Unlurker|Replay|About
Zig v0.17.0 (ziglang.org)
•
How is Zig doing as a project? I remember they took a hard line against AI
•
They seem to be doing fine. Tigerbeetle and Ghostty are two projects that continue to do well and are written in Zig. The foundation’s funding also seems to be doing well.
•
Seems to be C++ing which is disappointing. Looking more at C3 and Odin for cases where I'd hoped Zig to land.
•
It looks like they're spending 5 months what should be a 1 month job these days.
•
Slow and steady wins the race
•
Anthropic levels of slowness (pacing)?
•
in tech? really?
•
Yes, the Lindy effect applies in tech too.
•
Can you offer any specifics? The ToC looks quite extensive, which to me indicates a lot of design decisions needed to be made (probably involving many people) and unclear how that process might be accelerated by AI. Unless you're suggesting the language design should also be vibed together?
•
> Unless you're suggesting the language design should also be vibed together? Sounds like a fun little project, have a bunch of AI pushers fork Zig and see if they can do a better job. I want to see results, not snarky HN comments. After all this progress, ChatGPT should be able to one-shot a better language since AI is so good now... right?
•
One-shot, no, but there are a bunch of people pretty much solo-building their personal ideal language with AI and it's going quite well. You need to know just enough about language design to be dangerous, but you don't need to be a seasoned pro. I'm doing it myself: https://zena-lang.dev/
•
Filed a compiler bug related to dwarf tables that screws up debugging and line of code coverage that they completely ignored, just because I mentioned that I had every LLM check it to confirm it's a bug, since all I know is what kcov and every coverage tool generates incorrect coverage data for my repo, for 100% certain.
•
Sounds like you violated the clearly stated project rules and admitted to it. Are you surprised that they're not engaging with you?
Everyone's Packing Up (widdershins.verja.net)
•
Is this a real trend or like that time everyone abandoned Twitter for Mastodon?
•
> A few years ago that would have sounded like giving up I’m confused by that sentence. Giving up on what exactly?
•
Leaving a large audience platform was/is like giving up on having a large audience for your stuff.
•
This reads as slop to me. Added contrast containing no semantic content. Same with: > it changed under them
•
Getting really tired of proving I'm human every time I visit a website. It's about 90% of the time now.
•
Soon you'll have to prove you're an adult the same way to click through for cookies. Can't wait.
•
I part of the reason is Capthas, something is needed but Capthas are a pain to use.
•
No, I don't think captchas are a reason people are leaving platforms, at least not in any large number. If the content of a platform is good, the (extremely slight) roadbump for people is not going to deter them. Keep in mind that for the average person (and even the average techy), they will not even see the captcha, because they have enough tracking them across the web that it will 'autoresolve' them as a human. I only see captcha's nowadays when I am working on web scraping automation or browsing from my VPS.
•
Yes, I think captchas are the wrong solution. They annoy all clients, humans included. IP+subnet based throttling on the other hand is a perfectly working solution, optionally with a proof-of-work or login requirement for intensive POST requests only. Why is it a problem if only one or requests are made per home IP? Just how bad and inefficient is the web server? Bots are not a second clas client. They were here before AI, and they, like AI, work for humans. For the most part, they're not trolling the web autonomously. When people can't meet their goals reasonably, people look to unreasonable solutions.
•
IP blocking doesn't work for bots, they use residential IP addresses and make only one or two requests per IP. [1] Proposed Amendment to the Telephone Consumer Protection Act of 1991 (2026-05-08) - https://www.karlbunch.com/random/website-protection-act/
•
Lately I’ve found myself thinking about BBSes for the first time in ages. Online used to feel like an actual place.
Show HN: Made an open-source Lego AI generator (github.com/anteloc)
•
[delayed]
•
Fun idea. Congrats on building and releasing! That said, LLMs encroaching into the pure-imagination world of Lego gives me a bit of the icks...
•
Up next: a tool that converts a photograph of your dumped bin of old Lego into a catalogue of all the Lego in your collection..
•
https://brickit.app/ :)
It seems to be able to! https://github.com/anteloc/ldraw-nova/blob/master/examples/mechanism-atlas/README.md
•
Thats pretty cool, i wonder how far it goes with mechanisms where the parts actually have to move correctly, rather than just being assembled correctly
Neat! Perhaps I'll finally get around to doing something with the 51515 Lego set I have laying around collecting dust. > I did this in order to get agentic LLMs capable of designing buildable, physical things! I've been experimenting with FreeCAD + freecad-mcp + Claude recently and have been similarly surprised how well this works. I've produced three useful parts from Claude's designs: a 3d printed case for an OLED display + some inputs + an ESP32, and a milled aluminium hotend mount adapter for a 3d printer, and a printed pen + pressure sensor mount to use the printer as a plotter. I just provided part/model numbers plus a couple of caliper measurements Claude wasn't able to find online and went through two or three cad revisions before making the parts. All three worked on the first hardware revision. The biggest thing I've found it seems to struggle with is understanding how the parts will be assembled. The pen mount in particular was tricky to put together, having a part which needed to fit through a slightly too small space to get to its spot. Although it's hard to blame the AI for that when I didn't notice it either I suppose.
