ursuscamp

> But even the narrative that hey microsoft fired 1k citizens and hired 1k H1bs that are lower paying is false. These companies are huge organizations. If you laid off 2k people during your annual cycle in Xbox and start hiring 2k people in cloud 2 months from now (some of whom maybe H1Bs who are also impacted by layoffs), it's not the equivalent of firing an American and hiring a lower paid H1B.

I don't think this really holds up. They could offer the American engineers the opportunity to move divisions, but they don't because what they really want to do is what they did do: Fire Americans and hire foreigners.

> Will people really come to the US on a H1B if they know they can get scaled down like a cloud server at the first sign of economic trouble or the first sign that some politician wants some brownie points?

Then make H1B what it is supposed to be for: elite specialists, not infinite low cost non-American laborers. Then you won't even need to have this discussion.

I remember the controversy around the original announcement. It seems quaint now, honestly. Simpler times. Slop by those olds standards is practically the Mona Lisa now.

Is this fundamentally different from other text-based LLMs, or is it the same except with special reinforcement learning a safe guards around generating valid types?

Surely it’s still generating some kind unstructured data internally? For example, what if I told it to generate a short story, but the short story is output as a JSON string?

Here's EPA data from as recent as 2018: https://www.epa.gov/facts-and-figures-about-materials-waste-...

EPA estimates that hundreds of thousands of tons of books are landfilled or recycled every year. That's just the United States. It seems likely that the worldwide figure is in the millions of tons.

Rare as in your grandfather's John Deere manual from 1982, not rare as in a test print run of The Great Gatsby. The number of books ingested by these AI companies is a drop in the bucket compared to old books destroyed every year through normal means.

Per the courts, it actually helps their "fair use" case if they destroy the book instead of re-selling it.

I don't necessarily buy that API prices represent "real" prices of the models.

I don't want to host my code on a platform that has activist goals beyond open source advocacy, but I'm glad it exists because it's a useful filter, like the X/Bluesky divide.

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.