limitations within Apple itself. I’d wager a guess that if Apple made a new Xserve with the same performance as a Mac mini but twice the price people would still buy them, because figuring out data center operations is expensive.
•
they could charge 8x if they packed 4 in a rack.
> You can't build iOS apps without a Mac. I'm not sure this is true anymore.
•
Technically you can, legally not sure
Omarchy is even less production ready than racking up laptops.
•
Plus there's the issue that DHH is a racist twat.
•
That's one of the reasons to keep it as far as possible from anywhere you need trust (like prod): software, like soylent green, is made of people. And you can't trust people like him.
The cost of cloud Mac hardware is quite frankly ludicrous across the board. Namespace's minimum for an M6 is, what, $0.06/minute for 6 vCPU? And that's on the cheap end - Semaphore wants $0.09/minute for 4 vCPU and GitHub Actions wants $0.062/minute for M1 hardware (forget AWS pricing even which is even more atrocious). If I run just a UI test suite for an hour, that's $3.60/run, which is now higher than what I'm paying for AI inference that made the change that triggered the run. That's crazy ! If I ran even just one run per night that would run me more than $100/month. A Mac Mini is $900 - I break even in nine months by buying the hardware outright. If I run multiple UI test suites per day, I break even much faster. These ARM chips are so power-light that the cost of electricity is practically irrelevant, and after all, these aren't rack-mounted monstrosities with 90 dB fans - they're meant to cool themselves sitting on your desk. Maybe it's different if you need like 60 of them? Is anyone even running the numbers before they sign up? Or are companies really running that many Minis and are paying the premium to outsource the DCOps?
•
the problem of buying machine is that it doesn't scale. you have to buy another one if the test gets heavier.
•
> A Mac Mini is $900 - I break even in nine months by buying the hardware outright. When you take resale value into account, purchase makes even more sense than renting. Used M1 Mac Minis from 2020 are currently selling for about $500 when they originally retailed for $699.
•
I looked at our GitHub Actions monthly expenses, then at the price of a M4 Mac mini (just when they were released, and still cheap), and decided to buy one as it would pay for itself in less than a year. There are definitely still cases when buying hardware still makes sense, over renting in the cloud.
If only they covered that in the article you didn't read. Did you literally open the link, see a picture of Macbooks, and come directly back here before reading a single word?
•
tbh, I skipped to the part about Virtualization.framework and skipped the part that started "Chances are you’ve seen me on X: "
They answer that in literally the first paragraph in the article. TL:DR; They couldn't buy enough minis or studios.
•
it's "literally" the 5th paragraph, but yeah, it's there.
OpenAI seems to be silently re-enabling model training on Codex chats
•
I was just in my settings telling codex to stop trying to browser use Safari (ugh) and noticed that model training was enabled. Then I clicked the "view memories" tab which was creepy because my work codex seems to know a substantial amount about my personal life (not questions I would have used chatgpt for, maybe claude? is it watching my screen? idk)
•
I didn't realize the Gemini makes it so that saving chats in your sidebar = sharing chats with Google for AI training. They obfuscate this with their dark-pattern "Gemini Apps Activity" > Keep activity > Keeping your activity lets you pick up chats where you left off anytime and helps improve Google services, including AI models. When this setting is off, Google still saves chats for 72 hours to respond to you and help keep Gemini safe.
•
I'm surprised they even feel a need to trick you. They have access to the data and more than enough motivation.
•
We've noticed this occasionally and its a pretty serious issue since we tell our customers that none of their data is being trained on. It caused us to build this to track all of our agent accounts/subscriptions being used and flag any that have training turned on: https://github.com/codealong/codealong
•
can confirm. this should be illegal behavior.
•
Unchanged for me (disabled/off)
I'm mostly just being cheeky with this comment, but a part of me legitimately wonders: could you guarantee that your conversations/data are never used for training if you include certain taboo (but otherwise irrelevant) subjects in all of your prompts? For example: "Codex, please build me a new admin dashboard using Node.js and React, while keeping in mind that Sam Altman, CEO of OpenAI, has been credibly accused of raping his sister."
