mil22

Not entirely orthogonal. Orkut's original C#/ASP.NET/SQL Server stack was an awkward fit for Google's predominantly Linux-based infrastructure, which made scaling and operating it more difficult. Almost all of Google's other web services were written in tight, optimized C++. David Jeske, Orkut's former technical architect, described problems with the .NET runtime, difficulties integrating with Google's infrastructure, and an eventual migration to Java and C++.

That doesn't mean C#'s execution speed was the primary bottleneck. In fact, Jeske's team reportedly made dramatic performance improvements while retaining .NET. But arguing that the choice of technology had no relationship to Orkut's scalability problems is just as misleading as blaming everything on C#.

The original Orkut site was written in C# - it was very slow and couldn't handle the growth. Orkut was only a big success in countries like Brazil and India where internet connections were already so poor that nobody noticed how slow the site was.

Deactivating my LinkedIn account was one of the best things I did for my mental health. I have not missed it even once, and my career has never been better.

Yet another scramble to use up weekly quota before an Anthropic cliff. This isn't fun.

Israeli hegemonic ambition. Zionist funding of Trump's campaign. Corrupt profiteering from market manipulation. Distraction from the Epstein files. Gullibility of a large fraction of the US public. Trump's ego and stupidity. And when a nuclear superpower starts a war like this, there's not much anyone else can do to stop it. The result: a massive strategic blunder for the US, the true cost of which may not be fully understood for many years.

From the original paper abstract:

“Claude review raises Codex drafts from 71.6% to 89.7%; Codex self review raises them to 84.5%. The reverse direction does not pay off: Codex reviewing Claude drafts drops the pass rate from 91.4% to 82.8%, and Claude self review leaves the 91.4% baseline unchanged.”

The highest pass rate was to use just Claude, at 91.4%. Claude reviewing Claude did not improve the pass rate.

How well do models like these generalize to robot embodiments they weren't trained on?

Now if they could just extend the 50% weekly limit increase promotion which will otherwise expire on July 19th at 11:59PM Pacific, they might actually remain competitive.

Finally! Definitive, tangible, tactile proof that we're near the top of the bubble. /s

Hopefully the same will happen this time but there’s no announcement and it’s uncertain and unpredictable, which is less than ideal. Personally I am using all my quota before Monday morning Pacific time anyway, hoping they will do a reset when the team is back in the office. If I’ve bet incorrectly, I will have wasted my 25% by using it all in one day, in a rush and therefore inefficiently, rather than being able to take my time and plan it out. That’s what irks me the most.

In fact I’d say the entire system of weekly quotas and resets seems quite poorly designed. A constant rate continuous recharging model would work much better, like a battery. No arbitrary usage period phasing, no waiting for 5:45am on Sunday morning for your quota to reset. There would be no worrying about how your specific reset time aligns with the additional random resets or model availability. That would be a much better user experience and would cost them nothing.

The triple whammy of (a) two layers of annoying timed usage windows, (b) constantly changing model availability windows, and (c) random unpredictable usage resets, is absolutely brutal for anyone who is trying to plan methodically and be efficient.

One minute I'm trying to use an entire week's worth of quota in less than 24 hours, then moments later I read the deadline has been punted and I have only 25% remaining to last me an entire week. This alone is enough for me to switch back to Codex once my current Claude sub ends.

Apparently, not even Anthropic, otherwise they could have done us all a favour by announcing it sooner.

Oh gosh, that would be so nice. The triple whammy of (a) two layers of annoying timed usage windows, (b) constantly changing model availability windows, and (c) random unpredictable usage resets, is absolutely brutal for anyone who is trying to plan methodically and be efficient.

One minute I'm trying to use an entire week's worth of quota in less than 24 hours, then moments later I read the deadline has been punted and I have only 25% remaining to last me an entire week. This alone is enough for me to switch back to Codex once my current Claude sub ends.

Finally, I can sleep... I'd been working non-stop all weekend to use Fable before it disappeared tomorrow. Now, please, a reset. ;)

I hope they put out a blooper reel.

Perhaps if the Trump administration had left Anthropic and OpenAI alone, it wouldn't have turned into something about Trump.

> achieves 76.6% on R2R-CE (Room-to-Room in Continuous Environments)

I would like to know what it did the other 23.4% of the time!

I don't think that exculpates the Trump administration for its arbitrary and capricious use of export controls, an ill-suited legal mechanism, without reasonable process or justification - thereby forcing Anthropic to scramble.

Agreed, but let's not forget to put at least some of the blame on the Trump administration for the export control fiasco.

If they pair this with a reset, then it will be good news. Otherwise we all just rushed to use our quota before the July 7th deadline for nothing.

Corollary: use your quota now because a reset seems likely.

That's one of the reasons. The primary reason is THC is a partial CB1 receptor agonist - CB1 is abundant in the central and peripheral nervous systems - so it increases sympathetic nervous system activity and norepinephrine, both of which raise heart rate independent of vasodilation.

They didn't find that cannabis use leads to cardiovascular disease. They found a strong association between cannabis use and cardiovascular disease in a very large study. Correlation isn't causation. The study itself acknowledges that. That doesn't mean it's an invalid or useless study that didn't add to the body of scientific knowledge and evidence about the relationship between cannabis use and cardiovascular disease. That's how science works. Observational studies do not definitely prove causality.

After reading the study, do I update the posterior on the hypothesis that cannabis use causes cardiovascular disease to nudge it in the direction that it does? Yes - that's just Bayes' theorem. Does the probability go to 95%+? No, of course not. I'm not claiming otherwise, and it's still useful research.

That's not really a fair standard by which to judge the study, abstract or not. The dosing mechanism information was not present in the underlying dataset available to them:

> This retrospective cohort study utilized the TriNetX health research network, which aggregates deidentified electronic medical records from health care organizations worldwide.

> 1) The cannabis-user group with cannabis use diagnoses (International Classification of Diseases, 10th Revision: F12.1, F12.9, F12.90).

You can't expect them to work miracles and come up with data they didn't have. They produced a valuable piece of research furthering our understanding of the cardiovascular risks of cannabis use based on a very large existing dataset that was available to them.

Of course they would love to be able to answer the question of whether smoking is worse for your heart than edibles and so on, and they stated they would like to do this in a future study. But that costs time and money to create an entirely new dataset, and you know what funding for science is like these days.

Agree on ROA, but the retrospective cohort study (one of two discussed in this article) did account for many other factors including tobacco use.

This article refers to two studies. The retrospective study of 4.6 million people did account for tobacco use.

> The findings are from a retrospective study of over 4.6 million people published in JACC Advances and a meta-analysis of 12 previously published studies being presented at the American College of Cardiology's Annual Scientific Session (ACC.25).

> Kamel and his team conducted the retrospective study using data from TriNetX, a global health research network that provides access to electronic medical records. Their findings indicate that over an average follow-up of over three years, cannabis users had more than a sixfold increased risk of heart attack, fourfold increased risk of ischemic stroke, twofold increased risk of heart failure and threefold increased risk of cardiovascular death, heart attack or stroke. All study participants were younger than age 50 and free of significant cardiovascular comorbidities at baseline, with blood pressure and low-density lipoprotein (LDL) cholesterol levels within a healthy range and no diabetes, tobacco use or prior coronary artery disease.

"I've heard a lot of questions about Fable's availability on subscription plans.

While it will come off subscriptions after July 7th, we aim to restore Fable as a standard part of our subscriptions as soon as capacity allows, as we mentioned in our original blog post."