meatmanek

More generally, I think there should be a legally-enforced right of due process online. Much of the rules of modern society are enforced by these companies, rather than governments, and we should have similar rights.

Don't get me wrong, I understand why it makes sense for a company to have the ability to block spammers, scammers, and malware without proving a case in a court of law, but I feel like there's a spectrum of importance, where the more potentially harmful the action is to the user, the more process is due to the impacted user to make sure the action is justified. Examples from least- to most-important:

   - removing individual content that has little real-world importance: comments, social media posts, etc.
   - banning accounts on platforms that generally have low real-world value (other than sentimental value) to the user: reddit, HN, non-monetized Youtube accounts, etc
   - banning accounts on free platforms that have a very high cost to the user of being banned: Gmail (keys to the user's digital kingdom, the rest of the Google account), Facebook (real-name policy means that it's difficult to start over), high-notoriety accounts on other social media, etc.
   - removing individual listings/etc on platforms where the user makes money: eBay, monetized Youtube videos, paid App/Play store apps, etc
   - Banning accounts on platforms where the user makes money and the account itself has some intrinsic value (reputation, following, etc): eBay, monetized Youtube accounts, App store accounts, social media accounts for businesses, etc.
   - Locking up or taking the user's money: locking the user out of a bank/brokerage/crypto/payment platform account; rescinding money (or other things with monetary value): bank account balances, payment platform balances, unpaid Youtube/other monetization earnings, loyalty/credit card points, etc.
   - Banning accounts that are essential for the user to participate in society: bank account, cell phone plan, identity providers, etc.

Alongside that, I feel like if there's a clear revenue stream to the platform owner from the account, then the case for due process is even stronger -- if the platform is making hundreds or thousands of dollars because of my presence, surely they can have a competent, empowered human look at things when necessary.

Assuming the f(ciphertext, key) can produce any plain text (of the same length) from a given ciphertext with the right key, and the keys are chosen sufficiently randomly, you are correct.

Classic XOR encryption is like this. You can make a given ciphertext decrypt to anything you want by XORing the ciphertext with the desired plaintext to get the key.

Therefore, just because you've found a way to decode something to plausible-looking text doesn't mean you've found the correct key.

I just want to rant about these Artificial Analysis charts that you see everywhere:

The "most attractive quadrant" is completely meaningless. The whole point of a Pareto curve is that each point on the curve is better than everything else on at least one dimension, and that you can make these comparisons without placing a value judgement on the relative importance of the different metrics. If you make a composite score of the two metrics (any monotonically non-decreasing function, e.g. a weighted sum with non-negative weights), that score will always be maximized by one of the points on the Pareto frontier.

So going by the numbers in the 2nd chart (1st AA chart) from TFA alone:

   - there's no reason one would choose Deepseek V4 Pro 0813 (max) even though it's in the "most attractive quadrant", because GLM-5.3-Flash is both cheaper and scores better.
   - Claude Fable 5.1 (max with fallback) on the top right* could be your most attractive option if you need the best scoring model and don't care about cost, even though it isn't in the "most attractive quadrant"
   - The un-shown model off the left side of the chart could be your most attractive option if you just need lots of cheap tokens and don't care about quality.

(Obviously if you start including other factors in your score that aren't represented on the chart, then you might choose differently.)

* I also dislike the way they place the labels, and that grey line connecting the label to the point is way too subtle.

> and Qwen3-ASR

Is the ASR inference engine open source as well?

I assume it means changing the settings like fan speed or target temperature.

Flagging is for content that breaks the guidelines, not for content you disagree with.

I thought the Kagi API was entirely pay-as-you-go.

EDIT: I see I have $5 of "pre-paid API credit". Is this a one-time thing or is that included with my plan?

What quant, what runtime?

When processing multiple users in parallel, don't you end up having to load in multiple experts? Not every session is going to use each expert at exactly the same time.

Yeah, that seems suboptimal, unless you're using a much cheaper model to do compaction.

I can't remember which generation exactly had this shift, but yeah around the iPhone 12 they went really heavy on the processing, so instead of a noisy but sharp image you got a smudgy mess. Later generations improved on that but you still see this when zooming in or in low light.

The processing pipeline also started imposing its own opinions on your photos, adjusting the brightness of dark areas and bright areas to even things out, increasing saturation, etc. This has generally trended towards more processing over the years.

In a picture from a standalone camera (or an old phone back when the processing pipeline was basically just debayering, white balance, chroma denoise, and a gamma curve), you'll actually have contrast between shadows and highlights, which, when done well, looks great. When done poorly, it looks terrible (blown highlights, noisy shadows), which is the whole point of the processing pipeline -- on average (random user, random scene), you're better off reducing the overall contrast in the image with local adjustments, even if that turns some excellent photos into boring ones, because it'll turn a lot more bad photos into acceptable ones.