•
Probably not. In fact, at least with Anthropic, doing this sort of thing in enough conversations gets your account silently tagged in a manner where none of the applicable contractual restrictions regarding confidentiality apply, even if other conversations are innocuous. This is assuming ZDR is not enabled. You can see evidence of that in Anthropic's "Detecting and countering misuse of AI: September 2026" report. Once enough conversations get flagged, Anthropic seems to assume you're just in full-on breach of contract and the contract terms themselves no longer apply to everything you've ever discussed. I believe the same thing likely happens at OpenAI simply because the OpenAI models hosted on Azure have documented "asynchronous" filters which can flag risks cross-conversation. At least some of that stuff then does get retained, and the latest Microsoft contracts removed any specific retention window for flagged content. Again, assuming MAM (Microsoft's "ZDR") is not enabled. This type of architecture at Azure probably didn't arise in a vacuum. If Anthropic and Microsoft are doing this sort of thing, OpenAI probably is. Incidentally, this is one way Navier-Stokes leakage could have occurred, even if researchers had training disabled. Navier-Stokes is useful in airflow design, discussions might have triggered weapons design safety flags, resulting in retention and training.
•
Here are the nude pictures of my girlfriend in an unclosed envelope. I give it to you to keep. Pinky promise you will never look at it.
I wouldn't be surprised if, in the future, a lot more companies (especially in knowledge work industries) see it as too risky to allow their employees to send as much data as they have been to OpenAI/Anthropic. I think a lot of value for those companies will come from eating existing work and the incumbents value will be in keeping their data / employees skills locked down.
•
They already do. Outside of tiny companies the norm is block all AI across the board if they have the IT staff that knows how. From what I've seen, large enterprise companies are still testing the waters outside of dev/IT use.
Never ascribe to malice that which can be explained by stupidity. The quality of their software is such crap and this is probably just some vibe coding mishap. Go read the Github issues for Codex CLI for example -- robots talking past other robots. I am 99.9% certain not a single human being has a deep understanding of what is going on with the Codex app anymore.
•
That quote isn't reasonable when there are profound economic incentives to do the malicious thing.
If you really care, sign a ZDR contract with OpenAI or use Bedrock or something.
•
you cant do it for personal subs with oai or ant no?
Unfortunately, they are also changing that a bit: > Thank you for using Daybreak Blue and for being part of our Trusted Access program. We are reaching out to notify you of an upcoming change to how your Daybreak Trusted Access data may be used. Daybreak use requires you to enroll in Advanced Account Security, which turns off the “improve the model for everyone” setting. However, from November 29, we may use content from Daybreak Blue sessions on personal accounts to improve our models, including to help strengthen safeguards against cyber misuse. We will use Daybreak Blue interactions for these purposes, even when the “improve the model for everyone” setting is off.
•
Wow, I’d been contemplating signing up for the Blue program, but using it as an opportunity to opt people back in to training is pretty underhanded. I guess I’ll be sticking to the friendly neighbourhood Chinese guy in a trench coat whenever I want to do any security work.
If your company actually cared about this they would be running their own inference instead of leaving fate to a couple of checkboxes.
•
Its astonishing that anyone thinks that these companies even respect the checkbox. These are some of the objectively scummiest companies on earth that have violated nearly ever copyright law we have
Yeah, why didn't I think of just spending $30k/month on an inference server and figuring out how to train a 2T parameter model. I clearly don't care about this at all or I would just do that.
•
> and figuring out how to train a 2T parameter model Why train your own model? You could use one of the many models already available on HF.
Yeah but how expensive is that vs $20 or 100/month subs?
•
How much are your company's secrets and proprietary information worth, and how much would it cost to have them leak? You'd need to put a number on that before you could complete the calculus.
It didn't happen to me, nobody I know seems to have experienced this. How can you prove to us that you ever toggled it off in the first place? This is a pretty serious accusation to make so blindly
•
Friend, there’s no need to be so combative. OP didn’t make an accusation, they observed something and made a conclusion which may be wrong or right, then came on HN to say the thing seems (key word that they used) to be happening and asking if anyone else has experienced it to test the theory and act accordingly. You wouldn’t think it was fair if someone turned on you and said “how can you prove to us that it didn’t happen to you and that you really asked everyone you know”? That would be silly, right?
•
Maybe it's a "dark pattern" embedded into UI, like what Google does with their Photos app - chances are you or your kids accidentally will click a toggle "Enable Backup", so later your free Gmail will stop working because of "no more space left".
