jtrn

Apply that to other products like car models, planes, and financial systems.

That article is a lot better than the one from FT.

But it does not say anything about the slowdown being unexpected. What it does say is that four unnamed people were disappointed by the slower quarterly growth. If four people had an unrealistic expectation that revenue should double every quarter and were disappointed with only 45% growth for a firm already at 25% of Nvidia’s revenue, that does not mean that the lower growth rate quarter over quarter is generally unexpected.

And Reuters also said that it is part of a broad tech sell-off underway, which also pushes valuations down.

For the record, I'm not pro-Anthropic and, I would not recommend investing in them or any fresh IPO, for that matter, since heavily hyped IPOs with high valuations almost always do worse after the initial pop-off.

Most of the things that get posted here are deceiving. It's just that people care to deconstruct why it's deceiving when it aligns with their biases.

Every now and then I read articles from the Financial Times just to confirm that they are still a terrible source of information.

BB+ is technically junk. But the it is one notch from investment grade. Also Junk ratings are normal for young. So the framing is sensationalized.

"Growth has slowed" is technically true but misleading. Q2 to Q3 still went from $11.5bn to $16.8bn. And at those levels, it’s not wildly unexpected that it has to slow down.

And the bias is obvious when they write "Despite limited disclosures" which makes it sounds suspicious, when it’s normal thatrivate companies don't publish financials.

It’s also technical errors. Broadcom agreed to support the residual value of the chips, they did not guarantee the loan.

When journalists and news organizations are this terrible at basic reporting, Within their own specialized domain, it's hard to find sympathy for their complaints about AI-generated content taking over.

Edit: after another look I found that the agency that gave the rating also is a new small one with not very good record eighter (Kroll Bond Rating Agency).

Alternative title: Small Agency, which is previously has been fined for Ratings Without Method, Guesses that Anthropic's Numbers are close to normal for startups; FT Reports the Guess as News.

If only they had used "12345678"!

If this is actually even close to reliable tracking, it's one of the most awesome benchmarks I've seen. I gave up on feeling the zeitgeist for what people were saying.

This is like the Ig Nobels. First, it makes you laugh, then it makes you think.

It's a bit hard to know exactly what happened, I would think. But I get your point. My feeling at the moment is that AI can do surprisingly good work compared to humans, like 80% equality for some tasks at a fraction of the price. The problem is that if you then uncritically just replace every human, you quickly are going to realize that there are a lot of instances where you needed those extra 20% capabilities.

It has to be simple tasks. Opus is the orchestrator, and it tells 10 sub-agents to go out and look for one specific pattern in code, for instance. And it's not straight-up grepable. You have to actually inspect the code and just make an assessment as to whether or not the code fits the pattern one is looking for. In instances like that, Sonnet is really good for just plowing through lots of text and doing simple cognitive work. No need to pay double the price with Opus for large-scale batch work.

But yeah, it's completely true that you sometimes have the ironic situation where you actually pay more with Sonnet because it's worse at reasoning itself down a rabbit hole. Sonnet really should be capped at medium or high reasoning.

Ironically, one of the worst things you can do is to use Sonnet to organize sub-agents. It seems to be completely bonkers with what it asks agents to do. I tried to make a colleague of mine test the feature, and he, by accident, started a large bug hunt with Sonnet. It spawned 250 sub-agents and spent 5 hours looking through everything. It actually did find a couple of useful bugs, but not the one we were looking for, which is a stupid race condition probably.

Yeah, peak shaving is a real thing, and it's actually a no-brainer, I think. I just got a bit annoyed and carried away because the article did not make clear how large a challenge it is to actually disconnect from the grid and stop relying on power plants.

The reason is that I have been dabbling with off-grid gear for fun. Nothing major, just a solar power station and a couple of solar panels. And here in Norway, you really get respect for how hard it is to get energy during the winter when there's no wind and no sun. Even if I had 100 kWh of battery storage and 20 kW of rated solar panel capacity, I would be dead in the water, at least for the entirety of December and January. The only viable solution for going full off-grid in Norway is a backup generator. You could get by with wind, maybe if you live in a predictable windy area and you have a large battery bank.

Since it's so cold and darker during the winter, I have always dreamed of someone making a really good Stirling engine for generating electricity. But there are way too few people living as far north as us, so there's really no demand. You don't have to go further south than Germany, and solar is fully viable on its own, even during the winter. And the entirety of the United States, with the exception of Alaska, is completely self-sustainable per household with just solar. But off-gridding one's own home is suffering the March of Nines problem, whereby it's exponentially more expensive to be grid-independent 99.99% of the time, and so forth.

I'm rambling now. Suffice it to say that I stand by the fact that the article is misleading, though the goal of off-gridding and getting as much solar and in-house storage as possible is something I wholeheartedly agree with. I don't like it when people don't communicate how large a challenge it is.

Wispr Flow is a dangerous tool It seems..... it makes it way too easy to write a lot of text.

Games. Best way to learn!

Terrible article.

First, the 110 MW is wrong. It’s 53 MW of home batteries. Not that its the most important detail in this situation.

What is important in this context: Vermont already depends heavily on imported electricity and hydropower. The EIA says 73% of Vermont’s electricity is imported. Can we please acknowledge the stupidity of thinking you can replace generation with storage?

I could not find confirmation of how much battery capacity is actually available, but some simple math, based on an average load of 621 MW for Vermont, results in home batteries currently covering 14 minutes per day of power, meaning about 1% of daily needs.

I also found the real source of electricity used in Vermont: Hydro-Québec’s 28 large reservoirs contain about 176 million MWh of stored energy. This means the entirety of the stored energy at home is literally one million times less than what actual power plants can provide.

So, yeah, don’t turn off those power plants just yet, thinking you have “replaced them with home battery storage.”

And this is from someone who loves the idea of home battery storage and actually has my own small setup. Something being aspirational does not mean one should just spew misleading stuff like this.

Nor Norway.

Subagents.

Subagents.