HN user

adwf

1,819 karma

adwf

Posts1
Comments696
View on HN

I imagine it's the same foundation model on the 4 series, with Fable 5/Mythos being a new or upgraded foundation model. Then the point releases are fine-tuning plus post-training alignment with desired outcomes. The "thinking" can involve multiple steps, eg. asking the model first what it thinks the user wants to do, why it wants to do it, rewriting the prompt to generate better outcomes, how it should do it, come up with a plan, etc. So when they announce each point release like Opus 4.8, they're probably adding new layers of thinking to try and get good results on benchmarks. And that of course has cost and speed implications.

Then Sonnet/Haiku are just attempts to quantise/distil down to an acceptable performance/cost ratio. The cynic in me says we probably won't see any more of those until post-IPO, keep people addicted to the most costly models to pump a quarter or two of revenue figures, unless a competitor starts seriously undercutting them on price/performance. Hence the recent requests to slow down model training worldwide with their competitors.

Of course it could be that Fable "5" is just a marketing bump to the version, not a new foundation model...

Plus the SUV is usually point-to-point, leave home, go to work, come back. Whereas the bus is going back and forth ten times per day.

In Europe, the numbers differ even more. Lighter weight cars typically 1.5-2 tons, a new London bus can be upto 18 tons when loaded - that's ~5-16 units of wear for the car to 104,976 units for the bus...

But this is all supposing we're optimising for road wear, which isn't really the point of a bus system.

ai;dr 5 months ago

Oh god, the bad mocks are the worst. Try adding instructions not to make mocks and it creates "placeholders", ask it to not create mocks or placeholders and it creates "stubs". Drives me mad...

To add to this list:

- Duplicate functions when you've asked for a slight change of functionality (eg. write_to_database and write_to_database_with_cache), never actually updating all the calls to the old function so you have a split codebase.

- On a similar vein, the backup code path of "else: do a stupid static default" instead of erroring, which would be much more helpful for debugging.

- Strong desires to follow architecture choices it was trained on, regardless of instruction. It might have been trained on some presumably high quality, large and enterprise-y codebases, but I'm just trying to write a short little throwaway program which doesn't need the complexity. KISS seems anathema to coding agents.

Not agreeing or disagreeing with your point, just adding info for context:

Fortnite: July 25, 2017 (Battle Royale mode launched September 26, 2017)

Apex Legends: February 4, 2019

Valorant: June 2, 2020

Overwatch: May 24, 2016

Call of Duty: 2003, Annual release

League of Legends: October 27, 2009

Dota 2: July 9, 2013

Roblox: 2006 (initially as DynaBlocks, rebranded to Roblox the same year)

Blame Claude 4 if any date is wrong...

Forgive me if I find it somewhat difficult to take seriously an argument by a person judging progress on the Kardashev scale...

You could pick some slightly less sci-fi measures like "number of trivially preventable deaths from diseases for which we have vaccines", for example.

In the specific case here, 7z is your friend for all zips and compressed files in general, not sure I've ever used unzip on Linux.

Related to that, the Unix philosophy of simple tools that do one job and do it well, also applies here a bit. More typical workflow would be a utility to tarball something, then another utility to gzip it, then finally another to encrypt it. Leading to file extensions like .tar.gz.pgp, all from piping commands together.

As for versioning, I'm not entirely sure why your Debian and Ubuntu installs both claim version 6.00, but that's not typical. If this is for a personal machine, I might recommend switching to a rolling release distro like Arch or Manjaro, which at least give upto date packages on a consistent basis, tracking the upstream version. However, this does come with it's own set of maintenance issues and increased expectation of managing it all yourself.

My usual bugbear complaint about Linux (or rather OSS) versioning is that people are far too reluctant to declare v1.00 of their library. Leading to major useful libraries and programs being embedded in the ecosystem, but only reaching something like v0.2 or v0.68 and staying that way for years on end, which can be confusing for people just starting out in the Linux world. They are usually very stable and almost feature complete, but because they aren't finished to perfection according to the original design, people hold off on that final v1 declaration.

Big fan of DuckDB!