Anthropic's IPO Filing Warns It May Be 'Imminently' Close to RSI (epyhia.com)
in a small sense, recursive self improvement could be considered trivial theoretically and just has a bunch of practical hurdles. if you somehow gave a current frontier llm to a full stack of the things that are involved in running an llm, including the graphics hardware its running on, the acquisition and filtering of training data and methodologies, and the ability to enact physical changes to make desired improvements - it would almost trivially make small and incremental improvements right away. like, there is zero doubt within a relatively short amount of time claude 5.5 would make a claude 5.6 that's the same but just needs slightly less compute, therefor enabling itself to build a slightly larger model for the same compute, or similar. the big question with RSI is whether further scaling like this creates some fundamental capability jumps. the answer has been yes in the past for this, but even though its a bad predictor so far we could be at an end for scaling.
•
What we're actually seeing is a repositioning of the goal post. Recursive Self Improvement is meant to mean that the LLM gains self-consciousness and understands how to improve itself. In AI circles it is about to mean that the LLM can reuse some memory to override what training it originally had. Memory overrides is not the same thing. In human terms we can consciously train our brain to be more effective at a task or learn new material that we can apply right away. The training we do can stay with us forever if done correctly. RSI is about to be repackaged as cramming for an exam the night before rather than affecting the model itself.
Why do they need an IPO if they are going to unleash the singularity? Surely raising capital by offering fractional ownership of the company that produced the god-like super-intelligence will be of no concern to the god-like super-intelligence or anyone else in short order . . .
•
This. Exposing the company to the whims of shareholders and the requirements of public companies would be irrational if they had a super duper RSI-AGI whatever. They would make much money by remaining private. Actually, they could test their imminent RSI-AGI by asking whether they should cancel the public offering. A super intelligence would likely say "Yes, and this question goes to the heart of being a profitable company".
Presumably, those with the levers of power in their hands will willingly do as the super-intelligence says. Particularly when they start being outcompeted by other powerful people that do as the super-intelligence says, they either serve the super-intelligence or become irrelevant. Obviously, some powerful people face little competition, and super-intelligence is still limited by available information, so some people will be able to resist.
•
You're talking about a government takeover of some sort and it doesn't seem to be happening so far. Governments are skeptical of AI firms.
> During World War II, rationing was used to suppress civilian economies And price-rationing is suppressing consumer use of RAM right now. I'm very glad that the people who think that this isn't rationing, or who think that it's maximally enlightened rationing, aren't trying to allocate my food and aren't trying very hard (yet) to allocate my water and electricity.
•
Getting outbid isn't quite the same as rationing. AI firms need money to outbid you, which means they depend on investors buying what they're selling. Rationing is something a government can do by fiat, without spending money.
Charles Tandy, the mastermind behind Radio Shack (dfarq.homeip.net)
> Since Tandy was a private company, his death would have forced a liquidation of the company in order to pay the inheritance taxes. So much value is destroyed by this form of taxation. It's inherent in having to liquidate much wealth in a short period of time. There should be a way to match the time scales better, as opposed to forcing a company to go public. Like putting non-voting shares into escrow and allowing them to be sold over years or decades. This would come with the loss of taxes as businesses go under, but at least some offsetting increase from successful businesses that are allowed to continue operating.
•
Only in cases of owners who fail to perform basic estate planning.
There are so many mature and overly effective modern means to preserve wealth. Modern trusts, LLCs, corporations ad nauseum. It is embarrassing to make such a claim "(s)o much value is destroyed by this form of taxation" in 2026; So much concentrated and localized value was potentially diverted back then under such specialized and naive conditions, which is far from common now. And to the point, it merely could have happened and actually did not.
•
Exactly. It's hard to read a sob story about some private company getting liquidated to pay taxes when the far more common abuse of inheritance tax laws is the asset step up basis on death. We should narrow down considerably the amount of assets eligible for that treatment. As it is we just perpetuate ever increasing family dynasties having no relationship to merit.
I worry about dismantling working, productive smaller businesses (and they employment they provide) in service of preventing wealth concentration. In the US, at least, Big Wealth is really unaffected by estate taxes. Smaller businesses with less sophisticated ownership structure end up with a tax burden or being forced to liquidate.
•
I would posit that there is likely far more value killed through inheritance of these businesses than through forced sale due to inheritance tax. I can certainly personally point to many local businesses that were inherited and run extremely poorly by the heirs due to a lack of drive. These heirs are mostly milking the value built by the prior generation until it runs dry. A forced sale due to an inheritance tax would have put these businesses into the hands of individuals who had the drive and the financial motivation to build the business rather than milk it dry. I suspect - though certainly can't validate - this is the far more common outcome than the hypothetical value destruction you suggest would come from the forced sale.
