twothreeone

I think it's similar with other liability issues, e.g., when a company happens to "lose" customer data through a breach. They will be on the hook for not having certain audits and certifications at regular intervals. Practically never will anyone be feeling any pain due to absolute disregard for basic common sense precautions to prevent issues in the first place. So usually, the pattern is that issues that can be outsourced to insurance will be handled by compliance departments - which don't care about the actual problems, just that the fallout from them is "managed" accordingly.

Oh wow, he's basically built a LASIK machine and operating it _inside_ the vacuum chamber of the SEM.

You don't need to visit an embassy for ESTA, for a Visa this in-person interview at the embassy is required.

> one that uses data and intelligence to go after the worst, large-scale criminal operations and networks

History shows that the main question with government and data collection is not "what X makes life easier for citizens" but "who collects/uses X and for what purpose". In the happy case, this may be all well and peachy. The case people rightfully worry about is not that case.

I looked at the actual article and your instinct is exactly right: it's precisely the kind of hand-waving that makes clicking or not clicking a clear decision point.

This is the definitive, honest result.

"phase", "gate", and "plumbing" as well..

Wow the video is much better.. the PR spend clearly went up a lot. Mainly just showing "real people" doing "real stuff".

Does Xi Jinping (or any of his Politburo colleagues) publish their income and/or tax records? Otherwise, this "we are so anti-corruption" stance is basically just political theater as the Courts themselves are CCP-bound.

Because it does, the review process is now no longer double blind. And I disagree, I think there is no obvious solution - though I would venture to guess that publishing the reviewer's names alongside their reviews upon rejection would be a better step towards a healthy discourse.

The problem is this: as an academic you tend to know the reviewer landscape within your field. You have seen this happen to a colleague before, they submitted a paper, it had interesting results - it was forcefully rejected by 1 or 2 extremely negative reviewers. The publication gets delayed, you need to wait another 6 months to get the next set of reviews. Meanwhile, some "colleague" from another lab publishes nearly identical experiments and gets slightly better results. They push onto a pre-pub server and immediately get it into a tier-1 venue. They are now state of the art. You are now merely the person reproducing original work.

TL;DR politics breaks everything.

ha! This was my first distro :)

Interesting, thanks for the pointer! Though, since we're dealing in hypotheticals already: wouldn't the expectation be that whoever gained the upper hand on the world stage would've aimed for de-facto control over whichever currency system was in place anyways?

wow, very humbling. I'm actually amazed how many people contributed to this. It's easy to get attribution for "cool new features", but arguable removing bad features is even more important for something as fundamental as the kernel. Cudos!

I'm sure these are the sorts of things that will go down as folklore from the "founding ages", when everyone will have forgotten how to understand source code in 50 years and the Claude/Codex cruft just silently keeps piling on and burning the majority of our planets energy.

Which really tells you more about the state of mind of people asking that question. What kind of person isn't curious about the puzzle of their own existence, or the nature of the physical reality they live in (and yes, by "being curious" I mean "being willing to put a tax dollar amount to them")?

The things is: it does _feel_ like you're moving faster when Claude is in the zone and does what it's supposed to. You're essentially flying a plane on auto pilot, occasionally telling it to slightly adjust course. Only that now you can fly 10 planes in parallel, all to different destinations.

Is it _objectively_ more productive? I doubt there's a clear-cut answer in the long run (my main suspicion is that since you're essentially creating 10x unnecessary complexity, you'll likely never recover from all the cruft and maintenance kills you in the end - maybe people will find solutions for that though).

Thanks! yeah, maybe I'll try to look at that next..

> unsloth/Qwen3.6-35B-A3B-MTP-GGUF

I've actually tried this exact same model locally as well.. albeit on just a single 3090 at 128k context and I got around 40-60tok/s with Q4_K quantization.

The thing that bugged me the most was really the quality of the output on moderately complex real-world coding tasks. Having to switch between "prompt/vibe" and "manually implement" is such a big context switch burden, because you really have to ask yourself every few minutes if you're "holding it wrong" or the model is just too stupid.

