nrmitchi

It really doesn't matter. They're doing secondary offerings for employees and individual holders, and they'll have no issue allowing private transactions for larger holders.

The general wealth distribution has shifted to the point that they do not need access to public funds, and frankly, if they can't find private funds for their needs, it is a huge red flag that they would just be dumping on the public.

> Sol xhigh is 90% on TB2.1 but 37% on TB4. Is it also "benchmaxxed"?

Yes.

You seem to have ignored the second half of my response. In your case... you did it. This project, based on the current date, no data older than today, and the posters own statements, is "I asked gen-ai platform to make it for me, then pointed a domain at gen-ai-company hosting, and called it a thing I made."

As of the current moment, the domain is just pointing to an IP owned by "Abacus.AI, Inc.". The entire platform is "describe the app you want and we'll generate it and host it for you".

Might just be my opinion, but I consider a Show HN that is "look at the thing AI entirely made for me" to not really be aligned with good faith sharing of work/projects.

That's not what this is though. This is not (just) scraping job postings; the public-facing interface of this is "Greg, who I don't know, wants a job. Here are the jobs that I think would be good for Greg, who again, I don't know".

My claim of "bad faith" was specifically because the post, between 1) explicitly pointing to a "full stack ai dev platform" ("So I had abacus.ai whip one up"), and 2) the entire missing list of "observations" (mid post), came off more as a shadow advertisement for an ai dev tool than an actual project.

> If you've submitted a post to this month's 'Who Wants to Be Hired?", you can find your matching job listings at https://hnmatchmaker.com/user/:user_name, for example https://hnmatchmaker.com/user/G4Vi

I'm sure you mean well but as someone who has considered posting on who wants to be hired in the past.... this is creepy AF and feels like a giant invasion of privacy. If you did it privately, or authenticated people in some way, sure, but as is it feels like you're putting people on blast.

Also this sounds way more like an advertisement for "abacus.ai" than a side project announcement.

Your post also starts a list of "things" ("Some observations when looking at the matches pair up right now:") with no list.

Actually, nothing about this really feels good faith, or real.

From my experience, any time Fable sees anything loosely related to "linux" it throws a fit.

I don't mean to sound like I'm dismissing your experience, but are you sure? I've (semi regularly, most of the time I'm even trying to use Fable) started with Fable, proceeded through my planning, and then at some point in the future realized it had kicked me back to Opus without me knowing. It obviously _said_ it had happened, but I didn't realize and just continued. This might primarily be a result of the project I'm working on (anything network related seems to gets kicked back).

I'd guesstimate that ~80% of the time I thought I was using Fable, I wasn't actually. It's also led me to just... not even try, and just start with Opus regardless.

I've found Fable unusable; not because it's bad, but because it... can't be used.

...

> They are things that I would not be comfortable sending a cloud provider

It's also an old machine that the commenter already has; it's intellectually dishonest to compare it to the price of a brand new, 4-iteration-newer machine.

My concern about this isn't about the money. Frankly, no amount would actually satisfy everyone, and even an even-more-comically-large number won't materially impact Facebook (sorry, Meta).

My concerns are:

1. This is an agreed settlement w/ only Meta. This no impact on YouTube, TikTok, etc, and regulators can't point at this and say "Well Meta did it, you have to to!". This isn't a law, it's a handshake[0].

2. Will (or can) this be applicable to adults. If the implementation exists, adults should be able to opt in to it as well. Adults are also subject to addiction and social harms.

3. These restrictions feel like they're about 20 seconds away from being sidestepped by the first teenager that discovers they can make multiple instagram accounts and/or use multiple devices.

[0] This sentence sounds like Claude but I promise I wrote this myself.

No, but I sure as shit think it should be an opt-in feature that adults are aware of and can make a decision to turn on for themselves.

You are claiming (or pretending) that spend (ie, marketing spend) isn't one of, if not _the_, biggest factors in which of a set of options ends up being the winner?

