kmac_

I deleted my mainstream social media accounts about 15 years ago after realizing what they are. I am convinced that at some point most of them will be viewed the same as nicotine. I still have accounts on niche sites (like this one) that are mostly neutral, have nice, civil discussions, and are not designed to steal my time.

It’s honestly hilarious that the Proton CEO just admitted security isn't their priority. So what's their selling point then?

Yeah, it's a crazy number, but they got the AI business right, just like Google got internet marketing right 25 years ago, as long as they keep the momentum (and prices).

The company I work for has a plan B to switch to alternative, self-hosted models if providers pull off strange moves, such as drastic pricing changes. We have already switched from one provider to another once, and we do not want to get burned again. We do not reverse engineer, just regular development.

If we go for anecdotal examples that are not representative, then in my case, Bitwarden passkey use ends in an endless loop with most websites. Import and export is still a promise or "coming soon." In the case of hardware keys, two devices are needed. I was a proponent of passkeys, but big players screwed that up, like every single shared "standard".

I work for a typical software product company, and along with most of my colleagues, I clearly see that the curve is so steep that our software development process has already changed tremendously and will be different next year, and probably completely different in the following years. The revolution is real, undeniable, and the old days are gone. Some companies adapt to changes more slowly, some faster. LLMs, agents and harnesses are just a part of the bigger picture.

Those are just entertainment products, both the game and the streaming service. They can be skipped. In the end, price dictates popularity. If it is cranked too high, it will not sell. There is nothing new here.

The gaming industry competes with free social media and is losing tremendously, so Microsoft's steps actually do not make much sense. I think they will just give up at some point as they cannot create a portfolio of games and services that is profitable enough for them.

My AirPods 3 just won't quit and they sound awesome for what they are. My only issue is that they’re a pain to find if they drop in the snow.

I got the impression of an "Elizabeth Holmes is wonderful" vibe from those interviews, showing how people perceived SBF. The overall image of SBF from the book is pretty bad, but it's never stated directly.

Why? I really enjoyed the book, over-colorized, probably written to be made into a movie. He never portrayed SBF in a good or bad light, but he showed the mess SBF and his companions made.

It seems like a simple fact is often overlooked: you can't just throw money at art and expect it to be good, no matter the form. Netflix tried it and ended up with a lot of weak stuff, Microsoft did the same with similar results. Most games these days are just copies or rehashes of others, not original, full of clichés or old-fashioned mechanics. Acquired studios tried to mash up different ideas, hoping it would stick, often with really bad results, like Redfall. It's like the E.T. game disaster, but forty years later and spanned across the whole company. Hardware is great, GamePass is great, but Microsoft can't produce games.

It isn't new behavior. I use each model to redact emails. Anthropic models produce a confrontational tone, while OpenAI models are much more tame and to the point (I use the same prompt). I noticed that a long time ago and prefer GPT for those tasks.

About one year ago, I created an LLM gateway with metrics, provider fallback and switching, tools support, injecting, etc. etc., and unique features like acting as an MCP tools client and server, all streamed, with low latency.

It was a simple project in terms of technical complexity. I didn't publish it as I counted several similar projects in the field.

Putting $7.3M into such a project would make sense only in the case of a precise growth plan with already declared customers and an promising sales funnel. There is no technical moat.

Models are getting better, but there's a negative change in terms of "productivity" per dollar. Yeah, I can throw 5 sub-agents at the problem, but the cost is getting significantly higher. And yes, I can crank out the solution much faster, but again, at some point that cost will be hard to justify. And it doesn't matter if the cost is subsidized by a provider, if it's paid by your company, or from your pocket. We are slowly reaching a point where the cost will be too high to justify the gains.

Windows is dying a death by a thousand small, user-unfriendly decisions. This is genuinely sad because the technology underlying Windows is actually very robust and flexible.

So, the partnership is maybe natural, but not prospective. Also, note how Linux is getting popular among gamers. Of course, it's way behind Windows, but the direction of the change is clear.

I'm convinced that Nvidia is not primarily targeting the consumer market and that the ultimate goal for its CPUs is the server space. The company invests effort where the money is, and consumer products account for only a fraction of its total revenue. Maintaining a presence in the consumer market seems more like a way to avoid a complete pivot than a strategic priority.

This idea sounds good at first, but if you look closer, it would just make workers, not experts who really understand. What we could do, and already do, is tweak the learned abstractions. In our field, it's easy to see: most of us first learned about computing abstractions, not how processors actually work, or started with Java, not assembler. Plus, you can't teach math from top to bottom.

Producing a thing has always been cheap since personal computers existed. From mail-order software companies' times to SaaS times, producing a sellable MVP was an initial cost that is relatively small compared to the later cost of expansion and maintenance. Marketing and selling was and still is the hardest part.

Or Esperanto. But Spanish or Italian would also be great as they sound so nice.

Well, the first impression is that Gemini still goes off the instruction rails easier than other models, but I noticed that it tends to go back to the initial goal without holding a hand, which is a real improvement. It's really interesting that these models behave so differently.

BTC's price isn't the point. Crypto businesses are a shrinking niche (not counting cases like Binance, but those are exceptions), and VC money has moved on. Crypto had its shot but couldn't go mainstream. AI is a better bet now.

I would love to be able to filter out AI-generated music entirely. I stopped using Spotify's Discovery function as I can't bear this glitchy, really bad slop. It's like those "bad kitty" animations, but in music form. It's really insulting, both for the audience and artists, that they are promoting such lousy content. I hope that Spotify won't take the route of enshittification, quite literally.

I'm sitting right now in Central/Eastern Europe, and unfortunately, I don't see those 10k jobs. Quite the opposite, a lot of senior, really capable devs have an "open to work" badge on LinkedIn. Salaries went down, and including inflation, it's even harsher. Also, sentiment towards CS careers changed dramatically ("sprint monkeys," etc.) and they are considered as non-prospective and boring.

A 60Hz display in 2026 is quite surprising.

Lol, this is so good. And quite interesting, as it might mean that there's no "world model" in LLM models, or they have such gaps.

Code is always the final spec. Maybe the "no engineers/coders/programmers" dream will come true, but in the end, the soft, wish-like, very undetailed business "spec" has to be transformed into hard implementation that covers all (well, most of) corners. Maybe when context size reaches 1G tokens and memory won't be wiped every new session? Maybe after two or three breakthrough papers? For now, the frontier isn't reached.

That's why they bring a lot of value. Plus, new models and methods enable solutions that weren't available a decade ago.

Current models won't write anything new, they are "just" great at matching, qualifying, and copying patterns. They bring a lot of value right now, but there is no creativity.

It's not just about salaries, but also the lack of a culture for seeding and financing. The fear of failed investments really dominates. Government and EU-backed financing is a joke, and I'm not even talking about the terms or amounts, but who actually gets them. It's pure waste of taxpayer money and should be abandoned.

No idea what this number actually is. If it includes pension funds' investments in the US stock market and US bonds, then it is underestimated.

Nah. I'm using it daily for work and producing clean, fully controlled PRs. I don't get this denial, as the value is there, development is visibly faster, and without impact on quality (I'm controlling the agent, not vice versa).