It also doesn't really seem to handle transitions from "low-level implementation detail" to "high-level design" well, e.g., it wouldn't easily render tables and such. With Claude I don't have this issue.. so I think for now my verdict would be that it's not really a viable replacement. I really hope it will be in a few months time.

Oh and I used "aider" to replace claude CLI, which maybe that's also sub-optimal.. I'm not sure. The MCP marketplaces are useful of course, though arguably you could just manually replace them over time.

It's not the verb "earning" that's different, it's the (implied) noun it is referring to: "wage" (AOC) vs. "capital" (Graham).

Yeah he weirdly dodges it. Completely unnecessary too, because he could've just said something like "the average american male yields roughly 90k hours of labor over their lifetime before retirement, so earning a billion dollars only requires an hourly rate of about $12k - It's hard, but it's not impossible".

Of course when you put it like that it sounds completely ridiculous :)

Didn't they famously have a search deal with Google (that they were also ultimately fined for - in the EU at least)? So there's definitely precedent with Google as a "partner".

Yeah, it's not even clear what the true motivation is from the US side.. "get the Uranium out" by itself doesn't make sense, because (a) they can just enrich again (or even be supplied directly by Russia/NK) and (b) even if they build nukes they'll never be able to reach US territory. If they wanted to destabilize the regime, they would have needed to actively push an alternative group or leader. If they wanted to pressure China/EU by stressing global markets, I'd say it was mildly successful - though incredibly short term.. I suppose it may be a mix of all of those (and maybe more). But I'm lost as to what the overall goal and strategy is here, it feels extremely haphazard.

Isn't it also possible that this happened to be one of the explicit pre-conditions for a treaty by the US?

Does it matter? The ultimate way to measure productivity is $$$.. companies that generate more $$$ with the same number of "people" are more "productive". Drilling that number down to orgs/teams/ICs is a political endeavor, which means how you do that depends on the result you're looking to generate.

For a solo dev sure.. but isn't there a huge privacy difference between Anthropic and DeepSeek APIs as well? I assumed part of the cost for Anthropic was essentially a privacy premium.. (plus they offer B2B).

That was my impression as well. You have to babysit the AI the whole time and if you fail to do that it's basically your life (and others' of course) on the line.

- AT&T “unlimited” mobile plans - Purdue Pharma's OxyContin push - Juul marketing vaping products as a "safer alternative" to smoking - Facebook's sale of user data to Cambridge Analytica - Wells Fargo opening fake accounts for people - ...

> rightfully convicted of what is indisputably criminal behaviour

Consider the opposite view: if pretending to be a human is "criminal behavior" there are about 8 billion criminals walking around on this planet.. and in this case our current legal system appears to be hijacked for the protection of utterly nonsensical, hopelessly broken, ancient business models from a rent-seeking, anti-consumer, creator-exploiting, trillion-dollar corporate mafia, which would like nothing better than to track, spy, and force-feed their audience at every turn.

That's basically what I heard ten years ago from individuals (and even universities) for why they switched to Mint.. but even now, if you ask Perplexity for a "debian-based distro thats not ubuntu" Mint is the second option.

> To get the remaining 15%, which they are contractually obligated to acquire, they must purchase from the founder. As they are in violation of their contract if they fail to acquire the remaining 15%, the founder now has complete control to dictate any price they want.

I can't imagine "any price they want" is quite right here. At the very least, shouldn't we expect underwriters and other stakeholders (in this case Nasdaq, Inc.) to negotiate option-contracts as part of the IPO deal to cover their future obligations?

Yes, it might be a "worse" deal than those initial 5% - though we don't even know that - but then institutional investors time horizons are typically much longer than 6 months. Unless you think SpaceX goes straight down to 0, it seems like a risky but calculated, long-term investment.

I agree they could be more transparent about it, but maybe they will send out a notice in the prospectus update?