alex_c

Okay, so expand on that.

How do we expect this $72B number to change over time - especially after the IPO? Is it a one-time event, will it keep increasing by $xxB per quarter?

When and how will the "chickens come home to roost", so to speak? What's the timeline on these liabilities? Will Anthropic need to settle them in cash, or in shares after a potential IPO?

How big is this number compared to Anthropic's potential market cap and share float?

I'm not trying to make a specific point, by the way, that Anthropic's business is healthy or unhealthy.

I'm approaching this discussion with curiosity, and irritated that "$81B net loss in first 6 months of 2026 alone" is a thought-terminating simplification that makes no attempt to analyze or explain the actual situation.

That's the discussion I WOULD like to see on HN, rather than "omg $81B net loss".

My understanding is the opposite - Anthropic issued debt / liabilities tied to their company valuation, their company valuation skyrocketed, so the value of their liabilities also skyrocketed, resulting in a large accounting loss.

But finance is not my wheelhouse, so I would love to hear this from someone who actually knows what they're talking about.

Driven mostly by "Change in fair value of convertible notes, derivative liabilities, and SAFEs".

If you're going to make a point, make your point - don't just throw numbers around without context.

Surprising how much of life this applies to when you really think about it!

I was setting up my kid’s laptop last year. Parental controls enabled, with the kid’s age entered. Start menu was showing stories about beheadings and murders.

Windows is rotten to the core.

The scariest part is just how many people stick with the default settings, and get this stuff pumped into their brains 24/7.

I hope some day we’ll take this as seriously as environmental protection. Which granted isn’t perfect either, but a lot more than we do about all the mental toxicity being spewed at scale by large tech firms.

I'm surprised at the negative comments here. I'm about halfway done reading the report - I think it's clear, well written, and quite frankly the opposite of fluff.

A document like this isn't going to magically "solve" the use of AI in higher education. The purpose is to define a shared understanding of the situation across a large, complex organization, and set an initial direction and general shape for actions to take.

It contains clear, specific observations of how AI is organically changing the reality of education. And, in my opinion, fairly clear high-level guidance on what MIT as an entity wants to do about AI, and what individual departments and faculty should decide on their own.

A document like this doesn't need to be revolutionary, it may feel like fluff because no specific item in it is particularly surprising or groundbreaking, but the value is in having the entire document as a whole. And it is a lot more comprehensive and well thought out than what most companies can put out.

They’ve been rolling it out gradually. There was a thread on HN about it a couple of weeks ago, it just started affecting my IPs a few days ago.

It’s managed to do what years of self-imposed content blockers etc. on my own side have failed to do - finally broke my Reddit addiction!

I'm not arrogant enough to think I know more about this than an expert who's devoted their life to ocean research, but the article itself comes across as a list of grievances against the Ocean Cleanup project rather than an objective review - mostly due to emotionally charged language like "apparently killing enormous numbers of marine organisms" and "out there spewing diesel fumes from a ship that cost $100,000 a day"

It took a bit of digging, but it looks like around 80% of the plastic the Ocean Cleanup has captured comes from rivers - while the article focuses mostly on criticizing the open ocean catch. It would be interesting to see what is the budget split between the two methods, but I couldn't easily find it.

It makes sense to me that removal requiring infrastructure will be more costly than unpaid volunteers on land. It is NOT clear to me if that means the infrastructure solution is not worth pursuing in parallel. It does seem the open ocean catch is ineffective compared to the river capture, and I can understand that argument. Not so clear to me if / why river capture should be scrapped in favor of the volunteer beach cleanup, as the article seems to imply. Intuitively, pursuing both would makes more sense. Again, this would be a very interesting analysis to see.

> Unfortunately, it also shows how some people can take certain ideas too closely to heart — and take it personally when those ideas are criticized. When experts started speaking out about the Ocean Cleanup several years ago, I witnessed several of them endure online harassment from supporters of the organization, often phrased as “At least they’re trying to do something to help, all you do is complain.”

To be honest, yes, this article seems to be getting the same response. Doesn't mean the criticism is invalid, but public communication is a skill in itself, separate from depth of expertise in a subject.

This is hilarious - this week Claude’s writing was getting so bad I had this exact comic come to mind.

Briefly considered adding “Verbing weirds the English language - stop it!!!” to its instructions.

The charging port might just need cleaning. I’m still using an iPhone 11 and the charging port was getting super unreliable. I cleaned it a couple of weeks ago - gently, with a toothpick and a flashlight, there was some lint stuck inside - and it’s worked perfectly since then.

The main advantage of skills is defining a process that is at least vaguely consistent across different executions for a given task, and plugging in some of the common pitfalls an LLM might fall into for some of those executions.

But to me, both the process and the pitfalls are going to be heavily specific to the individual or team, and to the work they are doing... It's something that evolves over time as you bump into repeated rough edges.

Taking someone else's skills and blindly applying them to my situation feels odd. I don't know what rough edges those skills were made to address, so I have no reason to believe they would fit my specific needs, initially, any better than the baseline LLM.

The one thing I appreciated about my Computer Engineering undergrad - and it took me a few years to fully appreciate it - is that yes, we did cover those levels.

The first two years were shared with Electrical Engineering. The second two years started to specialize towards Computer Engineering topics.

* Physics and chemistry.

* Circuits.

* Transistors.

* Logic gates.

* FPGAs.

* Assembly.

* Compilers.

* CPU and hardware design.

* Operating systems.

* Networking layers.

* Programming languages.

* Computer graphics.

Did I master all of the above - absolutely not. I loved some of them, struggled with others. Generally the cut-off for how my brain works is logic gates, I was never strong at the levels below that.

But we did cover them, and I could honestly say I had at least a rough understanding and mental map of everything that happens inside a computer from the point where it's plugged into an outlet, to the point where pixels show up on the screen.

I’m genuinely curious what people at Microsoft, and on the Windows team specifically, run on their daily machines.

They cannot possibly be putting up with Windows 11 as experienced by regular people.

Genuinely curious - in your case, where do the requirements for what needs to be built come from?

In every project I've touched, business requirements are always the bottleneck - so I've never been able to wrap my head around what kind of requirements can be fed into a setup like this at high enough volume to justify it.

>Does the game actually communicate this naturally during play? Not really. The player is simply thrown into a brutally hostile world and left to suffer. In reality, players hunt these monsters to buy gear or level up, not out of melancholy.

It's more nuanced than that, and "in Dark Souls, every monster is inherently hostile toward you" is not true.

Most games have a clear division between hostile mobs you kill for XP and loot, and story NPCs which you cannot / are not supposed to attack.

That line doesn't really exist in Dark Souls. Most (all?) story NPCs can be killed, which has specific consequences if the player chooses to do so. And there are monsters throughout the game world that are functionally identical to hostile monsters - they look the same, drop the same resources if you attack and kill them - but are simply not hostile to you and are just minding their own business.

It IS more subtle than in other games, and might not even be obvious to the player at first. This gradual realization was actually one of my favorite parts of playing Dark Souls.

But there are definitely intentional gameplay elements that support this, it is not strictly text lore.