thurn

What I really want is the ability to do more operations which are decoupled from the editor. Even just being able to reliably type check Unity C# code without a running editor would be great, or running unit tests. Would really improve things like CI as well as the ability to run parallel development sessions.

They do disclose that they scored much lower than Fable on SWEBench Pro, which is a pretty high-quality benchmark. I think it's partially just about what they choose to emphasize...

To clarify, the more accurate description would be "Testing how well LLMs can follow the rules of Magic", right? There is no actual evaluation of how "well" they are playing?

This is basically just the normal dynamic with American tax law where tax jurisdictions are terrible at coordinating, so they end up approving things and agreeing to tax things at a very low level in order to win the competition. Even when states/counties try to work together on this stuff there's a huge defector problem, like "hey I can back out of this multistate tax compact agreement and get 500 new jobs which will let me win local reelection".

I suppose you can reduce a lot of both good at bad things about the country to "because federalism".

I wonder how Paradox handles this stuff in their games like Europa Universalis. Have they ever made a "the pope wants you to switch calendar systems" event which changes the actual in-game date?

I really fundamentally do not understand what problem Gas City solves that is not already solved by normal subagent orchestration patterns. If you want to call your main LLM session the "mayor" and have it delegate its work out to planners and coders and reviewers and QA and so on, this is already a thing you can do! If you want to do this in a reusable way you can create skills and subagent definitions and use /commands, etc. Why do we need hundreds of thousands of lines of opaque Go code to accomplish any of this?

There's a real hobbyist vs professional distinction with Claude Code. For professionals, including when I use it at work, we're generally super happy to have Claude spawn as many subagents as possible and burn more tokens to get a better result. Hobbyist users on a $20/month plan, though, generally want more conservative behavior.

It's hard for Anthropic to cater to both sets of users with one model.

No "max" or "pro" equivalent? I wanted to get a new Macbook Pro, but there's no obvious successor to the M4 Max available, M5 looks like a step down in performance if anything.

Does the "caching containers for Codex Cloud" mean I have some chance of being able to reuse build artifacts between tasks? My Rust project takes around 20 minutes to set up from scratch in a new Codex environment, which seems extremely expensive.

I think Cursor tab-completion is entirely in-house, right? That feature on its own is worth at least $5/month, it's super well done.

Are we close to having generic semaglutides e.g. available in India? Or locked into high prices for the foreseeable future?

Which of these statements do you disagree with?

- Superintelligence poses an existential threat to humanity

- Predicting the future is famously difficult

- Given that uncertainty, we can't rule out the chance of our current AI approach leading to superintelligence

- Even a 1-in-1000 existential threat would be extremely serious. If an asteroid had a 1-in-1000 chance of hitting Earth and obliterating humanity we should make serious contingency plans.

Second question: how confident are you that you're correct? Are you 99.9% sure? Confident enough to gamble billions of lives on your beliefs? There are almost no statements about the future which I'd assign this level of confidence to.

is this necessarily linux for dependency reasons, or could it be on OSX in the future?

Also copyright duration when Star Wars was created was a maximum of 56 years, and obviously George Lucas felt that was sufficient incentive to create it!

this doesn't seem to provide much of a justification for an extraordinary claim like "the widely accepted number for the age of the universe is wrong by 4 billion years"?

Kind of surprised that this book could be published by O'Reilly and also freely available online? Seems unusually generous.

hm, wouldn't you almost by definition think you were doing a good job of flagging them at any level of actual effectiveness?

If you've hired an intern before, think of Cursor like that. When you come up with an intern project plan, you usually need to give a very clear specification of what you expect, and you usually need to have the project be pretty self-contained. A lot of real problems are really bad intern projects, and a lot of problems are a really bad fit for AI. You have to be strategic about it.

Liking it so far, although the 'task' progression isn't my favorite. Feels like there are way too many tasks to do that seem like tedious busywork.

Honestly a really simple game design fix for this would be to unlock tasks more slowly as the player demonstrates more engagement with the system. That way if you are like me and mostly find them boring and repetitive, you don't feel as bad about not getting them done.

