HN user

manquer

4,797 karma
Posts0
Comments2,713
View on HN
No posts found.
Codex Resets 4 days ago

It really depends on caching[1] and active parameters, and some dark arts really only possible at Hyperscalers they also have better access to 288GB VRAM B300s[2] that really makes a difference in cache space.

K3 may be bit smaller/ similar in total parameter count than Opus, but Opus (and GPT) definitely has become a lot more efficient in the last 6 months or so, hence more or less forced upgrades. I expect the active parameter count and cache performance is quite different.

--

Opus is still almost twice as expensive (if tokens were equal) at $5/$15 compared to K3 at $3/$15. Tokens are not equal though, Anthropic's tokenizer is much less dense than other frontier lab's so the actual price difference is like 3x.

Kimi uses more reasoning tokens and is generally more inefficient with its usage, that doesn't impact token cost economics for the provider though . It does for us as buyers thus the need to evaluating by Cost per task rather than unit pricing.

On pure tokens/$ - there is definitely room for a price war if operators start going by pure unit costs. Both probably want(ed) to have good enough numbers in preparing for the IPO.

---

[1] the pricing kind of reflect this already - 10x diff for uncached input.

[2] Moonshot does not have access latest gen GPUs so their unit economics is likely hampered a bit for high parameter models.

I think the distinction the comment is drawing is about the legality of it not the practical feasibility .

It would be illegal under the currently proposed /implemented laws and also open up social media to liability, which wouldn’t be true for other products like Alcohol or fire arms that require minimum age to buy but not give to children

RKLB has jumped 10x in last 18 months largely because of SpaceX hype , their business outlook hasn’t changed that much , so it is natural drops also come with SpaceX.

There is an enormous open short position in SpaceX now https://www.bloomberg.com/news/articles/2026-07-15/short-sel...

The float is going to triple in several steps with 900M employee stocks getting added to 550M issued in the IPO.

The thesis that larger pool will depress prices even if all other things remain same is quite sound, just like a small float inflates the price .

These events are merely triggers / focal points as would the quarterly results next month and various unlocking dates .

the traders are savvy they are just looking at different things and using company news to focus the price actions on .

Valuations are not based on business models or financial performance for the highly visible public companies, that has always been the case since earliest days of the modern market .

it is just vibes or to put it differently a strong belief/faith discounting every risk . Without that faith TSLA won’t trade at 350 PE with middling growth no new products currently scheduled . SPCX at $2T+, even for an AI company a lot - it is larger than valuations of both market leaders combined while having <5% share/revenue .

Maybe the faith will prove justified or maybe not, either way the price moves by sentiment alone not any actual business logic

"Crowdfunding" here likely means a bit differently than gofundme style projects - it is not $1-2 monthly contributions from individual developers donating from their personal money. It would be quite impossible to fund any kind of salary with that as you imagine.

It is closer to corporate sponsorships, plenty of projects[1] can pull in few hundred thousand a year.

The post itself talks about a $5k/month donation from Bun to Zig Foundation. ZSF generates about a half million in donations https://ziglang.org/news/2025-financials/

The "crowdfunding" term is here to contrast direct VC funding (that Bun took) from a single source to more diffuse(albeit smaller) funding that ZSF style projects operate under. Without VC funding Bun wouldn't need to , and if non profit 501(x) then simply not even be to consider an acquisition from Anthropic.

Of course Zig (and other projects) benefit from indirect VC funding too - Bun could only afford to donate $5k/ month on Zig because they took VC money after all.

We can always keep going down this secondary/tertiary effects for any tech funding it would unavoidable even with direct small donations - people who contribute are likely drawing salary from VC funded companies, and would contribute less if market goes south and funding plus jobs dry up. . The idea being the level of influence from corporate goal pressure reduces with degrees of separation.

There is a good amount history of this model. Linus Torvalds work itself is by funded by Linux Foundation through a fellowship. LSF charges $500,000 from their 12 Platinum members that includes Microsoft. Nvidia is a silver member, he has famously used some colorful language against both in the past, which in theory would be lot more difficult without the diffuse structure LSF generates funding ( compared to direct employment/VC funding).

[1]That isn't to say that a lot of core projects the entire internet economy depends on is maintained by one guy in Nebraska voluntarily without any support.

True, it alone cannot help, however hype begets following which helps in crowdfunding.

The dynamics are not any different from content creators translating their following to income on Patreon -larger the following better the chances.

cerebras acquisition

Partnership you mean?, Cerebras went public and are trading at around 45B in market cap.

While OAI could in theory cough up that kind of money, it would massively hamper their existing committed capital outlays.

4. Many formerly open source infrastructure components like Redis and Elastic Search have Apache equivalents, but they still command healthy margins.

Elastic just had round of layoffs[1]. Elastic still runs operating losses till Q1 2026 [2], albeit a small one, however just breaking even in operating income is hardly "healthy margins". A P/E of 17 is not exactly signaling confidence given they are growing ~20% y-o-y.

[1] https://www.elastic.co/blog/ceo-ash-kulkarni-announcement-to...

[2] https://ir.elastic.co/News--Events/news/news-details/2025/El...

two completely different ways depending on whether it's an iMessage or a regular text

Isn't that true for any device? not just watches?