•
> I've been experimenting with FreeCAD + freecad-mcp + Claude recently and have been similarly surprised how well this works Yup. I’ve been getting some pretty decent 3d models directly on stl format + the slicer file with all the right configs for my printer It’s cool to create a simulation, run some visualizations on web directly from Claude desktop, and then choosing a model to print and build I also added some genetic algorithms to make it fun iterating on different shapes/mechanisms I really enjoy how much creativity these tools are unlocking by enabling bridging so many elements together
•
> the 51515 Lego set On that note- have you considered adding constraints for part availability? It would be useful to be able to create designs using only parts which are on hand. I recall seeing a project a while ago which could take a photo of a pile of lego as input and produce models that could be made with those parts. Although I think in that case the models were sorta just random arrangements.
Thanks! I've been experimenting with FreeCAD and freecad-mcp too, even managed for Claude to create a new LDraw benchmark for it. However, given the amount of parts some LDraw models have, FreeCAD performance would not be enough, something to do with its solver trying to work out too many constraints at once. The thing about how to assemble the parts, yes, that drove me crazy for quite a while. A way I found that helps is to provide the agents information about contacts, e.g. what parts of a brick are actually connectors. With that in place, it can create tools to automatically check if two parts are connected "the right way" ;-) I got LEGO connectors info from here: https://www.melkert.net/LDCad/tech/shadowLib
•
I just added another comment under my original as you were replying- I'll try not to spam you with too many questions, this is just so cool though! Do you find the models generally manage to avoid making errors when placing parts (e.g. placing parts which intersect, don't connect properly, etc) or do they rely on validation and correction cycles?
Nice job. I actually read a paper on Arxiv last year about this exact thing - using LLMs to drive model building through LDraw that might be worth reading [1]. They had some interesting experiments like giving the LLM a fixed set of parts as a constraint and asked it to "build" tools out of those available lego. I think they were using Opus 4.5 so I'm sure with even more powerful models it'll be even better. [1] - https://arxiv.org/pdf/2512.15743
•
Hi there, thanks! I'm taking a look at this paper right now, didn't came across it before. I think it's really good, and also an approach I tried. In my case, it was working pretty well in terms of geometry and correctness, but not in terms of creativity: too many constraints and an agentic LLM would end up building very similar buildings all the time. Too few ones, and it would drift into unbuildable models. In the end, I think the current iterative process gives it a good balance: let it try things first and be creative, parts will be placed incorrectly at the beginning, but it will fix their placements, colours and so on bit by bit, until the end result is (hopefully!) correct. And regarding Opus, according to my experience, I'd say definitely models quality is way better when produced by Opus 5 and even better by Opus 5.5
GrapheneOS has fixed the Android 17 QPR1 kernel performance regression (discuss.grapheneos.org)
•
It's concerning to hear about the disarray within the internal workings of Android, they've spoken quite a lot about this recently such as getting access to the code and having to make manual requests. I'm curious if there's any back up plan to an operating system used by billions. One would think, and hope, the EU would have an alternative ready to go at a moment's notice. Android is literally too big to fail, but I doubt the EU would be ready even though you could consider the failing of Android a national security emergency. I would like to know more about what's going on at Google that are causing these issues.
•
I read a lot of comments like this, saying "we should have an alternative". And I agree that it would be really cool, BUT: AOSP and the Android SDK are open source. GrapheneOS is exactly an alternative to Google Android. Sure, Google could shut down the Play Store (but alternative stores exist), or destroy the Play Services (but even then, there is microG). I am happy that Google is still contributing to Android because they have a ton of money and many brilliant engineers, even though as a company it seems like it's somehow trying to burn it to the ground. But I am optimistic: it would be possible to build on top of the open source parts of Android if needed.
I want GOS to succeed; I'm afraid their exceptional technical and developmental skills could be made mostly ineffective by their foot-gun conduct. Fanboys urging them on or defending everything they do are driving them toward a cliff. GOS can just talk about the upside, their solution to this problem. That's great work. But they often choose to denigrate others, which is destructive, damages relationships (the most essential assets - especially when you have no money to offer!), and is myopic: GOS's sh-t stinks too; they f- things up too. Forgive us our trespasses as we forgive those who tresspass against us. It seems especially dangerous being entirely dependant on Google's goodwill; Google has zero need for GOS. I'd think Motorola, who now has money and reputation depending on GOS's success, would tell GOS to zip it. If I were in that industry and looking to partner, I might love GOS's technology but their behavior would be hard to overcome. For example, I love OpenBSD, but who partners with them? And OpenBSD isn't dependant on someone else. Just zip it, be professional, focus on what you are doing and not on others. Great job on this fix!
