Maxatar

This is entirely untrue. Almost anywhere you live in the U.S. you can find local brands with local production.

Not that you've explicitly claimed it's authentic, but the very idea of a pirate hunting tour is a hoax that resurfaces across the Internet every so often in different forms:

https://www.snopes.com/fact-check/somali-pirate-luxury-cruis...

This is like saying, "I'm not addicted to smoking, I'm addicted to the happiness cigarettes give me." Addiction is a harmful dependency you pursue to achieve some desired outcome. The harmful dependency is the endless browsing, scrolling, and searching you engage in to obtain it, all the time wasted doing it and doing it in a way that consumes a significant amount of time that could be spent acquiring that same information in a more productive manner.

That's the addiction, not the information.

How did you search? I really wonder if I just have a vastly different Google algorithm than others because whenever a post similar to this pops up I have no problem finding the info using the most obvious and basic of Google searches, while other people seemingly struggle to find authoritative information. At any rate, the info comes from S&P themselves:

https://press.spglobal.com/2026-09-04-Bloom-Energy,-Illumina...

>Sept 21, 2026 S&P 100 Deletion NIKE NKE Consumer Discretionary

Not the sports betting sites though, also poker seems to be indifferent in terms of marketing even though it's dominated by men.

Users who are unhappy with some idiosyncrasies of a product tend to be significantly more vocal than users who are fine with it, and for any feature whatsoever there are going to be an unhappy group of people who vocally complain about it.

It's why time and time again you see people complaining on Internet forums about issues, and if you're part of a specific Internet bubble you might think that this complaining represents a general trend among the broader population and wonder how it is that no one is doing anything about this issue that you and the rest of your bubble are constantly complaining about... and the answer is mostly because the vast majority of people, who don't live in the same bubble you do, are mostly fine with how things work, but you're not going to hear them express it.

I do have a way of knowing, but I actually appreciate and respect your reply... My suggestion to you is to take this shred of skepticism that you decided to apply to me, and apply to every comment you read on Hacker News, not simply the ones that don't align with your preconceived notions.

Simply untrue. You think everyone is complaining about this because the ones complaining are the only people commenting. The vast majority of people using Claude don't really care or even notice this one way or another. Sure among those who are irritated by it, it's good to have some ways to mitigate it, but I highly doubt Anthropic is going to devote much resources to an issue that affects a vocal minority.

Compacting mostly gets rid of reasoning tokens, and honestly it would be nice of reasoning tokens did not constantly follow every follow up query. Asking even a simple/trivial question can have Claude use thousands of tokens. Compacting is good for getting rid of those.

>There is no “oops, I wrote ‘th’ but I should have written ‘tw’ so I guess I’m stuck writing three instead of tween”.

You're mixing up two claims here, and only one of these is kind of true. Yes LLMs do internally plan ahead in a way that is emergent rather than strictly part of their architecture, so that part of your claim is true. The way you word it by saying they are "coalescing the probabilities of a range of tokens at a time" is poetic sounding jibberish though. What's actually happening is one distribution output for the next token computed from a hidden state that implicitly encodes where the text headed.

Your claim that if an LLM does happen to pick a token "th" instead of "tw", then the LLM isn't stuck with that decision is entirely false for autoregressive LLMs which is what all of the frontier models are. Whatever an LLM picks as its output token is final, it has no ability to undo that token selection and it must continue on the basis of that choice. It can't go back on that decision and revise the output.

If you're interested in this, Anthropic has a summary of a very technical paper on this topic that mostly deals with this issue with respect to poetry:

https://www.anthropic.com/research/natural-language-autoenco...

There is no infinite regression involved in any of Godel's theorems.

The reason the world didn't end is because people refused to upgrade Visual Studio, in particular Microsoft's bigger customers. Microsoft surveyed their users for why people weren't making the switch to VS 2013 despite all the "nice" and "new" features introduced and the predominant reason was due to all the ABI breakages.

For VS 2015 they adopted a policy of having a stable ABI and have preserved ABI compatibility for over 10 years now [1].

[1] https://devblogs.microsoft.com/cppblog/binary-compatibility-...

Knowing a definition is not the same as understanding. I know this first hand from interviewing people who at the beginning of the interview can confidently tell me the definition of certain principles in statistics that I ask them about, and then later on in the very same interview when I present to them a real world scenario to analyze, they are completely oblivious that the very concept they explained to me so articulately when we started the interview is the very same concept needed to solve the real world scenario being presented to them.

In general Wikipedia isn't a great way to learn new concepts; it's a good reference when you're already familiar with something and need to brush up on it.

What is the relationship between your claim, and the claim I replied to about GSL having special treatment? In other words, why did you reply to me with an interpretation about a post that claimed GSL is afforded special treatment by MSVC if your claim is that GSL does not get any special treatment from MSVC?

Did you intend to reply to someone else?

Here is the original statement about special treatment:

"It was originally created by Microsoft and as Herb mentions "all our target platforms", so most likely it gets special treatment."

My claim is that Microsoft is not giving any special treatment to the GSL... the GSL is written using functionality that is officially available to any third party library, and hence not special.

Are you disputing this? If so then what is the special treatment you're claiming that Microsoft is giving to GSL or what special treatment is GSL making use of?

How does a library writer testing that their library works with a specific version of a compiler that was already released have anything to do with a compiler implementation providing special treatment for that library?

Your interpretation contradicts the statement that "during development for a new release, MSVC were to land some changes that broke GSL, Microsoft's testing would catch that and ensure that the changes were reverted or fixed to support the latter, prior to shipping."

>A program with undefined behavior is by definition an incorrect program.

