simjnd

For doomscrolling or watching videos it makes little difference. For an iPad that advertises drawing with the pencil, the latency of the brushstroke is a massive difference between the two. The more immediate feedback unlocks more confidence and reduces a lot of friction.

Oh right, peaceful protest for one's right totally deserves to be punished by government authorities with this kind of violence. When did the script flip?

I switched back to Arc a few weeks into Dia because there are so many powerful features they refused to port to Dia. I submitted them as tickets, answered their forms, replied to their "what Arc features should we bring to Dia" twitter posts and still they never made it.

Dia is a joke.

People were extremely dismissive of chinese models until recently. They went from 1 year behind frontier to 6 months behind frontier to 3 months behind frontier extremely fast.

It's a bit below DeepSeek 4.1 Flash at about twice the size. For a model that was supposed to come out a few months ago this is pretty good. Mistral catching up to the chinese open-weight models is great news. Excited to see how they will build on that!

No? The numbers I quoted were GPU numbers, sourced from this video [1].

Also I explicitly acknowledged in my first comment that real devices won't be able to draw that kind of power. But 4 watts is 4 watts whether it's in a test bench or a phone.

[1]: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=BCCJuOopLK8

So tired of people on HN calling you out for being excited about tech.

It gets M5-level numbers at 12-14W.

It gets about 30% better perf than the A19 Pro at equal wattage on the whole 4W - 8W range.

So no it's not worse power consumption than prev gen. This is ARM's stock GPU having finally caught up and being competitive with Apple and Qualcomm's mobile GPUs.

This is insane to me. Stay cynical if you want, I have the right to be excited about it.

Yeah it wasn't a dig a Xiaomi specifically. All Android devices have broken Vulkan drivers. We have to rely on alternative open-source drivers (e.g. Turnip for Snapdragon) for real compatibility and performance.

Geekerwan has an excellent video [1] where they run the new Spec 2026 benchmark on the development board they received.

[1]: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=BCCJuOopLK8

Yeah I have an Ayn Thor with a Snapdragon 8 Gen 2, it's great being able to play fairly demanding Windows games on this tiny device.

It's still PoP with the RAM stacked on top in a plastic casing so you need a pretty big fan to cool it since you have to go through insulating plastic, then the RAM to get to the CPU.

With a HPB packaging you can cool the CPU directly and could theoretically get the same amount of cooling power with a much smaller fan that could be integrated into a thing smartphone (à la RedMagic).

The GPU performance is insane too, approaches M5 results at ~20W.

Of course it will be in Android phones so it will be throttle hard past 4W and will have terrible drivers.

I wish phones moved to HPB packaging and active cooling so we could have sustained 10W and use them as light workstations.

I think you could argue for it both ways. Then you could claim ternaries are inconsistent too, shouldn't it be:

resultA : resultB ? (evaluation)

if we always put result first?

I think the most important piece of if statements and ternaries is the condition being evaluated and it's worth putting that first?

But the capture is conditional so it makes sense.

if (evaluation) result = evaluation

if (evaluation) |result|

Although assignments as expressions in C are convenient, I don't think they make a ton of sense and find Zig's capture easier to read (easier to immediately see what's being evaluated)

That's the thing I don't think it gets the provider the results they want for their benchmarks.

It gets them what they want for their legal safety, but it actively harms the performance.

Pi with its 300 words system prompt outperforms Claude Code and Codex both in token usage and passing rate, when using the same model + effort configuration [1].

So yeah not only does it bloat context, but it runs worse too.

[1]: https://www.databricks.com/blog/benchmarking-coding-agents-d...

22k characters of system prompt is crazy, and that is without the tool definitions.

Why would anyone rely on the world knowledge built into a model when the harness can just let it search for current information?

Intent understanding is a big point for sure, but world knowledge I'm not sure I see a use case for it.

Deepseek V4 Flash 0731 was such a massive jump in capability for such a small model (and price), that I'm a bit disappointed by this release.

I keep my agents on tight leashes, using them very interactively for bouncing off ideas, architecture, and then writing code (especially prototyping) and Flash has been crushing everything I ever needed it to do.

Maybe my ambitions are too tame compared to people needing Fable / Sol grade models, but I'm probably staying on Flash and not moving on to Pro for the foreseeable future.

I read "coding" as literally the act of being in the text editor and writing the code, not the encapsulating job of defining requirements, desigining a solution, etc. which is definitely not a solo activity.

But I agree with OP that when comes the time of sitting down and writing the code, it is a solo activity. I want to lock in and not see multiplayer cursors or avatars popping up around the editor. The part before and after that are for collaboration, but writing your piece of the code is (or at least I like it to be) solo.

You probably haven't read the article, but the software they build is a TUI, not a Desktop GUI (in fact a big chunk of the article is how they need to fight against Flatpak and AppImage because they are designed around the assumption of a GUI).

I guess Deepseek V4 is too now that it's out of preview.

The comment I replied to didn't mention anything about being close to frontier, just a blanket statement about Chinese Labs models being slow and inefficient.

People talk about frontier as if it's the only innovation worth pursuing. Deepseek V4 is far from fontier, but it's architecture is super innovative and efficient and what it achieves at that size (especially V4 Flash) is incredible.

> the Chinese models really are slow and token-inefficient

This totally depends on the model. Deepseek V4 is very fast and efficient.

A wrapper class if you want, a wrapper type with methods / dedicated functions. Still, seems pretty ergonomic to me. Yeah we went from one line to three, but the three lines guarantee safety whereas the one doesn't so?

Also I'm not sure the token count is very relevant for an Anthropic employee who just spent 165k worth of token rewriting the whole thing in Rust. Sprinkling a few defers here and there and swapping types surely would have been immensely cheaper in tokens.

Yeah since my whole point is about the technical merits of the rewrite article, I don't count that as justification.

Why is just a wrapper type "less ergonomic"? Everybody does that all the time in every language. And then if you can convince me it is less "ergonomic": why does it matter if it solves the problem? And that is considering humans write the code manually. Why does it matter if agents write the code? This makes no sense.

Not about the things that matter.

If you write a blog post about "I switched from X to Y", I expect the WHY: the pros and cons of X, of Y, and of the alternatives that were considered and dismissed before considering Y.

This is more a blog post about how to use Fable to switch from X to Y, than it is about X or Y.

I don't think Zig community is triggered, I think only Zig's creator is triggered because he is afraid of people interpreting this as "Zig is unsuitable for X".

I think a lot of people will, but those who do probably weren't the target audience for Zig in the first place?

I could point to the same examples this article refers to: the Bun blog post says "Having a rigid style guide [in Zig] with clear ownership expectations explicitly spelled out in the type system was a real option for Bun" and presents no technical reason why they didn't choose (or even TRY) that. They handwave it with "This is and ergonomic than the Zig we expect".

Why was it in their own words a real option? And why did they not go for it? This is the technical substance I'm looking for: an engineer explaining what options have been considered and what wanted and unwanted tradeoffs they present.

Also only mentioning figures for the platforms that saw an improvement is sketchy. "With ICU and code folding Windows and Linux get 20% smaller", what about macOS? Why did it not see the same gains? The fact that they don't mention it makes me think that they don't KNOW, and isn't confidence inspiring coming from the engineer who SHOULD know.

Thank you. I was left confused after people praised the Bun to Rust blog post eventhough it contained very actual technical substance. No clear evaluation of options, very biased report on impact, missing figures. It absolutely didn't feel like an engineering blog post.

Maybe people were more interested in the agentic part more than the actual rationale for the port in the first place, because it was very disappointing from a technical standpoint.

Where have I claimed that it isn't worse, or that it is the same?