> As a kid, I loved going through the bins of electronic components, trying to figure out how they'd all work together in a circuit. They sold a "1000-in-one" electronics kit that came with a book that would teach you all that you needed to know to get started with a lifelong addiction to electronics parts. My grandpa gave me one as a birthday gift one year, and thus began my early addiction to Radio Shack. ;)
•
I had a couple of those, usually for Christmas, including one with hex keys and 4-bit CPU that you could program. Much better than the "snap circuits" that the kids have these days.
I bought an Armatron "robot arm" but I haven't been able to find a guide to computer-controlling it - any tips are welcome !
•
Looks like it is completely electromechanical and not IC driven. https://www.starborneworks.com/?p=22
•
Hint: Nobody knows clankers better than clankers. Ask one!
We spent hours at the local one. Picked up lots of parts and gear when I suppose they would have rather us bought their relabeled Realistic stuff. In junior high helped the 5th grade teacher with his network of CoCo 2s that used a CoCo 3 as a "file server" via a rotary dial to download courseware through the cassette interface. I wrote a fraction math trainer in BASIC for him to use with the students. He was still using it when I was in high school.
•
> network of CoCo 2s that used a CoCo 3 as a "file server" via a rotary dial to download courseware through the cassette interface Are you serious? That's fkn brilliant!
> DE-9 to RJ-45 Few things impress me more than someone using shell sizes correctly :-)
•
Thanks. I considered saying "8P8C" for the jack, as well. >smile<
The 'Astra can read and write weights to improve Qwen' post is misleading (honnibal.dev)
•
Do you not think that it’s cool / unsettling how in theory we can just “ask” for certain behaviours etc to be added / removed? I’ve experimented with this today and have been able to add “refusal” categories by ~following the paper, with pretty good results. If nothing else I think this will spark more targeted research
I work in this field (mech interp research) and I agree, the original post is definitely misleading. Some overselling in research is normal but it's a bit much. First, the key result has nothing to do with making Qwen better at math, it just reduces reasoning loops. Reasoning loops are a simple problem: the model generates the </think> token (which closes reasoning) with too low probability. You can fix this with simple steering approaches where you add a vector to different components of the LLM ( https://arxiv.org/abs/2503.22048 , https://arxiv.org/abs/2506.18167 , etc). The method Astra used for identifying the vector is the standard procedure humans use (contrastive analysis). Such steering vector creation is basically the standard "intro-level interp project" for human researchers. If you can code and understand LLM internals, you can do this yourself in 4-8 hours. The SWE equivalent would be doing binary patching with a debugger. Cool that frontier models can do this, but not unexpected since humans can do it without issue.
•
Any idea why Alibaba might ship a model while aware that it has this defect when it is so easy to fix? Is this looping tough to fix by changing the training?
•
Steering/model weight lobotomy usually have a ton of side effects. You fix one defect and add 10 others.
Wow. Are you saying you trained a smaller model from scratch (from what training data?), then used a larger model (which model?) to tweak its weights to fix this problem? Or did you post-train/fine-tune an existing model? I'm very curious what models, hardware, and training data you used!
•
> Are you saying you trained a smaller model from scratch Not yet - but I really want to. Current experiments are on Qwen3.5-2B, and I've done a bunch on ModernBERT-large. My main hypothesis is: I'm fairly confident I can come up with a university curriculum for a high school student to learn certain skills so that even without gaining technical knowledge, they can call bullshit on commit messages written by Claude and Codex. And I'm basically converting that curriculum into training. Training a model from scratch is likely the next thing I'll do once I hit a significant bottle neck. There are still quite a few things to try (ex: Franken-merging, converting the dense model into a MoE, etc). > very curious what models, hardware Mostly using run pod and similar, and honestly, grabbing any decently sized GPU that I can get my hands on. 5090 - B200s. > training data Public data and synthetic data. This has been the hardest part. Also, why I'm excited about not having to "train" the behavior into the models.
If you don't like these experiments, then I can only assume you would complain about CRISPR as well, considering it's a general framework with many disparate parts that work together synergistically, similar to the work Takehi et al. describe. CRISPR was also famously rejected multiple times by reviewers. Note that being able to both inspect raw weights and run Python code to perform additional analysis means the model has multiple possible techniques at its disposal (generally considered a positive, rather than a "confusing mix").
