HN user
Can someone explain to me the difference between this approach and using planning with a larger model, then just switching to a small model for implementation without clearing the context? I understand that it specifically does the first edit as well either way the larger model. Is there some other difference I am missing here?
You're in for a great deal of pain in the coming years.
Nasal phenylephrine is a miracle when I am trying to sleep with a stopped up nose. A spray in each nostril and my nose is clearer than even normal within a few minutes.
Bitcoin is so dead that jamesob is posting about AI.
Too late, damage is already done. We have been on the wrong timeline for years at this point.
SpaceX is planning to do data centers in orbit. Engineering issues aside, that might dovetail with Cursor nicely if timings work out.
It's a good question, but Iran has a new weapon now: The Strait of Hormuz. Maybe that's enough leverage that they retain that they will stop their nuclear program for a while.
Iran gained international credibility by adhering strictly to the JCPOA, even long after the Trump admin broke it. I doubt they will squander that by not adhering to whatever deal they negotiate next.
The readme says it's 88,000 lines of "hand-written" C, and yet there's only 41 commits all from the last day, and they're all co-authored by Claude.
I have no problem with AI code, but it should not be advertised as hand-written.
All of those are within range of Iranian missiles and drones. The only ways out of this are total war or final settlement giving Iranian favorable terms.
Truly amazing times. Just doing things has never been easier, and it has really reinvigorated me.
Maybe Ghostty will follow Zig to Codeberg, but it doesn't seem like a fit to me.
OSS is increasingly bisecting into two camps, and you can tell which camp they are in depending on whether their developers use X or Mastodon/Bluesky.
My brain is so cooked that I saw “M 7.4” and the first thing I thought was, “Which model is that?”
They are heavily invested in Bitcoin and still offer and improve their Bitcoin services. It’s not really “blockchain.” They’re not a crypto company. They are ideologically dedicated to Bitcoin.
MiniMax has an incredibly affordable coding plan for $10/month. It has a rolling five hour limit of 100 prompts. 100 prompts doesn't sound like much, but in typical AI company accounting fashion, 1 prompt is not really 1 prompt. I have yet to come even close to hitting the limit with heavy use.
They abandoned Swift recently.
This is depressing because we will go to war over this and it’s going to be five years before people realizing they were tricked by “babies in incubators” propaganda.
This is obviously AI to everyone but the most gullible people imaginable. However, this is becoming more and more common and we should really crack down on it before it completely escapes social acceptability containment.
Cashu is a working chaumian ecash protocol built on Bitcoin. It is quite functional and has some subset of bitcoiners actually using with, with many wallets and mints building on the protocol.
So, I was part of the Nostr community for quite a while and was the author of a popular Nostr extension for Safari, before eventually giving up on Nostr for various reasons.
I haven't read that entire paper. Mainly, I skipped to the section you mention here:
The event protocol that drives the system doesn't authenticate public keys, so asymmetric signatures are performative: attackers that can intercept messages (Nostr servers, the presumed adversary of an E2EE messaging system) can just swap out keys and re-sign.
I think you and the authors perhaps misunderstand the Nostr protocol. Nostr is, effectively, an identity system tied to a public key. The cryptography is sound. Your identity is your public key. When you request a user's profile, or their events, you request it specifically by their public key. That is unforgeable (assuming no bugs in the implementation, like what the authors found in Damus).
This does present UX issues that can manifest as security issues, such as "how can you verify that a user with a certain public is who they say they are instead of an impostor". That is a separate issue from whether the cryptography itself is sound.
I've been a ruby user for almost 15 years. I've been to several RubyConfs in that time. I have never found that to be true. It's a thin veneer over rampant toxicity and political extremism. Many of the evangelists in the Ruby community garnered a horrible reputation outside of Ruby, then migrated to insular social media applications which no one uses, causing the slow and persistent decline in the popularity of the language.
I never looked up the origin of the name before. Interestingly enough, I associate Bellingcat with permanent cold warriors, a group of people who seem determined to fulfill the moral of the tale.
The sales pitch: It's permissionless, but also has baked in compliance. These two things are not compatible. Stripe must comply with US regulation, they aren't going to launch a financial network that is actually permissionless.
As an avid X user, I think she did an astonishing job keeping the platform afloat at all given that the owner is borderline insane and uses the platform as his personal playground.
The article says that it belonged to a species of deer called “wapiti”. Since I never heard of it, I looked it up and it’s just an elk. Why didn’t the article just say “elk” which is the much more common term?
That really depends in your time horizon
That’s 1% of an ORM.
The greatest and most lasting art in human history was created by artists who were sponsored by the wealthy as their only source of income.
But blocking links to hacked documents regarding JD Vance seems a little suspect considering that, as the article mentions, he was opposed to blocking links to hacked documents about Hunter Biden
Per X, the links were blocked because they included un-redacted personal information such as address and SSN.