eis

Nice but in general I wouldn't put my API key into some third party website, no matter if it claims to not store it. It's not something personal, you are a bit of a celeb here so I wouldn't think you'd save the keys, it's just good general data hygiene. Especially not if a leaked API key can rack up thousands of dollars in fees quickly.

Hope this comes over as constructive criticism:

  1. The whole interface feels way too vibe coded with tons of unneeded stuff. Why does it have a console and snake game built in? Why does it have annoying sounds? Why is it full of AI slop writing? The latter is especially confusing because the first person listed under authors is a "Technical Writer". I guess the interface is the general stripe.dev page not exactly related to Kai but the post definitely is pure AI slop writing.
  2. It seems to claim things that might not be substantiated like the following: "When Account Executives use Kai, they produce 2x the sales activity, create 17% more opportunities, generate 26% more revenue opportunities, and close 39% more deals when compared to the same sellers in weeks they don't use it." Correlation is not causation. If sales people have less activity (vacations or sick days etc) then they also wont use this tool much, it doesn't mean all the increase in sales is because of the tool.
  3. the post talks a lot about how great this tool is but it describes nearly nothing of value to the outsider who can't access it. What were the valuable lessons learned? What's neat about it? There is not much meat imho.

It doesn't live up to my usual expectations from Stripe.

The question is how was it able to cite the pages if it doesn't know what the content is and can't access it either?

I asked Astra to describe the content of pages 214-215 of the source it cited in this article (J. Rives Childs's The History and Principles of German Military Ciphers). It said it can't and it can't find this book online either.

Mozilla lost the tech race and with it a lot of users. Firing a lot of their talented developers didn't help. Now Mozilla is giving up the only reason why they kept a core audience of privacy focused users by sending our browsing data to third party servers for inference just at the time when small local models are getting good enough for many/most use cases like summarization or translation. Chrome provides an API for local LLMs. Apple is trying to run as much interference locally as possible. Mozilla is worse than that. Claiming private browsing while sending data to third parties.

I don't care what their data retention policies are, I don't want my data to be sent to others full stop.

Private means it's mine, it's under my control. Handing it to third parties is not private.

He actually publishes a new episode every Monday! Once a month he publishes a special AMA episode which covers a lot of listener (Patreon subscribers) questions and usually is 3-4 hours long! I'm always looking forward to these especially :)

I know consumers hate the situation with ram and storage prices right now, as do I. But at least on the bright side all this AI investment has unlocked a lot of progress in a space that didn't see huge advancements in a good while. All these 10-20% improvements gen-on-gen have resulted in upgrade cycles of well over 5 years for many use cases in order to really feel like it's worth it. RAM capacities especially have felt near stagnant for a decade.

The benchmark is very rudimentary. It does not test different levels/settings apart from its own -b 256/512 (does it affect decompression?), it doesn't measure compression time and memory usage. It does not specify parallel vs single-threaded (it mentions parallel on the one decoding number but what about the others?).

The lrzip test is interesting but it omits for example zstd and doesn't even have (de-)compression timings.

A lot more numbers are needed to present a fair and informative comparison.

I don't want this to be a swipe against bzip3, I only want to point out the presented benchmarks could be a lot better.

This is completely normal. You can't just issue a chargeback because you feel like you want your money back after the fact. They want to know what went wrong. It could be fraud but it could be also misleading checkout experience and other reasons. The merchant is charged often a fee for a chargeback on the order of $15 and it might result in penalties.

So, if you feel like you've been charged unfairly (e.g. product not what was expected), in error, fraudulently etc. then chargeback is the route and you should provide a reason. It's a mechanism to protect consumers. If on the other hand you just want your money back without good reason then chargebacks are not the right tool. The consumer also has an obligation to pay if there was no fault on the merchant side.

Honestly, sounds like everything is as it should be?

Making a wire transfer is easy, but can it be deducted from taxes? That's the tricky part.

Debit cards can do chargebacks just as credit cards can do. That's a feature of Visa and Mastercard (and others). If your bank refuses, complain to the card network. Oh and consider changing banks, that's really unacceptable in 2026 and shows an anti customer stance.

In the general Intelligence Index it scores exactly equal to Sol (61). In the Agentic Index it scores significantly lower than Sol (51 vs 58). In both it scores lower than Fable 5.1, Opus 5 and even Muse Spark 1.3.

Am I missing something or is this not looking too... stellar?

That's a good point. Seems like Bedrock offers the same pricing while also providing an uptime SLA.