I was forced to switch to Windows 11 despite promising myself that I would never do this.
WHY THE FUCK CAN'T I INCREASE THE WIDTH OF THE TASKBAR? I have a 30" monitor, I can afford to have 3 or 4 rows of windows in my task bar. But I can't, not because it's technically feasible but because a human at Microsoft that believes they are more important than their customers made a decision to remove that option because they think they know better.
Interesting, this was definitely possible in windows 10. I do remember upgrading form 10 -> 11 and not being able to use a vertical task bar anymore, but that appears to be getting patched now with the next release.
They blocked the Golden Gate Bridge which included ambulances, other emergency vehicles and thousands of people trying to get to work. I'm happy that the DA is throwing the book at them, I hope they bankrupt themselves trying to defend themselves and then spend a lot of time in jail.
While politically i'm on the opposite side of those guys, i do think that such severe prosecution is unwarranted and politically motivated (and may be intended to create chilling effect on all future protests no matter the cause) - blocking a road is a well established traditional form of protest which traditionally is expected to end with (if the judge is in a bad mood) something like disorderly conduct citation/fine, not anywhere close to felony.
Well, if they caused you any specific loss nothing prevents you from suing them in civil court like in any other situation when somebody causes you a specific loss. That though is a completely different thing from criminal prosecution.
Waymo and specific people there responsible for that programming/bugs could probably be charged with criminal negligence by an enthusiastic prosecutor, yet haven't been. Why? Probably common sense. Like recognizing that there weren't criminal intent. And such situations is a price of progress. The same with protests. They weren't conspiring to block ambulances. And such situations is a price of freedom of protests and speech. Though if somebody dies that way, i think they would have a civil case against the protesters. The same way like affected people can have a civil case against Waymo in the situations mentioned above.
Neither of those are acceptable. Why would you think Waymo not following the law is somehow a justification for it to continue to put people’s lives at risk to enable protesters to do the same?
Except the defense has shown that the police blocked opening an additional lane even after the protestors specifically requested it for emergency traffic, and in fact blocked more lanes unnecessarily.
> Defense attorneys argued that many of the risks to people stuck in traffic could have been mitigated — including the traffic itself — if the median had been moved to open a fourth lane on the southbound side. They said a protester designated to communicate with the CHP specifically asked for that to happen to allow emergency vehicles to access anyone who needed one.
> Northbound traffic was also stopped by the CHP as a multitude of emergency vehicles responded to the bridge, which defense attorneys pointed out would have created the same type of risks the prosecution said people were experiencing because of the protesters.
Then you add an agent that goes through the code and simplifies it. Before every sprint, you get the agent to simplify whatever it can without losing fidelity.
I should probably know better than to interact with a 3 month account called "freediddy", but here we go.
> Then you add an agent that goes through the code and simplifies it
Can you? I just asked Opus to generate a sum function.
def sum(a, b):
return a + b
Then I asked if it could simplify it further. I would expect it to say this is simple enough, or just use the actual `sum` function, but it did this.
add = lambda a, b: a + b
That is, at best, a useless but harmless change.
If you ask it to simplify something, it will make changes whether it needs to or not. Now imagine we were working with a function that is a couple hundred lines. What changes would it make?
The reason something superfluous was written to begin with is because an LLM does not always know what is superfluous. Producing and reading is really cheap for the LLM, so it doesn't have the same considerations we do in writing code. It's more willing to reinvent the wheel or write something that is way more verbose than it needs to be.
In practice, asking an LLM to simplify it just means it adds a different superfluous thing. Or it refactors things that didn't need to be refactored (because it can do it quickly). The result is LLM code, even if it's good, tends to bloat a bit. Multiply that across 100 people all vibe coding and not reading the code base, and soon you have an unreadable mess.
> If you ask it to simplify something, it will make changes whether it needs to or not.
This is false. You can prompt it to only make changes that will have a material effect on the performance. You can create performance tests and have it run the test after every change and if nothing changes then back it out.
You're not thinking creatively enough about how to use AI to your advantage.
> Sometimes there's so much technical debt that it can never be paid off.
There is no such thing as technical debt in the age of AI. It's just a series of migrations that take minutes to come up with.