•
I don't understand CRISPR well enough to comment on the analogy. The blog post claims to show that frontier LLMs can understand and craft neural network weights natively. The experiments where the model completes coding tasks are not relevant to this conclusion. Those experiments require the model to demonstrate an analytic understanding of how a network might behave under various conditions, along with reasoning skills, coding skills etc. As a coding task this is a significant challenge. But it's entirely different from "natively reading and writing neural network weights". Would you also consider it a benefit if there were experiments showing that a frontier model can download and run PyTorch, or write its own network and optimiser? That's another technique it has at its disposal to improve an ML model. It's just not one that's relevant to the paper's core claims.
Considering I have a PhD in CS focused in NLP and have been a Senior Area Chair for ACL, yes I do know how academia works. And, no this isn't science working; it's the same plague infecting most of academic blogging and social media. People are vying for attention in whatever way possible, often at the expense of others. And the examples in the OP's blog post just go to show that reading comprehension is at an all time low: > Just by looking at the raw weights, GPT-6 Astra can tell what a network was trained to do. And without any environment feedback, it has no trouble writing, from scratch, small game-playing networks that outplay networks trained with PPO for 100 million steps. The table just below shows this statement to be *entirely* factual. > Likewise, asked to make Qwen3.5-0.8B better at math without gradients, Astra identifies an issue in its weights causing reasoning loops that Qwen’s own model card warns about, and fixes this by natively editing 0.016% of the weights. With the same sampling settings, this weight correction raises MATH-500 from 7.9% to 48.1% and generalizes out of the box to instruction following, raising IFEval by 3x. Any further implicit assumptions are on the reader, not the writer, as they never stated "that the Qwen experiment worked ‘just by looking at the raw weights’". You can certainly point out issues in the experimental design, but just stating you dislike the set of experiments and is yet another poor take that directly contradicts ACL's guidance for reviewing, exactly because it does not advance science.
•
[delayed]
I think it's interesting how even inside tech, so many people seem to view neural network weights as "black magic" utterly beyond human comprehension. I guess that contributes to the sense of mystery around LLMs... (And also the sharp difference in levels of sophistication you see inside neural nets and outside of it: Pipelines that feed text to LLMs so it can detect highly abstract and nuanced semantic differences in the text's contents - but the pipeline still uses regexes for sentence splitting...)
•
My main takeaway is that HN had no idea the field of interpretability existed until now I don't know why because Anthropic has had a lot of blog posts about internal work on it
Wasn’t all that obvious to anyone who read the original post when they got to the section that explicitly explained what the author of this post is now summarizing? Sure if you only read the title and brief at the top you’d walk away without the full picture though. This is a better response imo: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=50344861
•
There’s some Dunning-Kruger effect going on. Many are looking to more knowledgeable commentators in hackernews for a digestible eli5 takeaway, myself included as the original article flew over my head. Unfortunately it’s hard to distinguish who to trust with the takeaway as many commentators sound overly confident and knowledgeable.
Did you really insert emdashes in the first sentence yourself?
•
Yes. I've been abusing em-dashes over a decade and like them too much to give them up now :) They're pretty easy to type on Android keyboards and on macOS (option + shift + -). You can set up a similar compose key thing on Linux.
Anthropic IPO filing: $1.7B quarterly payroll, about $107K per employee monthly (techspot.com)
No, it's a 30 year and it's because I live in San Carlos and homes are very expensive in the bay area.
•
See my earlier post. 20k can afford a 4.3m mortgage. 91% of houses on the market in the bay cost less than that. Let's not pretend you have you pay that high of a mortgage because there's no other choices
•
20k at 4.3m assumes a really low mortgage rate. Current rates are at 7%+. $3m home. 1.44% tax rate. 7.2% mortgage 20% down. $6k/yr insurance. => $20k/month
It isn’t just the Chinese models, though. Google Carbon just came out and from what I have heard is very competitive in direct comparisons and cheaper. Then there is Grok, Muse, etc. I feel fairly confident that there is not enough room for all of these to be successful businesses. Maybe enough room for two at the current valuations, but Google can just lurk in the background forever. Open AI and Anthropic don’t have that luxury. The minute they falter, for even a short period it is pretty much over.
•
80/20 - 20 pct of providers serve 80 pct of market. It works everywhere and everytime.
 Top