This is simply false and an oft repeated myth. Undefined behavior has a specific technical definition that is in the C++ standard [1] and there is absolutely no mention in that definition or the implication of that definition that undefined behavior necessarily results in an invalid or incorrect program.

The definition of undefined behavior, right from the standard itself is... and I quote... get ready for it...

"behavior for which this document imposes no requirements"

That's it, nothing more, nothing less.

The standard even goes out of its way to state the following:

"Permissible undefined behavior ranges from ignoring the situation completely with unpredictable results, *to behaving during translation or program execution in a documented manner* characteristic of the environment".

Behaving in a documented manner characteristic of an environment is a far cry from being by incorrect by definition.

[1] https://www.open-std.org/jtc1/sc22/wg21/docs/papers/2024/n49...

I have no idea where you possibly got this idea from since the Github Issues tracker for GSL has numerous instances of new releases of MSVC breaking GSL compilation.

There is absolutely no special treatment afforded to the GSL by any of the target platforms. While we can't inspect MSVC's source code, both clang and GCC do not have any support or affordance for the GSL whatsoever and it would be very unusual to expect MSVC's source code to have some kind of affordance for this library.

Yes, this is all true but Sutter's comment is that the specific platforms that this specific implementation of the GSL targets results in the correct output. The platforms officially supported are:

GCC 12, 13, 14

XCode 14.3.1, 15.4

Clang 16, 17, 18

Visual Studio with MSVC VS2019, VS2022

Visual Studio with LLVM VS2019, VS2022

Yes that's true, many classical civilizations saw work as a role for slaves. The ideal for classical elites wasn't to work, it was to have enough slaves that you didn't have to work yourself.

Aristotle in particular writes about this in his defense for the institution of slavery.

Yeah it's a nice and pleasant story, assuming you've never actually met or seen the working or living conditions that most of the fisherman in your story actually live in and the terrible toll it takes on their body.

Those fisherman in your story die at a conservative rate of about 30,000 per year [1], and that's just from drowning. There are villages in the very Mexico your joke makes fun of with large populations of paralyzed thirty year olds due to spine injuries or untreatable permanent muscle pain, rates of skin cancer three times higher than indoor workers and eyes wrecked from clouded corneas and cataracts due to years of glare coming off the water.

And that's the physical toll on fishermen, there's also the economic burden of the fact that the guys actually doing the fishing don't own their boats are in an almost perpetual debt to middleman, which is why fisher "men" often also have to include their wives and kids in the occupation to help out... and of course since there's no insurance, if one of them dies the household's income goes to zero that same afternoon.

But yeah man... nice joke... I'm sure it really instilled a great sense of moral character in you.

[1] https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/abs/pii/S03085...

I adopted it by growing up poor to immigrant parents who had to work day and night to provide for me the best life they could.

Having goals other than financial well being is a luxury. That doesn't mean it's not attainable or shouldn't be pursued, it just means that as a practical matter one should first get their finances in order, have some means of providing for themselves and their loved ones, and then once that's taken care of they can begin to pursue other meaningful endeavors.

This is an absurd statement. Lets use bank accounts instead of CO2 to point out the absurdity.

Imagine every year a company makes $730,000 in revenue but spends $730,000 on various expenses. Its bank balance doesnt change because the income and expenses cancel out.

Now suppose the company starts receiving an additional $30,000 every year while its expenses stay the same. At the end of each year, its bank balance increases by $30,000.

By your logic, someone could argue: "That extra $30,000 can't be responsible for the growing bank balance because it's less than 5% of the company's total annual cash flow of $760,000."

That's obviously nonsense. The bank balance grows *entirely because of the net imbalance*, not because the extra income is a large fraction of the gross cash flowing through the account.

The carbon cycle works the same way. Natural emissions and natural uptake are both enormous and are approximately in balance. That 730 gigatons of CO2 released by natural sources has a corresponding 730 gigatons of CO2 capture from natural sinks. Its human emissions of CO2 that are the extra deposit that creates an ongoing imbalance, and that's why atmospheric CO2 continues to rise.

Also photosynthesis is not a source of CO2, on the contrary it's one of, if not the biggest carbon sink, reclaiming a significant portion of that 730 gigatons of CO2 released by volcanos and other sources.

You might be reading the prompt far too literally then. LLMs interpret words not based on literal and rigorous definitions but based on how those words are actually used in reality based on a large corpus of text.

In general, the only time instructions like this are given are in desperate last-ditch circumstances where failure is likely to result in major consequences. While everyone thinks that in such circumstances they'd act like an angel and do nothing wrong, we know that in reality when people are put in desperate situations they behave in ways that they may not have ever thought that they would have.

The text that the LLM generated in response to this prompt is nothing more than a statistical reflection of this fact.

There's a distinction between claiming something is objectively better, which is what Fil-C claims with respect to its "idea" about memory safety compared to Rust... and claiming a personal preference for one approach versus another approach, which is what OP is saying about their own personal preference about how Zig reduces errors compared to how Rust reduces errors.

It is absolutely possible that one language might actually have an objectively better approach to memory safety than another, and in such cases it is usually possible to argue for this using sound technical or empirical arguments. But the way the author of Fil-C presents their arguments it often comes across in a kind of antagonistic manner, like he has a chip on his shoulder.

So put in the enormous effort needed to change the Constitution all towards a goal of some superficial and ineffective measure instead of taking a fraction of that effort and putting it towards actual concrete things that might improve society like better health care, better education, infrastructure.

Got it.

There are only 900 billionaires in the U.S. Do you think if they lost their voting rights it would affect the outcome of even a single election whatsoever?

The article addresses this.

So data structures like std::vector should never be copied - period?