I migrated from two disparate databases using AI and it took minutes for it to write the migration code. I had it double-write the data, and then I told the AI to write code to compare between the two databases, and I then tested over the course of a week.. I fixed some small bugs, or more precisely I told the AI to fix the bugs and it did.
Then once I was satisfied, I switched it so that the new database was primary and the previous database was secondary. Then I tested to make sure the data was still in sync. Then I switched off the previous database, then I removed all traces of the previous code.
It was simple and relatively quick. The thought that there exists technical debt in this age is absurd. One person can do things an entire team used to take in a fraction of the time.
Never mind the huge, untouched, unspoken-of debt to all the people whose work--literary, artistic, software--under various licenses, or without, it (rather THEY, the owners and co-conspirators) are taking and re-using, without attribution, without credit, nor payment of any form. Not even a thanks (because as soon as that is acknowledged it will enter the consciousness and then the question of injustice will dwell--and we can't afford to have people thinking about that).
We have been using one of the main AIs for fixing errors or bugs in our codebase. We started early and most of the suggestions were shitty and we would pass them around as jokes. We were trying to improve it, and a little over 1 year ago, it started making very subtle fixes that were very nuanced but correct. I was shocked and thought "Oh shit, my job is gone."
The whole-word learning "revolution" was based on a lie and misunderstood science. It set back a generation of kids and made them feel dumb because of a stupid group of educators.
Give more money to schools and teachers so that classroom sizes are smaller and the children can be separated by learning ability and the lessons be catered towards them.
Then don't use the cloud-based Chinese providers, use cloud-base US/EU providers using Chinese models. The interesting Chinese models are all open making this issue mostly moot.
A key point here is open in terms of being able to download and use it, not open as knowing what data and instructions were fed into it when training.
A paranoid part of me thinks that these models are all inherently biased and instructed to be pro CCP, with specific gaps in their training data related to undesirable historic events and political ideas.
The same thing applies to US models. Check out various system prompt leak repos on github. There are also prompt injections by various parallel "alignment" models that pre-process the prompt before it's sent to the main one with questionable guidance.
You'd be surprised how much of bias exists in easily extractable information. Now imagine how much of that happens during training, that you can't easily extract.
So this is largely a moot point. Yes, Chinese models will likely have some weird things injected into them. But so do the US models. Do I care? Not in the slightest. Models are my code monkeys, and if the code leaves my machine, I assume IP is leaked be it a Chinese model that clearly tells me they do use the data, or US models that pinky promise they don't.
I wonder if I could start a US-based company with good data regulation and just serve open-weight models at a competitive price. I feel like the real barrier is just that most companies willing to adopt AI usage enough to make it worth it at this point don't want to be using inferior models.
Here's a free startup idea: operate an open-weight model service, and offer "Verified AI Integrity," which signs the input tokens, the seed for the randomness in selecting outputs, and the model ID, proving that the result of the call to AI was completely "organic" and was not interfered with.
Your main audience would be snake oil salesmen trying to prove their AI products are unbiased and not under the thumb of any outside influence. This doesn't address the biases of the model itself, but that's not your business. Your business is selling tokens and security certificates. If you can get the right angel investor, you could maybe have your new standard required for some government applications.
Yes, you can. There are multiple inference providers out there. The problem is, it’s hard to beat the Chinese providers in cost. And you also have to compete with frontier model providers’ subsidized offerings.
They charge the exact same prices. So many people in these comments have no idea what they're talking about. Even if they did charge less, nobody is going to deal with the latency of sending requests to China.
edit: Actually American inference providers are cheaper for Chinese models. There's way more competition here because the Chinese aren't idiots and investing every last dollar they have into data centers for llms that don't make money..
Can you please link me DeepSeekV4 provider that's cheaper than their official offering? And not all tasks require low latency.
Also, there are a lot of competition in China. Like a lot. You might know better than me as well, but although the biggest AI-labs are based in USA, the adoption is weirdly global. Like as a general sense of what's going on - you can see AI-related ads literally everywhere in Tokyo, almost all the time, in every single screen in public.
Of course though they are not necessarily a viable solution for companies with security requirements etc. given it is just a single person project, but they still serve as a proof it can be done.