The queryable expression thing is something I struggle with all the time in Rust. It's especially bad in that language because (unlike in e.g. Java or C#) there is no way to view the Debug representation of your types in the debugger, you just get the raw memory layout which adds a huge barrier to 'what is going on with this code?' and requires you to dig around through countless nested layers to understand it.

There is a certain amount of deliberate ambiguity to Article I Section 8 -- take a look at e.g. https://avalon.law.yale.edu/18th_century/debates_817.asp and you can see that the wording "The Congress shall have power to [...] declare war" was revised from "make war" in the earlier drafts. Madison clearly felt that Congressional authorization was on some level required to conduct a war, but that the Executive should be free to act quickly in self-defense, e.g. to repel an invasion.

Interesting that this project seems to contain a bunch of sprite assets released under GPL3. How does GPL apply to something like an art asset?

How does their garbage collection work? Especially in Rust it would be cool to see a concurrent collector.

A company today has the burden of proof to demonstrate authorship of a claimed work when they sue for copyright infringement. This isn't a crazy expansion of that concept -- companies do not generally break the law just because there's a low chance of getting caught. Furthermore it's not hard to imagine, for example, a whistleblower calling out their employer for copyrighting AI works.

One positive aspect of the status quo in the United States is that AI-generated images are not currently eligible for copyright. I think this is a great direction to go in, I highly doubt Wizards of the Coast or whoever is going to want their premium products to lose copyright protections, so they'll need to keep paying artists. I'd love for us to lean into this -- you can make all the AI art you want, but it automatically gets a Creative Commons ShareAlike-style license!

Spry Fox v. LolApps (2012) was a case about a similar visual and thematic remake of a game (Triple Town vs Yeti Town). The Yeti Town developer decided to settle when it became clear that they would likely lose, and the remake is no longer available.

Realistically, of course, it probably doesn't matter since I assume the author doesn't have the resources to fight Firaxis in court over this anyway.

Dr. Alex Wellerstein has a lot of great writing on this subject on his blog and on the /r/askhistorians subreddit under the username 'restricteddata'.

    The way I see the field these days is a lot of hovering around a "middle" position on the bombs, as opposed to the extreme "ends" of the spectrum ("totally justified, best decision ever" vs. "terrible war crime done just to look tough"). The authors you are quoting, like Zinn (and Kuznik, who is also quoted by another response), are I think pretty anomalous in that they still stake out a hard, confident position on one end of the spectrum. (There are a few who stake out the other end, too.) The "middle" position, what the historian J. Samuel Walker calls "the consensus view", basically says that the bombs were seen as a perfectly fine, if not a little unusual, military decision, that they might not have been solely responsible for the surrender of Japan, and that the use of the bombs in the way they were used (on cities, little spacing, early August) was a mixture of vaguely strategic thinking (no "grand plan" on anyone's part, but people did have some ideas about what you might get out of doing it that way) and complete happenstance (the spacing between the bombs, and the fact that they had two ready to go in early August, depended on external factors that had nothing to do with real strategy).

https://www.reddit.com/r/AskHistorians/comments/3zuffw/some_... has a detailed discussion of the issue.

Transfer pricing is sort of just a pile of black magic. Microsoft's American business is required to charge their European subsidiary some "fair market price" for the Windows intellectual property, but what is a fair price for a license to sell Windows on the European continent? Unlike with fungible goods, there is no established market for this product that the IRS can easily refer to.

In this case Microsoft is saying that some amount of their IP was developed by their overseas subsidiary and thus doesn't need to be included in the transfer pricing calculation, so in their process of making up imaginary amounts of money to charge themselves for their own products they also need to deduct that. If e.g. most of the Windows networking stack was created in Germany they need to figure out what percentage of the value of the overall Windows IP is added by the ability to connect to the internet.

Understandably, it's possible for reasonable observers to disagree on the values chosen here, this is not a case of black and white corporate misconduct (tax issues essentially never are).

Completely true, but copyright is not a "right" in the sense of human rights, it's a legal construct that we created to create certain social benefits. And it certainly wasn't my impression that most HN users view the current state of copyright law as an unmitigated positive force in the world.

It is of course possible to break these rules via promotion, e.g. having two dark square bishops is entirely possible.