chewz
Joined 9 years ago
Karma
3,911
Submissions
1,844
Member since
Aug 4
Recent submissions
Comment · 3 months ago
https://www.mckinsey.com.br/features/mckinsey-center-for-fut...
Comment · 3 months ago
If by heavy subsidies you mean - encouraging internal competition, securing cheap energy and educating thousands of engineers then yes, Chinese cars are subsidized.
If by heavy subsidies you mean pocketing 150 billions of dollars from EU R&D budget for innovation that have never happened then no, Chinese cars manufacturers are not subsidized.
Comment · 3 months ago
"the strong do what they can and the weak suffer what they must." - [Melian Dialogue](https://www.thelatinlibrary.com/imperialism/readings/thucydi...)
[Siege of Melos](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Siege_of_Melos)
Comment · 3 months ago
Have you actually used Opus 4.8 in Claude Code? It takes way too long to do any practical task on higher thinking levels due to over-engineering. And I am not the only one complaining. Lots of people downgrade to Opus 4.6 exactly for this reason.
Opus 4.8 training works well for agentic work. Not for code harness.
EDIT:
```
stronger on coding and raw capability but can be more argumentative, verbose, and costly.
Reliability and instruction-following Many users say 4.6 felt more reliable and followed instructions better. "With 4.6, when I tell it something, it actually remembers the spirit of what I asked for and keeps applying it."
Others report 4.8 drifts from preferences and can be frustrating to control. "I still find myself getting frustrated when it ignores preferences and drifts from instructions"
Some people find 4.7/4.8 push back more and act more adversarial than 4.6. "The biggest complaint against 4.8 is that it is argumentative and "pushes back" constantly"
Coding quality and capability Several users praise 4.8’s coding strength and thoroughness. "4.8 is technically impressive, especially for coding"
Other reports say 4.6 could be better for certain coding workflows and breaks less. "4.6 still >> 4.8 for anyone else as well? Maybe I'm in the minority, but for my use cases Opus 4.6 is still better than"
Some recommend mixing models: use 4.8 for key tasks and 4.6 for general work to save tokens. "What I do is... use 4.8 for key moments, and for everything else 4.6"
Cost, speed and token behavior Users note 4.8 often uses more tokens and can feel slower because it “thinks” more. "4.8 is much more cautious, and as a result - slower. It checks everything, thinks for a long time etc."
```
[https://www.reddit.com/answers/601770d4-4059-478d-aa52-b445c...]
Comment · 3 months ago
> Anthropic should not have bugged their knowledge distillation attacks.
It is like one of Pizzaro's men crying that someone have stolen his precious golden dublons
As Lenin have said - "Loot the looters" (Russian: Грабь награбленное)
Comment · 3 months ago
> If by Opus you mean Opus 4 and not Opus 4.8, then sure
I meant Opus 4.8 which is rather dumb and ineffective in coding harness, especially with higher thinking levels.
Comment · 3 months ago
From my experience Qwen-3.7-Max is above the Opus level but delivers results much faster. Slightly worse then Fable. Way ahead of Deepseek 4 Pro (in speed and overall comprehension) - which is a workhorse on its own. I am using them all with Claude Code mostly.
Qwen-3.7-Plus is quite OK, good for subagent use. Way better then Sonnet.
Qwen-3.8-Max-Preview seems working just fine for me at the moment - I am playing with is right now but too early to say anything. At 10% of regular price it is a steal so far.
Comment · 3 months ago
Just so you know, most people nowadays can create decent pictures or even movies with smartphone. Not automatic camera, not polaroid, not Polaroid camera, not analog Canon FD, not cardbox camera.
Where will you put a line between photography and pressing button?
My point being - tools change with time.
Comment · 3 months ago
There is a market niche for projects cementary. Many companies or funds tend to buy projects at peak valuations (or artificial valuations based on blown up projections).
Re-valuating these projects on the books would be an embarrassing to the board. Losing face, shareholders questions.
Selling these assets (possibly via asset swap) to specialized cementary fund where they can be disolved and disappear in the haze is a different, more honorable matter.
Comment · 4 months ago
I have been thinking about it - paid apprenticeship is the answer - just as it is in other professions like medicine.
Seniors should be paid to actively introduce juniors to the trade over couple of years. No more bootcamp entry.
And it would be significant $ for senior to agree to expend his time and energy on software engineering apprentices. There would be also very limited number of places with good seniors. Exactly like medicine for a long time now.
In fact it is already happening in some companies I know about - seniors geting their bonuses tied to juniors being under their wings.
Comment · 4 months ago
This is actually very counterproductive with Opus 4.8 - you are wasting a lot of time.
For Opus 4.8 training with overblown internal dialogue and second opinions - Max effort burns just tokens and wastes time without much value. Spinning wheels.