cameronh90
I’ve lost weight many times, maintained the weight loss for long periods of time, but I’m just constantly hungry throughout. It never gets any easier. I’m physically just very hungry - my belly is constantly rumbling to the point that people comment on it, and I get the weird sizzling noise in the back of my neck. I’ll maintain this - for years sometimes - but eventually, like almost everyone who loses weight, something inevitably happens and I fall off the wagon.
I’m on the drugs now and all the grumbling and side effects of being hungry have gone away. Even the ones like being tired, getting sick all the time and having thinning wiry grey hair, which would happen in the past whenever I cut back food.
The Claude TUI is just so much better though so I'm hoping Opus 5.5 is actually good and not just benchmaxxed.
OIDC will eventually displace SAML, but if you're selling to enterprises you should really support both. Both will pale compared to the amount of time you spend dealing with SCIM inconsistencies between IdPs anyway.
That means either AI will become interesting, or people will figure out how to stop slop ruining their places.
Either of those options might bring their own problems, but the sloppification of the internet is not a stable equilibrium.
However, terse lists of bullets without any padding or phatic expressions are considered rude. Perhaps previously a long message indicated you'd put time and thought into it.
Maybe AI will invert the social signalling, and make conciseness polite. As it should be.
In some ways, certain problems seem to emerge from modern lives being too comfortable for the environment our brains are adapted for, but it's not as if unhappiness is a new thing, we just have better tools to treat it now. My life is about as good as any life can reasonably be expected to be economically, and I have as much social interaction as I want... but I'm still anxious (without sertraline).
It really seems like humans have been fairly unhappy throughout history, are fairly unhappy now in the best societies, and are fairly unhappy now in the worst societies too. We're a pretty unhappy species prone to quite a lot of mental health problems. Only difference being that in the past, eventually hunger would override your unhappiness and you'd have to get up and do something about it, which would take your mind off worrying about dying from that worsening foot infection and mourning over the twelve kids you've had die in their childhood.
I would also suggest that being overly negative around psychiatric meds itself can be harmful. I know many people who lived deeply unhappy lives and avoided taking them for years over fears of side effects and things they'd read about, only for them to eventually give in and wonder why they hadn't done it years ago. They do have side effects, but man, as a N=1, all I can say is sertraline improved every single aspect of my life. It's indescribable how much I owe to that compound.
About 80% of people are prescribed psychiatric medications at some point in their life. Add in how many people use non-prescribed ones (smoking, alcohol, illicit drugs) for psychological support and you're going to have a hard time finding a control.
Just have the harness able to choose which model its sub-agents use, then tell it how to split up tasks and which models to use when doing so.
Happiness isn't necessary to pass on your genes. Most animals, especially prey animals, spend much of their lives scared, because death is inevitable otherwise. We've now created a safe and pleasant environment our ancestors could only dream of, yet many of us are still unhappy. There's no real evidence we were broadly happier in the distant past either, we're just a different kind of unhappy now.
Seems to me we've developed a tool that makes people feel better and function better, perhaps by blunting some of the vestigial leftover emotions we needed when every tree might have had a sabre-tooth tiger hiding behind it.
Opus 5 consistently comes at or near the top, but outputs constant unreadable jibberish. Meanwhile GPT 5.6 Luna medium tends to be rated pretty poor on agentic tasks compared to the Chinese lab open models, but I find the latter much more likely to lose track of their own behaviour during a long-horizon task or get stuck in a doom loop.
(This isn't a comment on GLM-5.3 Flash as I've not used it!)
Where they still fall massively short, even compared to a straight out of college junior developer, is figuring out what the correct question to ask is.
This has led to situations like Fable 5 spending six days debugging a deadlock because it didn't think to add any observability to detect when the job stalls, and would wait until the job timed out each time. Any junior developer would have fixed it in a few mins, but I left Fable running out of curiosity to see how long it'd take.
Musk's bet is dysfunctional politics will make it impossible to build enough data centres and the energy needed to power them. There are many, many reasons that might be wrong. However, if the economics are even close to viable, they could start throwing up data centres quicker than anyone can build them terrestrially (at least in the democratic west).
I'm not sure what event-based traders are doing now, but back in the day NLP sentiment analysis was all the rage, so I'm assuming they've now incorporated LLMs too.
They often use 12V MR16, inherited from the halogen days, and are pretty common in houses renovated from the 80s until the 2010s. The other option was GU10 which ran at mains voltage, but they were less common until LEDs became popular.
Recent new builds, flats especially, often just include hard wired fixtures without interchangeable bulbs at all. They often still have separate drivers above the ceiling, with the wiring to the lights being low voltage, but sold as a single unit. But I think that's just so they can make the light itself thinner...
Google Home became so unbelievably buggy, and I felt so betrayed by that, that I stopped using every single Google product - from Gmail to Android to Google Cloud Platform. The few physical Google devices that I'm yet to replace account for 10% of my tech, but still cause 90% of my problems.
Other things… well people are going to disagree on what’s “legitimate”, but perfectly legal queries about morally questionable topics are commonly refused. ChatGPT refuses to translate or OCR texts containing racial slurs, won’t help with information about building firearms, won’t give you information about how to stage a bank robbery, won’t talk about anything involving suicide, refuses questions around sex work and kink activities.
I can go to the library and rent a book on gunsmithing, sex work is legal, heist fiction is popular, racial slurs are unpleasant but common in certain texts. I totally understand why they want to block that stuff off, but I also don’t really like my computer telling me what is acceptable for me to think about based on someone else’s moral code. Also a world where games don’t include anything immoral or “unsafe” is probably quite bland.
However, I find the Gemini web app to be by far the worst, and Gemini itself second only to Claude in terms of refusing legitimate requests. It used to be the worst for that, but Claude has really put up the guardrails since their run in with the US president.
Grok has no concept of safety, which means that it can do certain things that none of the other models are allowed do, especially when it comes to research, creative tasks, humour and games.
Instead we’re being spied on but seemingly police can’t solve any of the crime affecting most people’s day to day lives.
The value of a company does include the value of future returns. The standard model is net present value. In theory, if the market is valuing those future returns correctly, a PE fund would probably just do the value maximisation through investment and genuine business rationalisation, and skip the financial engineering phase of the cycle. I believe this is actually what most PE managers would prefer to do. They generally don’t actually want to burn their efforts for a short term fake valuation boost. They are still people after all. It just seems to be what the market wants them to do, and they prefer money.
> the market is pretty bad at valuing companies
The market has always been bad, but probably more randomly bad, historically. Different people had their own finger-in-the-air methodologies and an estimated market value of a company had a lot more random noise around it.
The issue is now that ~every large institutional investor is valuing companies in the same wrong way, which creates opportunities for, essentially, an arbitrage between reality and their dumb models which these types of PE funds are exploiting.
It also creates systemic risk to the financial system. When everyone is making the same mistake, “independent” market participants aren’t really independent. This is in essence what any bubble is, but usually isolated to people misreading the fundamentals of a particular sector. If the techniques behind financialisation are themselves a bubble, however, we could be in for one hell of a pop if the market realises. Like when the market realised they’d been valuing subprime mortgage books wrong in 2008.