deeringc

I feel exactly the same. Switchting to GLM for Le Chat without an option to prefer a Mixtral model leaves a bad taste. I hope this is temporary while the new model rolls out, but this is not filling me with confidence in either the model or the judegement of the company.

I have absolutely no problem with them hosting and selling GLM as an offering, it just makes sense for them to do this as an option. As a long time subscriber however, I don't like at all that they have started using GLM as the default model in the Vibe app (formerly Le Chat), with seemingly no way to switch to Mistral's own model. I'm paying a monthly subscription to Mistral explicitly to use a European tool in my daily non technical LLM needs. This feels off and I'm reconsidering my subscription. If all they are giving me is a hosted Chinese model, I can probably get that cheaper elsewhere.

Exactly this. And there are few bigger targets than Chrome when it comes to finding exploits (OSes and network equipment are probably on par). I'm sure they have devoted large compute resources and human staffing at making sure that they find and fix these issues before anyone else does.

I completely agree. With everything from Out-Of-Order execution, deep pipelines, SIMD, huge CPU cache, etc... I would be surprised if the performance increase is not considerably more than 1024x.

I'd prefer if it just used the system webview rather than downloading and managing an embedded browser itself. Webview2 on Windows for example.

You're not wrong - I see about 10 of these a day driving around. And that's a car model that is only about a year old. It's selling like hot cakes.

Exactly - or encrypted payloads hiding inside standard image file formats. Basically steganography. If all you want to send is a small encrypted text message, it should be possible to hide that in a large image (encoding in the LSB or whatever) in just a small percentage of pixels so that it doesn't fail statistical tests and is indistinguishable from real noise.

I see this slightly differently. Before, if I wanted to be able to do something like flash firmware onto some device I would have to download some random C++ application and install and run it on my local machine. As well as having access to all of my USB devices, it also had access to everything else on my system's user context. I didn't have a way of running that code and only giving it access to a single USB device and nothing else. Now, I can avoid installing anything at all. I visit the project page and opt-in to some flashing flow that's running in a sandboxed env. When the app requests it, the browser asks me for permission and I get to choose exactly which USB device I want to give it access too. That's picking exactly the minimum "outside" access I want to give it, nothing more. It doesnt get to read/write other USB devices I didnt choose. I doesnt get to read/write to my filesystem. It doesnt get to call system APIs. It doesnt get to set itself to start at startup. It doesnt get to install an auto-updater. For me, this is a better security posture than installing random win32 apps.

I really like the minimal approach you've taken here - it's refreshing to see this built completely from the ground up and it's clearly readable and for me, very educational.

But help me understand something. BarraCuda does its own codegen and therefore has to implement its own optimisation layer? It's increbibly impressive to get "working" binaries, but will it ever become a "viable" alternative to nvidia's CUDA if it has to re-invent decades of optimisation techniques? Is there a performance comparison between the binaries produced by this compiler and the nvidia one? Is this something you working on as an interesting technical project to learn from and prove that this "can be done"? Or are you trying to create something that can make CUDA a realistic option on AMD GPUs?

Instant SEPA is free - see Instant Payments Regulation (IPR) — Regulation (EU) 2024/886.

So, this certainly was a valid argument. But it seems to me that the whole value proposition behind these agentic AI coding tools is to be able to move beyond this. Are we very far from being able to define some Figmas and technical specs and have Codex generate the UIs in 5 different stacks? If that isn't a reality in the near future, then why should we buy AI Tools?

It's possible to build an identity system that can assert certain properties about a person (eg. "older than 16") without revealing any other details about that person. Similarly, it's also possible to build such a system where the identity system can attest these details without knowing which website is being accessed. That way, the social media site (or whatever other "adult" service) can validate the user is old enough, while the identity system doesnt track who is using what.

There was also Nortell

Doesn't Apple have an ARM "Architectural License" arising from being one of the original founding firms behind ARM, which they helped create back in the 90s for the Apple Newton. That license allows them to design their own ARM-compatible chips. The companies they bought more recently gave them the talent to use their existing license, but they always had the right to design their own chips.