HN user
But nobody really pays the 3x (ie. api) rates, except for enterprises. Everyone else are using the consumption plans, which are heavily discounted[1], possibly cheaper than even the chinese models, which don't do consumption plan discounts. Even in your linked reddit thread, the OP agreed with this sentiment.
They're probably going for the national security/domestic manufacturing angle.
Aren't consumers benefiting from this practice by getting better cheaper models as a result?
Aren't consumers benefiting from cheap chinese batteries, EVs, and drones?
The three incidents they're referring to involving a Waymo, for reference
Article: "cause “way mo” fatal crashes" and "Waymo’s autonomous cars cause crashes that result in serious injuries"
In that case the phrasing in the OP is an outright lie. All of the examples provided don't suggest waymo was at fault. The first involved a driver hitting 6 cars in total (one of which is a waymo), and was charged. The second involved a motorcycle rear-ending a waymo. The last was a police chase that ended with the suspect crashing into a waymo. I don't see how anyone can conclude that waymo "caused" those crashes.
It is split between the publisher and the author, also publishers will have a large catalog of books they will submit, an author typically will only have a few -- the payout will be going to the lawyers and mostly to publishers.
This is innumerate. If it's split 50% between authors and publishers, then it won't be "mostly to publishers". Mathematically it will be equal between "authors" and "publishers", and because lawyers are taking their cut, neither would be able to get "most" of it. Yes, the average publisher will get a bigger paycheck, but that's because there's less of them, not because "most going to publishers".
Creating derivative products you charge for surely can't be considered fair use?
All US courts so far have ruled yes.
This is such a petty and impotent ruling. If you want to ban them from using culture to make derivative works without proper compensation then do that.
That's because the judges are supposed to rule on questions of law (ie. "is AI training fair use?"), not whether they think AI's good or not.
Many places don’t respect privacy laws, in certain situations you may be forced to unencrypt your media, or worse, assumed to be guilty. A Veracrypt hidden volume is useful in the former situation, but not the latter.
...
Due to AI demand the cost of eMMC memory is unusually high, so I chose to go with an SD card for memory. Someone will find your SD card if they tear it apart, but of course everything is encrypted.
So which one is it? It sounds like this is trading off between "having veracrypt installed on your computer" vs "having a custom usb drive". In other words, hiding something in software vs hardware. I'm not really convinced hardware is better. The hardware device is going to get discovered if the x-ray it, not least because of the super suspicious embedded sd card reader. Even if we concede that hiding in hardware is better, surely you can just use whatever trick to hide the software (eg. putting in a secret password mounts a second drive with veracrypt)? That way you don't run into the crypto issues that the parent poster mentioned.
DeepSeek continues to host v4 Flash at the existing price despite competitors beating it in price (https://openrouter.ai/deepseek/deepseek-v4-flash),
their competitors are discounted at around 33%, so it's safe to say that's the margin, maybe less if their competitors have worse caching or quantization. Meanwhile claude code/codex resellers selling tokens for 90% off API price, presumably by reselling usage from fixed consumption plans, which gives an idea on how fat the american labs' margins are.
And I believe my Composer example speaks for itself. The open models are behind but there's tangible proof they can be tuned for pareto frontier efficiency. See "Cost per Task" at https://artificialanalysis.ai/agents/coding-agents.
But composer is a closed model? If it's really that easy to get better coding performance, why haven't the chinese labs replicated it? And this is all assuming the performance boost is real and not from benchmaxxing. Moreover if you apply the "street price" discount I mentioned above, American labs look far more favorable.
What work was attempted? https://cursor.com/evals shows the previous generation of open models (Kimi K2.7) trading blows with the others, cost effectively
Because you're comparing retail price whereas the parent commenter (and the article) is talking about marginal (ie. inference) costs. American labs are providing a premium product and they're charging accordingly. Meanwhile for chinese models they're open weight so they're limited to how much they can charge without competitors undercutting them.
If we use tokens as a rough proxy of inference costs (rough approximation, I know) and look at artifical analysis benchmarks, you see that all the open models are behind the pareto frontier in terms of efficiency.
1. Buy physical esim on AliExpress. Even the cheapest ones have 15 profiles.
What happens when phones go esim only, like the iPhone air already is?
It doesn’t protect your privacy. It’s like asking, “how do I know you’re not spying on me?” And getting the reply “we cannot physically enter your house.”
In light of the recent grok build snafu, "Nothing happens without your consent" seems like an upgrade. Moreover what are they supposed to do here? By that logic should any sort of non e2e email/storage provider not be able to put "How does [product] protect my privacy" in their faq?
Looking through their privacy policy, it looks like the bigger issue is that they are (or refuse to refute) training on your data/prompts. That's probably what people should be complaining about rather than complaining about how it "has unfettered access to your files", when that describes all coding harnesses.
Not sure what that's about, I was just copying the wording from OP. Their harness probably has the same restrictions as most other coding harnesses. That is, the read tool gives all project files by default without prompting, and everything else requires manual approval (or opting into auto-run all). If you decide to run it from your home directory however, then your "project" is all your files.