A "regular text" would be an SMS and those use Signaling System Number 7 telephony stack.

iMessage uses application level protocols sitting on top of IP in the standard OSI model?.

SS No 7 only roughly maps into OSI model, the equivalent application layer would use MAP - Mobile application part.

The impact is local though, it would be only a problem if the median small company is more messed up than the large co.

It not likely to happen because being small there are more threats or market forces to deal with so they cannot do as they please. Monopolies or just economies of scale affords large co and the small number of executives that control them outsized influence - both good and bad.

That too has precedence , there is long history of controls of cryptographic algorithms up until the 90s. It wasn't abstract either, older greybeards would remember browsers like Netscape had two versions International and U.S. for this reason.

If you classify AI as a weapon which seems to be the direction that we are all heading towards, they yes first amendment rights won't likely apply.

Wikpedia has more info, plus WNN and other industry publications usually are more up-to date.

Kori[1] has 7 operational units today and 1 commissioning and 1 under construction

Hansul[2] has 8 operational units and another 2 more under construction.

All 4 new units are APR-1400 reactors ~1400 MW capacity. Kori should retains its top position, Saeul-3 in Kori Phase II has already reached criticality in April.

Tianwan in China will come close but its 7/8 units are slightly behind in construction than Saeul-3/4 in South Korea, plus the plant is also bit smaller at 6600MW now . The Russian VVER-1200 design China are using is also slightly smaller than Korean APR-1400.

[1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kori_Nuclear_Power_Plant

[2] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hanul_Nuclear_Power_Plant

it is called SpaceX .

Hardly the fault of anyone is it for not reading a 100+page document meant for investors when it literally in the name .

If they don’t want us to think of them as a Space company they could have taken the xAI name (like how grammarly did with superhuman) or called it Musk Inc or whatever else.

game is to turn knobs until you get a benchmark run that shows an improvement, then ship it

i.e reinforcement learning against a weak reward function - benchmark is insufficiently complex and is not representative of the real world sufficiently.

The "game", i.e. decision tree can be modeled as a multi-arm bandit problem, to deploy finite resources ( compute) toward exploitation/exploration .

The main issue is each training / fine-tune is very expensive so number of chances at the slot so to speak is pretty limited today.

It is still the rules for Gmail (https://support.google.com/mail/answer/7436150?hl=en).

It would be feasible to change something like that without breaking security now.

Google can hardly start allowing/routing a new account for first.last@gmail.com when you were getting it for years even though your account is firstlast@gmail.com and sensitive communication like say from your bank would routed there.

Using a plus sign is subaddressing [1] and most ESPs[2] will route to the main address ( multiple@addre.es) . So you can use use multiple+email@adress.es, multiple+xyz@adress.es and both will route the email to you.

In my experience most SaaS apps do not filter this out and allow re-sign ups with sub-addresses.

Gmail has an additional behavior that dot character is ignored in local component of the address . multiple@gmail.com, mult.iple@gmail.com mult.ip.le@gmail.com all route to the same inbox as well.

[1] https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/html/rfc5233 [2] Less common in work hosted ESPs but almost universally default enabled in public ESPs for consumers.

How will flagging help?

The main llm will refuse to scan for issues flagged or not, and the cheap model not do a good enough scan on its own.

For models designed/marketed for cybersecurity defensive uses, any predictable refusal mechanism is a vulnerability. It is like being able to cause a kernel panic or segmentation fault .

Even if the gate is fail-reject, an attacker can overwhelm HITL reviews with many false positives and use DoS vectors here.

by spending more time on the project and testing it yourself

a human would generally spend a lot of time here,

This was always the hard part - game engines, asset libraries and all other services / SDKs were always making code-generation cheaper every generation.

Releasing a bug-free, thoughtfully built product requires a lot of attention and product skill.

Apple will deploy the same security/ privacy / ease of use /packaging strategy they have done for every other product.

Same reason developers continue to use Apple payments even when they have to shell out 30% of the revenue.

I can see Apple, setting App store rules around declaring AI usage, or could start labeling apps not using their models with strong language designed to amplify the increasing user concerns around AI and so on.

The product strategy has to be better the product itself does not have to be objectively better for the developer for them to have to choose it.

Is it though?

Backrooms was a quite successful web series on YT which in turn originated in 4chan boards.

Only the medium being sourced from is changing from successful Broadway shows, popular novels or comic books in the years past. The calculus remains the same - properties with name recognition even from other formats tend to be green-light.

Trust of a project long term always was and continues to be of concern when choosing a critical dependency .

The concern basically boils down to how large and serious is the team and what if they abandon the project in few weeks or months .

These were always the risks, many here have been burned by betting years of their career building against promising but what turned out to be weak projects

OP is alluding to the fact that today commit frequency, lines of code or how active the contributors in the issue trackers are no longer good signals to use as proxy.

When the underlying project to yours is few million lines of code written by machines only it is not going to be feasible fork and maintain or in-house it if the maintainers abandon it

To be clear users of a library or a tool aren’t owed anything when it available gratis and fully open source .

However not everyone has access to unlimited tokens to disregard the quality (in terms of history and usage ) or size of the underlying project completely