•
>Just zip it, be professional, focus on what you are doing and not on others. How do you propose they "focus on what [they're] doing and not on others" when their entire project is dependent on other's (Google's) work that directly impacts their own users? There's nothing about this blog post that is unprofessional. GrapheneOS released a patch for a rather severe performance bug, which is outside the scope of their normal work, so they provided context into why they made the decision to do so.
I was wondering what was wrong with my phone, i thought a reboot would fix it and forget to do it everytime. The lags are actually quite unpleasant and noticable, i wonder how it wasn't caught before the release.
•
Gosh, I have noticed a number of my apps (Pixel 11 fold 'pro') simply halting under high workload. This is that I suppose.
> We have rapidly growing resources and we'll handle it. This is such a rarity to see in today's world. I'm glad GrapheneOS is getting the support it needs. I wish that happened more often.
•
Reading your profile, do multiple identities use this HN account?
Muse Gadgets (gadgets.muse.ai)
•
Even ignoring all the privacy issues Meta has (and they are many, and we shouldn't), Zuck is happy to do a rug-pull on his users whenever he feels like it. "Facebook's main purpose isn't really to connect with friends any more." If he wakes up tomorrow and decides everything should be different, and that ruins your plans, well tough beans for you. I wouldn't touch this with a ten-foot pole.
•
The general theme of meta's approach across the board here is interesting - basically, they are trying to win in part by taking risks others aren't willing to. I can imagine they saw that all the success is coming so far when a someone is willing to cross a boundary that wasn't previously thought acceptable - from releasing ChatGPT in the first place, to things like OpenClaw. So now they are actively distributing SDKs and to let people "hack" custom hardware integrations to their already risky AI agents unleashed on the general public. Giving agents abilty to control things in the physical world - what could possibly go wrong? But here we are: so far the story is pretty much 100% "fortune favors the bold", and Meta is leaning into it.
•
Was this the AI that gives strangers your home address or am I confusing it for something else?
•
100% vibe coded page
•
I wish Anthropic would robustify their bluetooth implementation (Developer > Hardware Buddy...)
•
ill wait for the inevitable "foss community open source alternative" version
The larping as a grassroots/open source product is really off-putting. The only reason anyone would use this is that its "free" and comes with preloaded prompts for non-technical people. No thanks.
•
LARPing would imply pretending to do something, but not actually doing it. Here they appear to be actually doing it (open source product). Is there something Im missing?
•
A surplus of outrage and a willingness to share your unfiltered reactions to things, I guess.
•
celebrities and billionaires always catch more heat, can we not call out their bs?
•
That it's Zuck and Meta? He spent his good will, I'm not touching anything from that company again, they've willfully or negligently caused so much harm, this is just the latest https://www.cnbc.com/2026/08/26/meta-social-media-trial-settlement.html he's currently addicting our grandparents to ai companions, I guess teen harm wasn't enough, need to get that elder abuse in too?
Clearly you just made the completely unique mistake of not understanding it’s more like the “ownership” of digital movies, games and music where there is clearly no ownership. That is completely obvious to anyone who would see the word “own”…at least according to most companies court filings. (I joke, but not really…)
•
our digital landlords, we are but serfs
It was discovered that the person hit "always approve" when their muse asked them if it could give out their address.
•
this guy reads every single eula an cookie popup
Thats very @dps
•
I don't get it
"The only intuitive interface is the nipple" (2012) (greenend.org.uk)
•
Baby can be ALLERGIC to the mother’s breast milk Baby can have unfixable latching problems (as commented elsewhere) Breasts may not produce enough milk even with pumping Nipples and Breasts can get infected and seriously endanger the mother
There's a deeply ingrained mythos around how natural and easy motherhood is, but in nature, a lot of first time mothers are rather mediocre. It takes a while learn how to do all those "natural" things like nursing the baby. And let's not forget that babies kinda suck (intended) at doing "natural" things too.
•
> lot of first time mothers are rather mediocre I had a hen who was sitting on a clutch of eggs this summer. Did everything right: kept them warm, turned them regularly, etc. Then one hatched and she promptly lost interest in the rest, leaving them to die.
I remember hearing this quote from a HCI prof in the late 90's. I repeated this to a person who was in nursing, and they replied that helping babies figure out nipples (i.e. "latching") is actually a common problem for new mothers[1]. It's worth considering that survivor bias plays a role in the perceived intuitiveness of nipples. ___________ [1] https://breastfeeding.support/when-baby-wont-breastfeed/
•
came here to say the same :) if nipples would be intuitive there wouldn't be an entire business of lactation consultants
Interesting. Nothing is is intuitive then! I wonder whether reproduction is.