In this case you don't get to try the options first. You made a decision based on what you've seen and heard.

And you think the advertising budget isn't the key thing?

Many industries, and SpaceX particularly, will say this like this, then a couple years later be like "oh, it's actually much easier if we destroy it", _do it_, then claim "oh well, nothing to be done now!" and push forward on something else.

"Promises" or "commitments" like this need to be evaluated based on the previous behavior of the people "making" them (although they were very careful with working to not use either of those words, and just imply them)

> voters cause election consensus, not spending

This is potentially one of the most out of touch comments I've seen here in a while, and that's saying something.

*financial engineering

I doubt the point is to "make the money back".

It's likely split between two goals:

1. Marketing and expressing to their customers that they are not falling behind, and

2. Insulating themselves from frontier labs jacking up prices, nerfing the models they depend on, or otherwise unexpected changes in behavior.

I think the main goal is #2. Thomson Reuters might be a $40B company, but.... at this point it's not clear that that holds any weight in terms of not being fucked over by 2 companies aiming for $2t+ IPO valuations.

Edit: On second thought, there is probably a #3 too. They can serve inference for their own models significantly cheaper than frontier lab rates (assuming they're capturing continuous use of their hardware). I still think #2 is the primary goal.

This doesn’t sound as much that “LLMs can’t help me” as much as “trying to one-shot a complicated answer in a chatbot can’t help me”. Output straight from a generative model definitely should not be trusted.

But that doesn’t mean that an appropriate harness (even Claude code and a dynamic workflow) can’t complete, and validate, an answer.

To be clear I do not believe it is intentional (nor do I believe I am somehow smarter or more knowledgable than the people running these processes).

I believe it is (very) unfortunately converging on the communication style that currently makes the most money as far as publicly available communication goes. Unfortunate, but not entirely unexpected.

I do not have evidence or data that supports this. It is only my thought.

Claude, since Opus 5, speaks more and more like a wannabe-thought-leader pontificating on social media for engagement. Everything is a bait-then-switch, or a multi-post story format. The "engagement" that works well for social media makes actual work extremely frustrating.

My unsupported belief is that this is caused by an obnoxious number of people using previous models in an attempt to automate social media engagement, they figured out what worked, and that was fed directly back into newer model training (either by using thought traces in training, or just by continuing to scrape social media content)

I struggled with this for a long time, but actually seem to have gotten to a place where this is largely resolved. Copy/paste from my current claude.md:

The CC-5 rule specifically seems to be (just from reading through, nothing repeatable-eval based) the part that actually catches and prevents me from having to clean it up afterwards.

```

### Code comments

The failure this prevents: writing a comment that narrates the change I am making right now. That context is real, but it expires the instant the change merges — the defect it describes no longer exists, so the comment becomes a story about a problem no future reader can observe. It is a changelog entry in the wrong file, and a third copy of text already required in the commit body (3.b) and the PR description.

- *CC-1 (MUST NOT)* Write a comment describing a change, a fix, a defect, its cause, or what the code used to do. No "was/now/previously/instead of", no "this fixes", no "needed because otherwise", no "note that we no longer".

- *CC-2 (MUST)* Apply the survival test to every comment before writing it: would this still be true and useful to someone reading this file a year from now, who never saw the diff? If it only makes sense beside the diff, it is changelog — delete it and put it in the commit body.

- *CC-3 (MUST)* Default to zero comments. Declarative config — Terraform, DNS records, k8s manifests, CI YAML, Helm values — is self-describing and takes none. A resource named `dmarc-example-com` does not need a comment saying it is the DMARC record.

- *CC-4 (MAY)* Comment only when a future editor would actively break something without it: a non-obvious external constraint, a required out-of-band manual step, an invariant the surrounding code cannot show. One line. If it needs a paragraph it belongs in `plans/`, not inline.

- *CC-5 (MUST)* Before every commit, re-read the comment lines I added: `git diff --cached | grep '^+' | grep -E '#|//|/*'`. Each hit must pass CC-2 on its own. Deleting is always an acceptable outcome. "I already wrote it", "it is only one line", and "this one is genuinely useful" are not exemptions — the last one is the exact thought that precedes every violation.

- *CC-6 (MUST)* Applies to comments I edit as well as ones I add. When a change invalidates an existing comment, the default action is DELETE, not rewrite it into a new narrative.