Deepseek's api platform for V4 Pro is the only example of this, and Deepseek V4 Flash is cheaper (usually) than from Deepseek itself on openrouter via DeepInfra.
Deepseek shot themselves in the foot because they never intended to serve V4 Pro for .80c mm ouput, that was a promotional price that was meant to expire (and still might). They intended for v4 to cost $4.00 per million but Western inference providers drove down the price because they can operate at negative margins to try and push competition out. I can assure you they are losing a ton of money @ ~80cents.
My point is, its Western inference providers that are establishing the floor price of inference. They are willing to operate at a loss in order to put their competition out of business. Chinese providers are typically at or above the prices set by American/western providers if you go looking on the Chinese internet. You aren't going to get deals from China for inference except through this one instance with Deepseek v4 Pro which wasn't even supposed to be permanent pricing.
By "cost" I think the parent means the provider's own costs, not the cost of inference to the customer. The cost of land, labor, and electricity are significantly lower in China than in the US.
There are plenty of US-based inference providers available, including AWS, that serve Chinese models at competitive prices (vs frontier US models). They also have lots of usage. Not necessarily for coding, but for other enterprise tasks.
It's called AWS. Bedrock is right there. Price or data policy is never the issue. The models themselves are the problem -- most large US companies are not going to touch them.
Source: directly involved in these discussions. You can downvote as much as you'd like but you can't ignore the facts.
Some suits with no understanding of how LLMs work are scared that the models might hack them, or believe that they'd have to send data to China because they do not know that open models can be run on your own infra.
Looking around their catalogue more, most of their models seem quite outdated, aside from the OpenAI and Anthropic ones (but those get more expensive). I wouldn't willingly pick Bedrock and would instead throw money at OpenRouter, that has both a bunch of providers, as well as almost any model for you to try.
There are some objections here saying that some US firms are using Chinese AI providers, but I wonder if any of those are subject to compliance. Large firms that are disproportionately responsible for AI spending are all subject to compliance.
The first thing I would do with any sort of weird issue remotely associated with my brain is to get an MRI. I would pay for it out of pocket if my doctor denied it or said it was psychiatric. Trust no doctor 100%, especially when they dismiss your symptoms as hormonal or psychiatric or anything else that doesn't go through a thorough examination with all available technology.
This is where AI like ChatGPT shine because they won't just dismiss you.
Not sure why this was down voted but there's truth to this.
I quit an SNRI antidepressant twelve years ago and for ten years I had horrible migraines, inability to form sentences, constant anxiety, low motivation, and other symptoms. Doctors just diagnosed it as depression and me having problems.
I knew something was wrong and I suspected it had to do with withdrawal from my old antidepressant. I read online and found others saying something similar. Gemini was able to help me confirm with and provide resources from specialists about this because the average psychiatrist knows nothing about this.
Finally I had a name for my issue-- protracted SNRI withdrawal syndrome. Trying to get off the medication too quick put me into some kind of continuous withdrawal. After confirming this I got back on the old medication and slowly reduced the dose this time.. I feel better than I have in 10 years.
Doctors still don't understand it and sometimes when I mention it to one(I have a few in my family)they just say "that's not supposed to happen". Never put your health solely in another person's hands. Utilize every resource available to you, even the most educated doctor in the world cannot know all there is to know about their field
The human body is an incredibly complex machine. The doctor may be an expert with particular conditions, but at the end of the day, you are the #1 world-leading expert when it comes to your own body. You're the only one who knows what's normal and what's abnormal and to what extent.
I went to see an eye specialist recently for vision problems, and that was the first thing she did - sent me for an MRI of my brain. First time in a wub-wub-wub machine, that was an experience!
(It took two months for my MRI appointment, but hey at least it was free, thanks Australia?)
WHY THE FUCK CAN'T I INCREASE THE WIDTH OF THE TASKBAR? I have a 30" monitor, I can afford to have 3 or 4 rows of windows in my task bar. But I can't, not because it's technically feasible but because a human at Microsoft that believes they are more important than their customers made a decision to remove that option because they think they know better.
Whoever you are, I hate you.
reply