•
We get dangerously close to a semantic difference here, but this is how I learned the categories generally work. This is not my field, so I could be wrong, of course. Generally, you can break things down to three categories. There are reflexes, which are when your body reacts to something without your brain needing to be involved. The latching reflex in babies, for example, or the patellar reflex (tapping the knee to make the leg jerk). Then there are instincts. Instincts involve the brain, and so generally don't appear in human infants immediately. Instincts are like pre-written scripts encoded in us, but require a level of development before those scripts can be executed. Then there are learned behaviors. Things that are "intuitive" fall into this category. Something is intuitive if a behavior you already know well can be applied the activity. Reproduction is instinctive (and it's an instinct that, in humans, doesn't really show up until much closer to sexual maturity). It's not intuitive. If you've never been exposed to or taught how to have sex, you'll still feel the desire and be able to do it. Maybe not well, but you can get the job done.
Apple Pass Designer (developer.apple.com)
•
Why?
•
Another artificial and pointless concept to make people subjected to Apple
•
How in the world was it possible “back then” to be considered innovative and cutting-edge with just so few simple but beautiful products (iPod Classic, iPhone 4..) ?
•
I find it bizarre how Apple continuously ignores Steve Job's visions and seems to get away with it. I really expected there to be a little box that talks with people, is highly intelligent, and helps them to organize their daily lives. They could call it Isaac or something like that. Yet what's new from Apple? A little color flyer design app. That would have rocked in the 1980s!
There are free, web-based wizards to create PKPass-format Apple Wallet passes. This one was posted on HN a few months ago. https://walletwallet.alen.ro/
•
That is really neat! I've made 3, however they are all grouped together in my Apple Wallet, even though they are completely separate. Any idea why?
What do people find interesting about this? This doesn’t seem at all significant to me
•
What's significant about this is I hate it. Just give me an image to scan bro, I don't have time for this nonsense.
•
I suppose it's a fun insight, a solemn moment, a Fortune 10 company where AI doesn't exist and they make whimsical graphical design programs for their little AOL world.
I have a few apps on my phone for which the only purpose is to open and bring up a barcode (ex. Tim Hortons Scan and Pay). I'd love to delete the app and only have an Apple Wallet thing.
•
I use an app called pass2 u wallet for this, it's clunky but works well. No affiliation.
•
Starbucks on Google can be added to Google Wallet. But then I went to use it and they told me to close wallet and open the app. Shrug. I've had patchy success with adding boarding passes to the wallet too. Support seems half baked.
•
It used to be difficult to scan qr codes with black backgrounds and older phone apps will blast their screen LED lights to make it easier for the qr scanner to read it, but in the end, all you're doing is scanning a qr code usually. I had the black background issue at concerts for years but I haven't had that problem in the last 2 years.
•
I've paid with a screenshot plenty of times
•
Tim Horton's allows reward card in Apple Wallet, but not Scan And Pay (which gives rewards and pays for order at same time). I wonder if the addition of the payment creates a dynamic QR code controlled by the app, and therefore not allowed in Apple Wallet for some reason. EDIT - I think this is the case. When I open and close my Scan and Pay QR code it is changing each time whereas my Reward only card (in Apple Wallet) is static. Must be due to security.
•
Wallet transactions are all effectively presented as offline. I usually pay with Apple Wallet at Maverick (fuel/cstore). When I do so, the rewards account, which is also in Wallet, automagically applies. It stays even if I remove the app. I’ve seen it be broken in various ways over the past several years but at this point it all works right. The app matters in theory to authenticate and generate the Pass, but is otherwise inert. I had it running with no iOS permission enabled it but never used it and eventually dropped it. It had points and deals and such, and that’s what websites are for.
Apple wallet and I've seen videos of kids on social media who make fake passes in Photoshop to get into events. This might help event coordinators deter that from happening.
•
What's wrong with an image with a unique barcode?
Kids - just bring an Android phone if you’re going to scam, since events can’t require customers to be iPhone owners, and Apple didn’t design this with universal compatibility in mind.
•
"events can’t require customers to be iPhone owners" unfortunately idk about that
many iphone customers lament at how little support Apple Wallet has, even ~ 18 years later. Why ticketing vendors force customers to struggle with so many inconsistent and unreliable ticketing apps. Hopefully one of the main blockers, that Wallet integration required xcode experience, will be removed with this app. Hopefully we will get more comprehensive wallet support for event passes.
•
The business creating passes wants a “one solution for all,” which led to poor adoption of Apple Wallet specific features. Since this doesn’t solve “one solution for iPhone and Android,” I expect adoption to remain similar to before.
Every time I get blinded by this I wonder if it's really necessary at all...I can turn the brightness up myself if the QR code doesn't scan.
•
I can turn the brightness up myself if the QR code doesn't scan. Well, you're one person. How about the other eight billion people on the planet? Everyone is not you.
No, you cannot manually turn on HDR on iPhone.
•
I mean, you kind of can... Isn't this what they are asking for? https://dt.in.th/HDRQRCode (View this on your iPhone)
>hardware vendor Apple doesn't make software??
•
there's a large contingent of strange people that think apple's services business is a side-hustle.
