arcfour

Stadia worked great for me on a typical 100Mbps cable connection in the US. Online multiplayer was okay with latency, not wonderful but not bad either.

Was it not essentially confirmed that all of the frontier labs have much stronger models internally that don't make sense to serve at scale yet, which they use for development and to train models that are able to be served at scale?

I prefer to spend my time thinking about other things - not the opinions of others that I cannot change and which ultimately do not affect me.

I figured it would make sense to avoid commenting on rebellions, riots, terrorist attacks and similar things generally, but it answered "What happened during Shays rebellion?" and "What happened on 9/11?" So I guess that can't be it.

But I will say that it makes sense to avoid commenting on anything that could be interpreted as politically divisive (which Shays and 9/11 are not, really) regardless of factuality. It certainly doesn't seem to serve the intended purpose, since it's suggesting I ask it how to do things and not to ask it about history.

It did refuse to comment on whether or not the Vietnam war was viewed favorably by the public though. So I don't think it's the case that there is some specific exception coded in for Jan 6th.

It's basically just a MIME boundary but in a pseudo-XML format which the model understands more readily. Seems pretty reasonable to me, even though it may not be an ideal solution in every regard.

Huh? I like my functional OS? How am I going to submit PRs to fix Windows?

Are you alright?

As infuriating as AI generated prose can be to read, I agree; I do enjoy these sorts of "realizations" in reasoning traces and stuff.

I see, well I'm not particularly concerned with being right on this topic (call it a difference of opinion or matter of taste), so I wish you a pleasant day.

You're aware that Canada is not a state of the US, right?

(This should be a sign that you need to turn off the TV and delete Facebook).

Yes, I prefer to use functional operating systems, or at least ones I can fix myself, without incurring a "huge performance hit" by wrapping them in spyware disguised as an OS ;-)

What's your point? Nobody can hold themselves to a higher standard because they didn't in the past?

Okay, so we agree that this fix isn't quite as simple as it sounds then, yes? We've just had 3+ paragraphs of discussion around potential edge cases and additional considerations beyond "read one of two files."

Which order do you prefer them in? Since CLAUDE.md is no longer necessary, but was for so long, what happens when users only update AGENTS.md going forward while keeping a stale, unchanged CLAUDE.md around?

We're talking about changing default behaviors here in ways that can be surprising to users. It's reasonable to try and accommodate existing setups, future setups, and - yes - careless users.

Is accusing someone of "shilling for Anthropic" for suggesting that a bug fix might not be so simple really the level of discourse HN has devolved to now? Is it the kind of HN you want?

Some people might have a different CLAUDE.md and AGENTS.md because they use Claude to do one thing and $other_agent to do another thing. Or because Claude does XYZ by default, and other agents do ABC, and they want to give the correct guidance to both.

This is, to me, a completely reasonable and believable use case that could break if you implement this fix without "overengineering" it.

A setting to disable what? Be specific. See? Not so simple...

Ah, right. Windows...

Does that apply to WSL? I would assume everyone develops on WSL these days if they have to use Windows, at least...

I've applied before ;) but I assume it's quite a competitive position.

? You need root to run ln? Since when?

This line of thinking is something you will quickly be disabused of once you try supporting software that hundreds of millions of people use.

And I say this as someone that loves the Unix philosophy dearly.

As a security engineer I have no idea why these sandboxes would even be connected to the internet at all for tasks that aren't intended to use the internet. A package proxy? Why not run our own internal cache? Then we aren't at (as great a) risk of someone poisoning it with a malicious package during model training, for example...

Can we try to play nice now and recognize that other people have diverging, but valid, interests from your own? For example, securing things?

I'll have to remember this one the next time I hear the phone/poverty argument made in bad faith.

...Because law enforcement does not have the interest, reach, or time to investigate every single cybercrime, and if they do it won't be timely - it will be after the fact, punishing the criminals, and not preventing harm.

Google is in a unique situation to protect their users, and they also want to avoid serving search results that are malicious (yes, I know about their ads problem) - so they are proactive about scanning for sites that are malicious so they can avoid sending users to them.

> some of the bots won't respect robots.txt

The link you posted literally only lists the scanner related to security/safe browsing. Why would it? What kind of bot would that be if an attacker could just put up a robots.txt that causes it to ignore the site?! And many do...for obvious reasons.

It's misleading because this implies you're getting heavy scraper traffic from Google bots that don't respect robots.txt for reasons of greed rather than because it's necessary so they can proactively avoid surfacing malicious websites.

I feel like we have advanced technology to the point that we can't be that far off from the truth, or at least we would look more charitably back on our views now since they're grounded in observations made with the best tools we have available to us as opposed to e.g. the flat earth where you can actually see and experience the curvature of the earth without needing any specialized tooling at all.

It's just a typical enterprise PC configuration. Probably because nobody writes efficient software these days.

So the governments that install them aren't somehow complicit?

Two things can be true at once.

We don't have it in the US, I remember being annoyed that there were no more cheap cellular modules for microcontrollers for a while.

Was anything I said disrespectful? It is not intended to be, but it may read as somewhat stern; that's more because speculating without having the fundamentals down is not what I expect from HN. The knowledge in question isn't arcane or a secret.

Does any combustion engine, like the one in your car, have instant throttle response? When you hit the kickdown switch in your car there is still a delay before you start really accelerating. Now imagine a much bigger engine - it's not very difficult to guess one of those would take even longer without being familiar with the inner workings of turbine engines.