elbear

This helps because the ELI5 was too general. To me at least.

High Fast? I don't see that option in my Codex. I only have 3 models: 5.4-mini, 5.4 and 5.5, each with 4 levels: low, medium, high, extra high.

I've only had that happen with Chinese models until now. Interesting that Fable is doing it too.

Curious, which model do you use for Codex? I'm very happy with the solutions '5.5 high' finds. It's like it understands exactly what I mean and it also anticipates all sorts of situations. Before I used '5.5 medium' for some time and it was a bit underwhelming. It may sound funny but it's like it didn't care that much to do a good job.

That's a good salary, better than Romania on average. And if you also have lower prices (at least that's what I heard), even better then.

I'm also unemployed. So far the models that I've used the most are Kimi and GLM. I haven't done that much agentic coding though, I've mostly used them for studying math and general conversations and I'm generally happy with their performance.

There's DeepInfra. There's also OpenRouter where you can find several providers.

I thought it was determined (slight pun) that free will is not a thing. I'm referring to Sapolsky's book "Determined: A Science of Life Without Free Will)" as an example.

In case you don't know, Gemini 2.5 flash is hosted on DeepInfra. They also have 1.5 flash but not 2.0 flash.

I have no affiliation with DeepInfra. I use them, because they host open-source models that are good.

I use ChatGPT and Claude on OpenRouter, because it's just easier than buying credits on each platform separately.

by keeping the how part a secret

I wonder, how does a Julius perceive another Julius, as another competent worker? What about a non-Julius then?

* It's cheaper than proprietary models

* Maybe you don't want to have your conversations used for training. The providers listed on OpenRouter mention whether they do that or not.

I had started using it again through Open WebUI. If it's gone, I'll probably switch to GLM-4.7 completely.

I'm mostly the same, I don't watch movies twice. But there are exceptions. Some movies are just beautiful or I like how they make me feel, so I want to rewatch them. Groundhog Day is an example.

Maybe you would, if you bought it.

How I interpret his comment about the distance: The benefit of switching from C/C++ to Rust is higher than switching from C++ to Go (in the similar use-cases) or from Java to Kotlin.

Another argument offered for Rust is that it's high-level enough that you can also use it for the web (see how many web frameworks it has). So I think that Rust's proponents see it as this universal language that could be good for everything.

When I started learning Haskell, it did feel like coding with a straightjacket.

I would never expect a Western European country to not accept Visa and Mastercard. I say this as an Eastern European. But I do remember that in Germany (and Austria) it's not that accepted to pay by card.

I wasn't sure how encipher is in Romanian (it's not common), it's "a cifra". The infinitive in Romanian puts "a" in front of the verb, so it's very close to Spanish.

In Romanian:

- cifru -> cipher

- cifră -> digit

Another way to put it: don't focus on distance but more on behaving in tune with yourself.

Yeah, we now need to specify who wrote the tests, because it's important information.

Those tests were written by people. That's why they were confident that what the LLM implemented was correct.

They withdrew in WW1 after the revolution.

No one claims that good type systems prevent buggy software.

That's exactly what languages with advanced type systems claim. To be more precise, they claim to eliminate entire classes of bugs. So they reduce bugs, they don't eliminate them completely.

Likely because some people don't like to hear about positive experiences with LLMs.

I forgot about fromJust. On the other hand, fromJust is shunned by practically everybody writing Haskell. `unwrap` doesn't have the same status. I also understand why. Rust wanted to be more appealing, not too restrictive while Haskell doesn't care about attracting developers.

I never said Rust makes guarantees that code is panic-free. I said that Rust provides more safety guarantees than C. The Result type is one of them because you have to handle the error case explicitly. If you don't use unwrap.

Also, when I say safety guarantees, I'm not talking about safe rust. I'm talking about Rust features that prevent bugs, like the borrow checker, types like Result and many others.

I forgot about that one. Oops. So, ignore the part about Haskell and keep the rest.