I really hate that accessory. You have this teeeny tiny little wheel that's going to rub up against your tire to propel it? I'm incredibly surprised this ever worked at all.
•
Not a new idea, and it could be worse. How about we drive the front wheel instead, and put a bunch extra weight over the front? https://motoredbikes.com/resources/sears-bike-bug-engine-manual.67/ Filed under “I’m kinda surprised that was ever legally sold”. (You’ll find it next to the lawn darts.)
Would love to see a generative AI tool that can integrate the QR/barcode into the artwork itself. Maybe in the next version… Maybe someone could vibe code that.
•
Seems like you could build that in ComfyUI. Mix in the QR code into the starting noise, and reinforce it after each round as necessary. Probably a low success rate on it both looking nice and it actually scanning in the real world, though.
> So, if we destroy that Nobody has to destroy anything. If you want to keep using your Apple Approval Stamped stuff, nobody wants to stop you from doing that on your own. Instead, people are saying that other people should be free to do what they want with their devices that they own. Thats all. Keep your Apple Safe Mode On devices, just stop trying to sabotage other people's attempts to choose otherwise.
•
Sure, but what people want, and they say it, in the comments above, is access to Apple customers . That's different from "doing what I want on my own device."
> So, if we destroy that, we are likely to also destroy the reason that so many people want access to the Apple ecosystem. By this same logic, United States v. Microsoft Corp. should be overturned instantaneously. Microsoft Windows was the most popular operating system in the world, and the court forced Microsoft to take actions that the majority of Windows users did not agree to when they bought their PC. By reaching in and micromanaging Microsoft's ecosystem, the US destroyed the reason that users trusted Microsoft's operating system over their competitors. What makes iOS customers special, that their ecosystem can't be destroyed while Microsoft's can? Both are accruing market damages.
•
They have a lot of money, compared to more budget-conscious customers, and they are used to paying more. Makes for an attractive customer base. I know that there have been a number of studies, that found Apple apps make a great deal more money, per app, than Android ones (I'm sure there are special outliers in both camps, though). I make free apps. In my case, it has nothing to do with "snobbery." I've just been doing it for most of my adult life, so I'm invested in the platform, like many of us do. I also enjoy working in a challenging environment. I've learned to adapt.
I'm wondering what the motion thing is even meant to address. Either a ticket is valid and used / not used or it's not a valid ticket. What about that requires a real-time motion thing?
•
Human beings are checking those tickets, and movement is proof of liveness (and not a screenshot you and 25 friends are sharing). Many ticket checking systems are not connected to the internet and cannot/will not check if it's already been used. Many of the motion enabled codes are also basically working in the same way as 2FA codes: your ticket is given with a public key, usually unique to your device, and rotates every minute. Allows them to ensure that the ticket is up to date, not forged and signed properly.
Colorectal Cancer Is Rising Among the Young, Even Kids and Teens (gizmodo.com)
Has this factor really changed much in the past century?
•
Yes, unequivocally.
It's probably not too healthy to sit for too long. If unavoidable, eg. in schools, best thing is to periodically stand up for a while before contining with more sitting...
•
No I work from home and could definitely get up, but when I get in the zone I literally forget, and getting up is often detrimental to my focus. Doesn't mean I can't do anything for it though.
> hypotheses as to why rates are rising in younger people, including processed foods, higher obesity rates, and certain infections Lack of moving/walking with long periods of sitting, being overweight, no fruits or vegetables and too much highly processed food/junk. It appears to be somewhat self inflicted, but it's hard to live a better life for most as the above is just the norm now.
•
Is this medical advice?
It's too early to jump to conclusions, it could be anything: A chemical used in bottles (for babies), traces of a chemical in infant formula, something in toothpaste, medicine, ect. Given the rise in colon cancer in middle-aged adults, I suspect the two (teenage and middle aged colon cancer) are related. The most ironic would be if it's caused by trace amounts of a fancy new pesticide used on a less-popular fruit or vegtable.
•
Maybe vaping
•
I really hope not.
Those are certainly factors, but it’s madness to think they’re the only ones. We live in an increasingly polluted world, we truly don’t know what the long-term impact of ubiquitous microplastic, PFAS, and so on has. I’m sure increasingly unhealthy and low fiber diets don’t help, but I’d be skeptical of that as a full “explanation”. Sometimes trends occur due to complex circumstances we can’t pin down exactly, and it’s wildly unhelpful to pretend that you have a solution to a problem that boils down to, “wwweellllll they did it to themselves I guess.”
•
Also PFAS has been found to have links to colorectal cancer: https://pmc.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/articles/PMC12661558/ https://research.uky.edu/news/markey-study-links-forever-chemical-pfos-colorectal-cancer PFAS in drinking water linked to multiple cancers (oral cavity/pharynx, lung, digestive system, brain, urinary system, soft tissue, and thyroid): https://www.nature.com/articles/s41370-024-00742-2
Crypto Capture of Foreign Aid (nber.org)
Edit: HN title used to be "Around 2-6% of World Bank foreign aid got siphoned into crypto wallets" Original post: While you're being rude and it would be worth cutting the first half of your comment, that's a good point that "2-6%" is still clearly an estimation.
