Maxatar

The fact that it will never exist.

This is a really bizare argument for anyone who actually knows about options and trades them. If your thesis is that RAM is in a massive bubble and Micron is going to crash when it bursts, you don't express that thesis by buying a put struck around Micron's current bubble price. The fact that you chose a $1000 strike as your example is weird because that's basically the most expensive way to make the argument you're supposedly making.

"IV crush" is an especially strange objection in this context. IV crush matters when you buy options at elevated implied volatility and that volatility collapses. If Micron suddenly drops hundreds of dollars because the alleged bubble is bursting then the implied volatility would sharply rise, which makes your put more valuable, not less. Invoking "IV crush" here mostly makes it sound like you've heard the terminology without thinking through how it actually applies to the scenario you're describing.

If you genuinely think Micron is going to collapse sometime over the next two or three years because this entire RAM shortage is an overhyped bubble, then the obvious trade is to buy puts around where you think the stock should return to once that bubble disappears. Micron wasn't remotely a $1000 stock before this run. We can be generous and use a $300 strike since even though that's still 100% higher than Micron's price prior to this run-up, it gets the point across.

A long dated $300 put is currently around $7 per share, so one contract costs roughly $700. If Micron eventually falls to $200, that contract is worth $10000 at expiry. At $100, it's worth $20000. If the crash happens well before expiry, it can be worth even more than its intrinsic value because there's still time value left.

If you're claiming to be certain that a gigantic bubble is going to burst and wipe hundreds of dollars off the stock price, there are long dated far out of the money puts specifically capable of expressing that position. Pointing at an expensive $1000 strike put and saying "look, options are complicated" is just a weird or rather superficial misunderstanding of some financial concepts.

How does buying long term put options require perfect timing? The whole point of a long term put option is that you only have to be right at some point between when you buy it and when it expires.

You can try to request a refund for free software but the terms of the compiler explicitly state that undefined behavior is permitted to "time travel" and that there's nothing faulty about it. That's C++ for you ;P

Since 2025 in the U.S. computer hardware qualifies for 100% depreciation in its first year of service.

C++ implementations don't make any sort of special or unique accommodations for UNIX/POSIX APIs. For the most part calls into external libraries are firewalled and not optimized in a way that typically engenders undefined behavior, so POSIX APIs tend to work. But any external library would also work since it's not like POSIX is exclusively shielded or singled out in any particular way.

UNIX APIs are not implementations.

I worked briefly in heath care and the code is so brittle and so poorly understood that almost everyone is afraid to touch anything and instead it's just layers and layers of stuff trying to patch around existing code.

When coding agents first came out, the overwhelming narrative was how bad they were, they don't know what they're doing, the code they write just sucks and they hallucinate APIs.

While these criticisms were technically true, they were stated mostly out of a sense of insecurity from people whose jobs were basically spending years and years just glueing code together and mixing APIs to display some CRUD apps rather than out of a genuine concern for whether LLMs were actually producing poor products.

Nowadays those concrete criticisms don't really work anymore, LLMs are pretty good now and surpass most developers when it comes to writing the majority of shovelware that people have been employed, and so the narrative is changing from concrete criticisms about how LLMs were genuinely not capable of writing software... to these kinds of abstract and philosophical arguments that are really hard to argue against because they make no concrete claims.

If you say an LLM can't implement a feature, we'll we can test that claim concretely and LLMs are getting much better with every new release. If you say its code is slower, buggier, or less maintainable, those claims too can be measured and once again they're getting really good at these. If you say it takes longer to complete a task or requires more human intervention, we can compare it and measure etc...

But now the objection has shifted not to LLMs are incapable, but people are now incapable and LLMs represent a degradation of the "craft". And here there is nothing left to test or falsify. The argument has stopped being about whether the LLMs work, because that's verifiable and they are now at a point where it's hard to argue against their ability to actually produce functioning software, so now the argument is about whether people are morally, culturally, or intellectually permitted to use it.

You are mixing some things up. Yes the `sizeof(char)` is defined to always be 1 by the standard... but the size of char is not 1, it's defined by CHAR_BIT which can in principle vary from platform to platform.