They fail to mention that is has unfettered read access to your files.
Isn't that totally expected of a coding agent? Otherwise it's like complaining dropbox "has unfettered access to your files".
The price increase will be very small if manufacturers are no longer able to segment the market to make a higher margin on those who need it.
AMD doesn't have this segmentation. Where's the hoard of people building systems with ECC ram? At best you have a few people on HN saying they're doing it, but in practice nobody actually does it.
That doesn't answer the question. If you used photoshop's content-aware fill (introduced over a decade ago) to hide imperfections in your apartment, that would still be deceptive advertising. Moreover it's almost as easy as asking AI to do it, so the "AI makes everything easier" excuse doesn't work either.
I think the reason is clear. Politicians love to enact bills for already illegal things, but tailored for the current thing. In this case, it's AI, which there's bipartisan opposition. It makes them look responsive to their constituents and requires no political capital, because it's uncontroversial.
Which industries are the US leading in because of subsidies?
The report seems obviously AI generated, so I can't be bothered to read in its entirety, but based on my quick skim, "leaked home GPS" makes it sound worse than it is. Unless you're dumb enough to set DMZ on this device, this won't be exposed to the internet, and if it's LAN only, don't you already know the location? Even for a remote attacker who somehow got LAN access remotely, they can probably deduce the location through other means (eg. using crowdsourced wifi databases).
From your own article:
The Walmart price reductions "looks less like a turning point on food inflation and more like an aggressive summer promotion," David Ortega, a food economist and professor at Michigan State University
Also the your claim that "Trump put a little orange thumb on the scale by choosing Walmart to be the winner on beef prices" doesn't make any sense. This isn't the soviet union. The government doesn't control enough production to be able to offer walmart sweetheart deals. The best they can do is browbeat walmart into lowering prices, but that's not the same as "choosing Walmart to be the winner".
Meat is like $30/lb.
???
Maybe if you're buying organic grass fed steaks every day, but chicken/pork is still available for less than $5, especially on sale. Kroger's weekly ad for Dallas, TX shows:
1. beef for $6.97/lb
2. pork for $1.99/lb
3. chicken breasts for $3.99/lb, or organic for $6.99/lb
Relevant facts: Corporate insiders sold $77.6 billion of stock during the first half of 2026, a 20% increase from the first half of 2025.
Is this adjusted for stock price? If you got 100 RSUs per year, and stock prices went up 20% compared to last year, you'd get "20% increase", even though nothing really changed and you're just selling whatever you got.
Nah, Spur (a company tracking residential proxies) doesn't flag it at all.
I looked into it and so far as I can tell it works off a blacklist system, rather than any sort of automatic analysis (eg. TCP or MTU fingerprinting). If you set up a "residential proxy" in the form of a home VPN, it won't be detected. It also means the detection is only as good as whatever their backlist source is. If it's a niche provider, it might not get picked up at all.
Yeah it's exhausting to read through, but still made it onto the front page with overwhelming upvote/comment margin. I guess people either only read the title and/or don't care about AI slop if the underlying thesis is compelling.
Right, which is why the first part of my comment, before mentioning wikipedia at all is "Source?". Wikipedia might be biased, but it's a good starting point. Likewise, it's very hard to take you seriously when all you can do is complain about how wikipedia is biased/astroturfed, but can't provide any sources to contradict the wikipedia article, yet are willing to take a random commenter at face value.
It’s just disabled on the cars sold without the option.
So exactly like software licensing? Most apps nowadays don't even require a purchase to download. The download is free but you need to pay $4.99/month subscription to use, or $99.99 for a "lifetime subscription". The code's are all there. The author just doesn't want you to use it.
As long as the reform is to cut taxes for the rich
Source? Strangely "tax" only has one hit within the wikipedia article, and it's not about tax cuts. If it's really such an important part of their editorial stance, you should update the article.
Then why does my link specifically have a "25-54 Yrs" qualification, and has a totally different shape compared to the first link? The difference between the two is stark, 21.8 percentage points. Do you really think there's that many people willing to work between 18-25 and 54+?
The idea of making money by making things (as opposed to arbitrage) is anathema to them.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Editorial_stance_of_The_Econom...
They're pro free trade against government intervention. That's not the same as "making things ... is anathema to them". They're for planning reform in uk, to help build infrastructure and homes, for instance.
Isn't that just due to people retiring?
in what world is manufacturing, a sector that has been neglected for decades at this point, having any sway on politics in Britain.
Are you confusing the lack of effective interventions with "neglect"? Nearly every administration in the past decade had some sort of an industrial policy, but even though they failed to bring manufacturing back to britain, that doesn't mean "neglect". It just means the forces of globalization is too strong.
That page has conflicting information. The top text says "Property tax abatement: Limited", which implies tax breaks are limited, but then the bullet point says "Property Tax: Limited", which implies the opposite. Moreover the site doesn't cite any sources so you can't even verify yourself.