•
Would it be worth it? Why? To placate Hackernews replyguys? Fuck off.
The corruption elsewhere is of different order. In US, one can bid up four times normal, one at least delivers the quality. Elsewhere, roads fail, buildings fall, bridges collapse, pipes burst upon the first use, ...
•
I developed a three-tier corruption test in US: 1. Perfect roads. Little visible construction despite high traffic: no corruption. 2. Awful roads. Almost no visible construction - medium corruption. 3. Continuous years-long construction. Roads always semi -closed, semi-permanent "work zone". When one construction ends, another immediately starts - extremely high corruption
The US manufactures more goods annually than Germany, Japan, and S. Korea combined.
•
Isn't its population also larger than all three combined? It seems like some per capita measurement might be more telling here.
ICC judge on what U.S. sanctions mean for her and global courts (npr.org)
•
Arguably, the US has ALWAYS been like this. The difference is that NOW, it is doing it to Western countries so people talk more about it.
And the ICC is not a prime example of influence of foreign nations on other's politics?
•
History will remember your actions, being against an international court is a sign you are the bad guy. Not even mentioning anything else that is magnitudes worse. Funding of nearly every major USA political can only get you so far.
I'm sure Israel would love to have the Swiss as their neighbors but it's Hamas they're dealing with. And it's not a "terrorist organization", in Gaza it is a government that commits terror. The ministry of education or health in Gaza are Hamas. The police are Hamas. The tax collectors are Hamas.
•
Israel should have the Swiss for their neighbors but they decided to ethnically cleanse and colonize Palestine instead of creating Israel in Europe where it belongs. Palestinians are fighting for their lives and their land, Israel is fighting to ethnically cleanse the indigenous people off the land they've been living on continuously for thousands of years.
That's fine, it's democracy in action. I don't know why particularly you'd be worried about ICC rulings since they apply to very grave crimes: genocide, crimes against humanity, war crimes, and the "crime of aggression" (using large scale military forces to invade other countries). Hope you've not been doing any of those!
•
You wonder why I wouldn’t want unelected bureaucrats deciding my fate? I guess you never lived in USSR. The question is hilariously naïve.
What's your point? Are you saying that if you kill my kids then I can kill you, then kill your kids, your wife, your parents, grandparents, their brothers and sisters and their kids? And that's ok and I'm better than you? meaning I'm good and you are evil? or what are you arguing?
•
This didn't happen in a vacuum. If you spent decades chanting "Death to Israel" and then raped, tortured, and murdered 1000+ Israeli teens and young adults, you should expect that Israel might believe the "Death to Israel" chant is serious and decide that the best option is death to you instead.
•
What are you talking about? Israel spent decades ethnically cleansing Palestinians and they're still doing it, at scale. They had already murdered orders of magnitude more Palestinians than Israelis killed by the IDF and Hamas combined on Oct 7th.
One month coding with GLM 5.3 Flash (wagtail.org)
•
> 450M tokens / $150 / 5kWh Makes me appreciate my ChatGPT subscription. I’ve had multiple days between 1B-2B tokens (now less so, models have indeed become token efficient) and regularly in the > 100M range. Even then, $150 sounds excessive. I wonder if their cache is getting nuked for some reason, or maybe they decide to use Cerebras that doesn’t subsidize cached tokens.
•
The high usage was due to omp in vibe mode overnight, probably working way too hard through things. The high cost, yes we’d rather pay extra to work with providers that provide other benefits than just lowest cost possible (open models, no training, EU DC, etc)
Was this post generated with LLM, did he properly mention anywhere why exactly did it fail with example or i have trouble reading.
•
Yeah, I clicked expecting a review of GLM 5.3 Flash, but the article was more a retrospective about what he learned during his September challenge: "Only use GLM 5.3 Flash for one month" He said his experiment was a failure because: 1. He accidentally spent 450M tokens vibe coding with the wrong model, instead of GLM 5.3 Flash. 2. When he used GLM 5.3 Flash, it was sometimes slow. So he switched to other models (Deepseek / Qwen) instead. His guess to why it was slow: GLM 5.3 Flash was so good that the providers were congested. 3. He still needed to use other models besides GLM 5.3 Flash, for R&D and benchmarking. His takeaways from doing the experiment were: 1. Measure local usage more. 2. Experiment with agent orchestration, with bounded goals. 3. Don't count other models that are used for R&D. 4. Play with Jev. 5. Include experiments with flagship models to compare with cheap open models. His conclusion about GLM 5.3 Flash: Probably viable for day to day work, but he'll have more thoughts next month.
