dcss_gardener

Not in the same way I don't think.

My understanding is that the US's longstanding evaluation is that their strategic goals in the region can't be accomplished by brawling with Iran over the strait, and their best move is to avoid it. The actions of every previous administration align with this view.

Where Iran's strategic position can be improved by drawing the US into an open conflict. Disrupting global petroleum markets, forcing the US to spend disproportionate resources defending its regional allies or withdraw and admit it can't, weakening the US's influence as a diplomatic power, all are achievable (or, frankly, achieved) with this conflict.

The US has no comparable strategic wins to even aim for here. At this point their only reasonable goal is restoring open trade through the strait, the status quo before the conflict. Fighting a war to successfully reclaim the status quo that was disrupted by entering the war is, strategically, losing a war.

The real number we want evaluate is "what percent of the revenue comes from people experiencing significant negative consequences from the product."

For alcohol that number is something like 2/3 revenue from the top 10% of drinkers, who drink an order of magnitude more than the decile below them. I doubt gambling is very different but if you have more info I'm happy to hear it.

It's a real problem but your framing of it is itself very alarming.

Most humans aren't useless by any measure of most or usefulness. Our culture is our tools, dying due to a lack of antibiotics doesn't mean you didn't have anything to contribute, it means you didn't have access to the tool you needed. This is the problem we need to guard against.

No one is going to lose the ability to reason! This is accepting the most extreme version of the marketing presented by frontier labs, don't do it. People may lose fluency or familiarity or access to training on specific skills. We should put some care into making sure that can't be a catastrophe, for sure.

Sure but I still don’t see any reason to think it’s not based on an open weight model. They don’t even make that claim as far as I know.

I mean just from what's known of the funding and timeline it pretty much has to be based on open weights.

But it is likely more than just a fine tune + novel training. At the very least the LM head is swapped out for a classifier one and then or also idk, bidirectional attention for the encoding pass I'm out of my depth at this point and will stop guessing. The training is probably where they have the biggest moat though, not that it's necessarily huge.

I have a project that fits jev as advertised almost comically well and I've been playing with it, and the various hacks and open versions. Jev doesn't necessarily perform better overall but it is quite different. It's sensitive to prompt phrasing in ways the others aren't, it's easy to generate questions where all the other models cluster in confidence but jev is an outlier. Not necessarily more correct, but it does feel like it's getting its answers in a different way.

I'm guessing just as much as anyone else but I've been spending a ton of time on this the last couple weeks, it landed right when I was most ready to dig into it.

It's the best free vps on the market right now. Comes with a coding harness and a few hundred million tokens on a decent model. Can't last long but it's fun.

You can write a config that points your claude code at any anthropic-compatible endpoint, and replace opus and sonnet with whatever you want. Things like deepseek and glm in there do not feel at all like they do in more minimal harnesses, but neither do they convincingly act like claude models. It's very stark and frankly they run like shit this way. Try it.

A lot of the problem here is that the overall typography on this site is not particularly great. Better leading and tracking, narrower columns, bigger font would go a long way.

If you do everything else right you can skip sentence cap without sacrificing readability. Not that you necessarily should but it's a vibe if you want it, it suits some voices & documents well.

Most people do not wear tungsten wedding rings. A wedding band can be resized and it's typical to have it resized several times during a long marriage. This is a legitimate downside of smart rings that is only shared with one niche-but-overrepresented-here option.

Unfortunately my naive heuristic of "if there is a comment it is written by AI" is nearly as accurate.