Has saved us a number of times when having to deploy at a remote client with limited on-prem customisation for security reasons (ie. no to installing a big Postgres or other RDBMS solution).

Powerful tooling; all local to the environment and the data being worked on; SQL, so it's pretty close to a drop-in replacement compared to our old solution. Really great stuff and I was very happy to see the project gain the confidence to hit 1.0 a while back and now 1.1.

Congrats to everyone!

Sure, but I've got serverless computing with Aurora v2. I've got upto 15 read replicas, blue/green deployments, upto 128 cores per replica at a cheaper price... I'm just not really thinking that a bit of branching will make up for a 10x or more increase in cost.

Those increased storage costs make the decoupled compute and the associated auto-scaling benefits almost irrelevant as far as the overall cost picture goes.

Eh, Azure has a big delete button for any Subscription. Seen it happen and take down a production system.

Thankfully they also must've realised this was a stupid button and provide a 90-day cooldown period on deleted subscriptions... but why have the easy button in the first place?

Exactly. I love the car in so many other ways that it just really makes some decisions stand out as ridiculous. Why try and skimp $50 manufacturing cost on stalks and sensors in a $50k vehicle when it's otherwise such a great car?

Ultimately poor wiper controls and fixed headrests are hardly the end of the world, but they could trivially make it so much better...

Good. My Tesla doesn't have a stalk for wiper control and it's just awful UX. The auto function is erratic (often triggers on a sunny day, doesn't pick the right level in the rain). Might be fine for sunny California infrequent use, but terrible for England.

I'd much rather have easy full control at my fingertips than have to faff about with scroll wheels or the touch screen.

I don't think people are against VR/AR, it's just that Horizon was so underwhelming given the hype.

Ideas like the metaverse tap into a lot of established sci-fi, pop-culture concepts which are generally very cool. I genuinely think that people really do want VR worlds to succeed - they do want their own virtual homes, customisable avatars, places to meet and game online in the metaverse, etc.

But instead they got some awkward, low-poly bobbleheads with a side helping of unnecessary crypto crap...

FHIR is about as far from what I'd call a standard as you can get. Each individual country/region/hospital/department/lab can define "profiles" that configure the data to their specific use case and no-one else's. Not exactly the aim of a standard in the usual computing sense.

Yes, they're in the 8.5%. I think something like 4% is direct agriculture in terms of fertiliser, methane, etc. The rest is transport, energy consumption, etc.

There is a further 10-15% of land-use degradation (eg. Amazon rainforest destruction), but this is dubious to include in the calcs and has a big variance depending on which study you look at. For example: My beef comes from just up the road and is grass fed, going vegan has zero impact on that land-use degradation figure. It's a convenient luxury in a developed economy to go vegan, but good luck convincing developing nations to forgo the luxuries we've enjoyed for centuries because we screwed up the climate!

In my opinion, even if you started today it's not like the rainforests are going to be all replanted in a decade, nor are they going to grow to full rejuvenating capacity anytime in the next 50 years. People need to focus on the big things! More wind, more solar, more battery, less oil, more efficient industry, more eco-friendly concrete, reduce shipping, produce locally/consume locally, etc.

It's very dubious to be putting our efforts advocating this as the "single biggest way", certainly it's terrible marketing if you want to really convince people.

According to the IPCC: https://ahdb.org.uk/carbon

Agriculture makes up 8.5% of global emissions - knock 75% of that off if we somehow convinced the *entire planet* to go vegan, add a bit back for the extra veg we need to grow and other unknown inefficiencies and we're talking a relatively small shift in GHG emissions compared to other areas. We need to cut 50% total, not 5%!

Yes, every little bit helps... but as I emphasised above, you need the ENTIRE PLANET to switch to veganism in the next 5-10 years and it's still not enough. The serious danger of the rhetoric put out by vegan activists in regards climate change is that people will think they've "done their bit", when in reality it's peanuts and completely disregards the biggest factors in climate change.

The single biggest way to reduce our environmental burden isn't eating more veg/less meat, it's voting for green causes - both politically and with your wallets (investments, pensions, local goods, etc). By all means go veggie on top, but please don't do just that!