>At least historically, we haven’t really been able to tell what will be transformative in terms of real world applications ahead of time.

This is mostly false. There are certainly some famous cases where math pursued for theoretical reasons later resulted in major practical applications but historically a great deal of math was developed either in response or alongside practical problems with anticipated real world applications, with war, industry and commerce being the major drivers.

We can play with words all day, but in the sense of a particle entering into the event horizon of a black hole and then at some point in the future exiting from inside of the event horizon, that simply never happens and Hawking radiation does not propose that.

Not sure I follow your comment exactly, perhaps I am misunderstanding it but Hawking radiation doesn't involve anything escaping a black hole.

The radiation never originates from within the event horizon. Furthermore the radiation itself does not encode any information about what fell into the black hole apart from the electric charge, angular momentum, and mass (all of which must remain conserved).

People who actually did the original work care because this guy appears to be strip mining their content, running it through LLMs, and repackaging the result as if it were his own expertise. He also leans on inflated credentials to sell the illusion that he independently understands or developed the material. He's laundering other people's work through AI and personal branding, then taking the credit, so yeah that can piss people off and if you don't care then by all means continue supporting this hack.

Some documented examples along with confirmation from the vendors themselves:

https://www.tomshardware.com/features/crucial-p2-ssd-qlc-fla...

https://www.tomshardware.com/news/wd-blue-sn550-ssd-performa...

https://www.tomshardware.com/news/adata-switches-nand-on-sx8...

It's not that physics feels no responsibility to explain why, it's that all other fields of science answer the why by punting to some lower level of science that is taken as an assumption until you get down to physics which has nothing lower level to punt to.

Psychology explains why you feel tired by pointing to biology. Biology explains why cells need ATP by pointing to chemistry. Chemistry explains why ATP releases energy by pointing to physics. Physics explains that by pointing to some higher level form of physics like thermodynamics, which points to statistical mechanics, which point to quantum laws. When you get down to a certain level you simply have nothing left to punt to. You simply accept it because it's what's observed and makes reproducible predictions or you don't and go study philosophy or religion or something.

> += deferred concatenation requires lazy strings and that didn't come until 10-15 years later.

CPython's += does not perform deferred concatenation and CPython does not use lazy strings. The optimization uses an eager in-place realloc if the string's ref-count is 1. This remains the optimization used even to this day and was introduced in 2005:

https://docs.python.org/3/whatsnew/2.4.html#optimizations

>However, concatenating string lists with sum() was a common Python idiom at the time

It could not possibly have been a common Python idiom since sum() explicitly rejected strings by throwing a TypeError. This was explicitly special cased to avoid the degenerate performance and the TypeError even has an error message saying "TypeError: sum() can't sum strings [use ''.join(seq) instead]".

>Gvr's reduce dislike was more about its syntax. It doesn't mesh well with Python's lambda syntax.

No it had nothing to do with mixing with lambda syntax, on the contrary GvR actually wanted to remove reduce and lambda (and map and filter as well). Here is the actual article by GvR regarding removing reduce, absolutely nothing in it involves how it mixes with lambda expressions.

https://www.artima.com/weblogs/viewpost.jsp?thread=98196

>So now reduce(). This is actually the one I've always hated most, because, apart from a few examples involving + or *, almost every time I see a reduce() call with a non-trivial function argument, I need to grab pen and paper to diagram what's actually being fed into that function before I understand what the reduce() is supposed to do. So in my mind, the applicability of reduce() is pretty much limited to associative operators, and in all other cases it's better to write out the accumulation loop explicitly.

Python has optimized string appending in the form of:

s = s + "foo"

and

s += "foo"

Since 2005 with the release of Python 2.4:

https://docs.python.org/3/whatsnew/2.4.html#optimizations

The study addresses it. You don't walk into an ER and say "Doctor I have a gambling addiction.", rather you typically present as having a suicide attempt, intoxication or drug overdose, psychosis, or panic attack. During the assessment the treating team identifies the main contributing reason for one of the above listed conditions and there are two specific codes available if gambling is one of the primary contributors.

Yes, gambling prevalence is direct related to suicide.

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...