•
Some vague commentary about performance with what appears to be assumptions about GPU availability, but no clarity about which inference provider is being used. If ZAI is assumed, I believe they aren't subject to the assumptions in the post based on what they've said publicly, but if they were using some other provider, perhaps. The second reason appeared to be simply "because we chose not to". The post seems to be pretty much content-less in any practical sense. I clicked on it because I do quite like this models average performance and I was hoping to see some kind of review content.
•
Might do more of that next time! Inference was with TensorX and Neuralwatt.
Your only talking about variable direct energy. Does it take into account the entire lifecycle, building the data centre, running the cooling, building the chips, the % the chips are not utilised.
•
> Does it take into account the entire lifecycle, building the data centre My entire point is that 99% of the dollar cost of running these models goes to things other than the GPU power. The capex cost to building cost to GPU cost to storage/networking/chasses/wiring plus the other operation costs dwarf the electricity. Even the other electricity costs, lets say double it for all the supporting compute, plus another 25% for a 1.25 PUE, and you're at 2.5% of all-in cost of running these models is from electricity. The non-electricity costs are massive and the constraints on fabs, etc. will drive the amount of the AI build far more than energy availability.
At some point the agents will be good enough that you can tell them "here's $100, go make me money" and they will, maybe not a lot and not all the time, but the EV given the cost of inference will be positive.
•
Those rewards seem like they would be captured by the providers and AI companies though who would use them first to make themselves money. You would be left with whatever they didn’t pursue with their first movers advantage.
•
Good enough at what, fraud? Robotic Ponzi schemes would be an easy way to generate "income".
•
More likely they bot will do research on how to make make money and do experiments given the resources available to it.
AI Makes Me Sad (mondobe.com)
•
> AI-generated art and music have become the defining aesthetic of fascism in the 2020s If Reddit could use AI to detect and nuke all of the AI-generated, gentially-shaped fruits and vegetables from the feed, that would be swell.
•
To make matters worse, ai is literally the first two letters of your name. I'm sorry Aiden.
•
Mac's liquor store must be making a killing (it's right outside GT's campus)
I wonder if the next addicting tech will be AI mania like you described. Rather than folks watching videos picked by the algorithm as a kind of addiction, folks will be "building" all day addicted to making things with AI. In the AI silo you're a super genius as it eggs you on to keep building
•
It wouldn't be the worst thing. Getting people to build stuff would be better than getting people to consume stuff.
How accurately calibrated is Jev? (maximumeffort.substack.com)
Wouldn't asking humans have this same kind of problem too? If you asked a set of humans to generate a random distribution of heads or tails from coin flips, it wouldn't be similar to a real world distribution of coin flips either because we also have our own biases. [1] [1] "Heads or tails?"--a reachability bias in binary choice" - https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/24773285/
•
I don't think so. The author is expecting Jev to output the equivalent of "H: 50%, T:50%", not the equivalent of "TTHTTHTHH..."
I’ve been contemplating this situation. I think that what the author wants out of a Jev-like model is not at all what I want out of it. > I decided to check this on questions where the answer is well understood. For example: > A classical particle of mass m is embedded in a system at thermodynamic equilibrium with temperature T. What is its velocity v? If I feed that into a model, the answer I want is: “the combination of the model and the provided state has nothing useful to add to your prior”. If I want to know the Maxwell-Boltzmann distribution, I can look it up or I can derive it or I can ask a fancy LLM to do it for me (at the cost of some reasoning tokens and some time - unless I’m using an ultraspeed inference system, I’m not getting this answer in 50ms). [0] Similarly, if I want to know that 73% of incoming customer support requests are spam/fraud, I should measure that - it’s a property of my system, it takes some manual classification and a database query, and it will be a different percentage than your customer support system would see. I neither expect nor want my classifier to know this (unless I’m using a conventional classifier manually trained on my data, and the whole point of Jev is to avoid this). What I want out of a system like Jev is to tell me how the probabilities change as a result of the per-sample data I provide. Which, is the case of this Boltzmann distribution question, is nothing: I provided no data and the classifier can infer nothing. [0] A really good answer would observe that the answer depends on the dimension of the system (probably 3, but 2D systems are a thing) and also on whether the particles are hot enough for relativistic effects to matter (probably not). And maybe a good answer would check whether the material is a gas - the answer for a solid is not the same, but I suppose that’s not classical . Oh, and one shouldn’t forget drift: if you have a classical particle in a moving fluid or a classical charged particle in an electric field, you will again get a different answer. Yes, I’m being pedantic. But if you want good answers you should be pedantic, and the Jev-like model is not where the pedantry should go.
•
The point of the theoretical problems is that they should be the easiest cases to handle. How can you trust the probabilities from real world classifiers if it can't even handle well defined problems.