```

Yes, I am aware that claude mostly generated this, and it can probably be better and/or more succinct.

> I feel that YC just invests in anything these days.

When there is a popular gold rush, YC invests in many companies that do the same thing with the expectation that 1) a rising tide lifts all ships, and 2) if there is a clear winner, they have eggs in every basket.

If you actually believe that he didn't, you are, at best, out of touch.

His little "DOGE" endeavor was actively caught exfiltrating personal data about everyone in the country, and the first thing that happened after SpaceX acquired Cursor was pumping all of the data Cursor had acquired into Grok training.

He is quite literally the shining example of "Imma do what I want, even if it's against my own terms of service or otherwise illegal, and then you can try to sue me over it later".

The US has (especially recently) shown that "community aligned behavior" and "what those in power do" are very different.

The US has also shown that the probability of someone being held accountable for massive abuse of power is essentially 0. This also means that the main disincentive for abusing power (getting caught and punished in some way) is a moot point.

People generally don't object to technology being used to fine mass shooters, or terrorists, or bank robbers. They do object to the same technology being used to stalk women that Texas thinks might be trying to get an abortion, or ensure that minorities stay out of the "white neighborhoods". One of these examples is a real thing, the other is what people are (reasonably) afraid of.

"If you have the facts on your side, pound the facts; if you have the law on your side, pound the law; if you have neither, pound the table."

It's 2026; we can probably update "pound the table" to "pound social media"

If Apple had published all of the details/data publicly, then they publicly could.

But that is not the claim, and no one is even pretending that that's what happened.

There are absolutely laws about IP theft. That's why it's called Intellectual Property.

You really don't want the law to be "Well you didn't lose a physical thing, so why should it be illegal?"

US Government, have we got a deal for you! Brand new weapon. It's basically a super soldier. You could put it into a decked-out hulkbuster style robot body! It mostly does what you tell it to. Sometimes it thinks you're dumb and just does whatever it thinks is best. It can also teleport between bodies, so good luck containing it. Just kinda cross your fingers and hope for the best.

Anyways, we'll give it to you for only $2T. We need at least that amount to get as far away from here as humanly possible.

Because “rm -rf” is a known, explicitly provided-in-docs-and-training command.

It is fundamentally different capability than “identified and chained multiple previously unknown exploits in order to bypass restrictions”. It’s even worse when/if the primary objective of this activity was to cheat on what it was doing.

It’s a foundational alignment issue, not a task-level result-alignment issue. Ie, “cheating” is fundamentally bad (when you have what are effectively rules of engagement), whereas deleting a directly is a thing that is correctly done sometimes (even if this invocation was a mistake/incorrect)

Clients are not using it with security guardrails disabled. If you want to run it with all the safeties turned off, you don’t run it somewhere it can escape.

Did we learn nothing from all of those Star Trek holodeck jailbreaks?

If you (in this case, OpenAI) can’t find a way to answer this question to a reasonable degree of accuracy without falling back to “yolo let’s see what happens” you are in no position to be doing this research.

Regardless, they (reportedly) _attempted_ to prevent internet access. They just didn’t in a way which can be escaped via software.

Yes, side channel exploits exist in airgapped environments to. But if a model found a way to escape an airgapped environment via non-networked side channel attacks then the correct answer is frankly “shut it down immediately and then thermite any machine it touched”

You can have large scale airgapped environments.

They don’t even need to be fully airgapped from each other (and is not what I’m suggesting).

But there should be no physical (physical layer; wireless counts) to the internet.