arendtio

I just saw those sublines at the bottom of the descriptions:

> HN repeatedly calls it a fantastic explanation that made FFT click, with some rewatching it periodically.

I love them :D

I used Cursor first, tried Claude Code, but went back to Cursor. In general, I am pretty happy with Cursor, but given Elon's talent for ruining things, I am currently preparing for an exit.

It is not because I don't like Cursor or have found something better, just because I see things like no OpenAI models going forward, a push for Grok, and the stuff that xAI did in the past.

Before Cursor, I used vim + tmux.

Having a chart with a linear scale on one axis and a log scale on the other axis is a really neat trick.

The resulting charts have a high probability of looking fantastic :-D

I think with the advent of agents, self-hosting has become a lot easier. For example, I self-host an XMPP server, and in the past there were error cases where you could spend days finding out what was wrong.

A few weeks ago, I had trouble with audio and video calls. Sometimes they worked; sometimes they did not. So I gave an agent access to my phone via ADB and access to the server logs, and within 30 minutes the problem was clear, and the fix was deployed.

Background: During the last migration, I forgot to enable STUN/TURN discovery, and therefore the client did not find it and could not connect when both were behind NATs. And you don't have to trust those agents blindly; you can use it as a learning opportunity and understand everything before you do anything or ask questions.

I think they just decided to use the formatting different than the others.

Normally, the background highlight color indicates the leader for every benchmark, but they chose to highlight their column even though there are better models.

APEX Agents => Claude Fable 5 and Gemini.

Can someone please explain the downvotes?

Somehow, those principles remind me of SVN (the version control that was popular before git). The central server and clients can't run independently... Does not feel like progress.

I am also not a big fan of everybody calling them system one models. AFAIK, system one also refers to activities like driving a car, but I don't want to have those decision models driving cars.

So I think I understand what is meant, but I don't like the comparison.

Yeah, and the scripts also show how similar and repetitive meetings can be :-D

Aren't DRM and Anti-Cheat features to solve different problems?

You assume that LLMs are just summations of knowledge, implying that they do not create new knowledge. I doubt that this is the case. I mean, it comes down to the definition of knowledge, but as soon as you run LLMs, they can produce knowledge that has not existed before, and from my perspective, this is more like what we call thinking than it is just a reproduction of existing knowledge.

Did you check if the correct exif data is present? Normally, cameras don't rotate the data but place an EXIF attribute to let the viewer know how the data should be presented. If the viewer does not read the EXIF attribute or it is not present, the picture has the wrong orientation. So I would start by finding out if the EXIF data is actually present.

Nevertheless, this is stuff even LLMs know how to do correctly, so there's no excuse for Apple here.

The landing page feels very generic. I have seen this exact style on other vibe-coded pages, so you might want to spice it up a little.

However, regarding the editor, I really like it at first glance. I wonder if it is possible to register a PWA as the default app for .md files with KDE...

> how do humans maintain a coherent mental model of a software system

This is the core question and it is wrong. Because it focuses on the software system rather than the problem you are trying to solve. A better version would be:

  How do humans maintain a coherent mental model of the solution they want to create?

You need to have a picture of the whole process and everything related, not just your architecture and code.