IMO by asking Jev underspecified questions like this, you're essentially using it as a random number generator (similar to the dice example). On actual NLP problems (including ones with uncertainty under human review) it does appear to be well calibrated: https://leonardgrazian.com/blog/jev-calibration/
•
Jev should ideally respond in a non-random way, it should just list out the probabilities. I suppose trying to interface with the model like this is like asking an LLM how many times the letter E appears in a word - just not the correct way to ask that given its model
With most information hidden, the game Stratego had stumped AI until now (arstechnica.com)
•
While interesting from a technology stand point I get disheartened each time I see this sort of news. I am particularly disappointed that it has influenced how people play the game. The joy comes from the journey and the experience. Look at competitive chess and Go and how they have fundamentally been transformed. It's not better and now the box is opened, it can't be closed.
•
> Look at competitive chess and Go and how they have fundamentally been transformed. Go is better since AlphaGo. Tools are better, it's easier to learn from your games, we're better at it. The AI makes sick fucking moves and we get to see. Chess I doubt is worse off either, but I don't know chess that well.
•
Man I loved Hasbro’s 1998 Windows Stratego https://archive.org/details/STRATEGO
I loved Stratego so much as a kid. But, I eventually couldn't find anyone to play with me because I crushed everyone, including my dad who was much better than me at chess. But, I never would have thought it'd be a game that models would have a hard time with. It feels relatively simple. And, inexplicably, I never even thought that there might be serious players...I've kept the board game, one of the very few things I have from young childhood, but it's been twenty years since I played. I guess it's time to find an online Stratego. Surely someone in the whole world can beat me. Too bad I never played against an AI before they cracked it.
•
I, too, remember figuring out a strategy when I was around 11, and never lost a game after that. It's been a loooong time, and I don't recall all the details. But it revolved around doing probing attacks to determine where the ranks were in the enemy formation, and then having "channels" in my side to move up a soldier that outranked by 1 a targeted attack. Color me surprised that it would be difficult to write a program to play it.
You can definitely try to regularize against ruleset changes by generating a bunch of cards and making the agent play in randomized subsets of those cards. I didn't look for prior work on this, but my estimate is that it's probably within 2-3 orders of magnitude of additional training compared to a static game. (Still a lot!)
•
But wouldn't (couldn't) the model then hallucinate play patterns and get itself into problems when playing against a real opponent?
There's only so many card interactions that strong players actually think about. Ex: you don't really care if the opponent plays Giant Growth or Chastise. The effect is that the opponent is playing a combat trick, and combat has moved from attackers favor into defenders favor. To defeat an instant speed combat trick requires a combat trick of your own, or a generic counter spell of some kind. Some have interactions (ex: Doom Blade beats Giant Growth but not Chastise), but the overall gist is that opponents can do things after combat is declared. You only need to keep track of how many combat tricks you think the opponent has. --------- Other situations are card advantage (ex: 2 for 1. If the opponent spends 1 cards to defeat only 2 cards of yours). The traditional card for this is Mindrot, but well placed counterspell can turn a combat trick into. 2-for-1 reversal. You don't necessarily keep track of how your opponent makes 2-for-1 opportunities. You just have vague gists of them. --------- Good spells have huge applicability. Doom blade or Murder is high because killing opponent creatures at instant speed handles the vast majority of creature buffed combat tricks, and also serves as a way to stop enemy combos and other such tricks. In contrast, chastise is very niche. If the opponent were playing like Swords to Plowshares (powerful white instant speed removal), it's pretty much always better than chastise. If the opponent plays chastise instead, you take that as a win because you know they could have had a deck of better cards. But for whatever reason decided to play with weaker cards...
•
I agree in a way, but at the same time, and I think it's a bit more applicable to MtG due to the limit of cards you can have as possible plays at any given time (outside of combos), and I believe too that you can train a bot to be good, better than average - I doubt arena doesn't have bots - but I still think that without unbound compute/time it's a game where human players have much better odds to outsmart an AI if they're good players. MtG has for the past 10 or more years been re-hashing the same play patterns, while introducing some new mechanics on most cycles, but pretty much you have staples throughout most editions that are just variations on that - card advantage, denial, combat tricks, removal, curve and then the rarity enabled bombs/combos But even then (not saying I'm right) I think the depth of choices, effects and so on, on a format like modern, or legacy, would be very difficult for an AI to top against pros. If you add draft into the mix it gets worse for the AI in my view too. Because a good play in most situations can easily be a bad play under others. That doesn't happen in chess for instance, given enough decision depth to the algos to see the future game. In my own game I think those situations can occur much easier due to you always having your full deck available. Also, in MtG it's easy to get into table states that are either ahead/behind and then you kinda just have to protect your position (like with denial decks). Then you have the effects that you might remove a creature threat (graveyard) but then that enabling a combo you weren't expecting that needs a creature on the grave, or enabling delve cards or whatever have you. It's much less clear cut for a probabilistic model to make the optimal play at every single interaction. So the more you train the model on all the variations and possible follow ups, the more you dilute its certainty isn't it? In chess, or this game, or RTS such as starcraft, that doesn't really happen in my view.
 Top