nrds

That is an analogy between one thing and another thing, but the topic of this thread is the designation of Anthropic as a supply chain risk, which is not involved in your analogy. It is traditional that comments refer to the topic of discussion in some way.

For example, one might extend your analogy to "The nuclear power plant then declares that it will not buy the pens after all, and the pen manufacturer (who had banned them as a customer) sues them to force them to buy the pens after all."

Literally every sentence dang has ever written on this site, that I've seen, is snarky.

> Yes, in the sense that if there's nothing interesting to say about a quote then there's no reason to copy it into the thread.

This one was both snarky and indignant. Indignant that anyone would post something dang doesn't like on his site, and snarky that the the original commenter hadn't conformed to norms of what positions are acceptable to utter here.

> snark and indignation

These are preference-based but you're pretending they're objective. I find _your_ comments to be full of snark and indignation more than any you respond to, but of course you won't agree. (But because you don't agree, that makes me objectively wrong, I know.)

"Tonal arguments are ways of, frankly, policing working class ways of communication, and covering them in elite preferences." - someone smarter than the average HN commenter.

The problem with this belief is that it implies that all of bigtech is massively overpaying for top talent who would happily stay on for pennies. While bigtech overpaying talent is more plausible than any other bigcorp doing so, it's still rather unlikely.

It is no coincidence that countries which need it least can unban it. Deindustrialization activists will focus their efforts on countries where the ban matters.

Exactly; this is not the product of serious legal work.

Wait until you realize that MCPs are just the APIs that we've failed to write before, and skills are just the documentation and simple CLIs we've failed to write before

Indeed, given 60 Minutes' historically fraught relationship to the whole concept of "truth", it's hard to credit the whole story.

Failure to read the room might explain why the tourists persist in the questioning beyond politeness, but not why they embarked on the quest to interrogate the worker to begin with.

My family does this and I can barely go anywhere with them for the embarrassment. Everything is an interrogation. They actually take delight in the waiter not knowing the answer to where the seafood was caught, and then lecturing them about the importance of knowing such things (this is the most common one they pull). That's not just failing to read the room.

We've been daily-driving this model for a few weeks and let me tell you, everything it does is a lot. Fast as fuck and it's actually not bad intelligence-wise for a fast model. It basically tries to make up for any intelligence deficit by just doing a lot, checking a lot, retrying a lot.

That's not to say I don't spend my days raging at it... a lot... but it's not that bad. It does tend to ignore completion criteria but it doesn't obviously degrade when being nudged like some models do.

Wait until you realize that the difference between path and query string is entirely arbitrary and decided by the server. Query strings should never have existed. They are an implementation detail of CGI webservers that leaked all over everything and now smells really bad.

You're drawing an equivalence between the wrong pair of things. I'm not saying that term=program; I'm saying that the type checker, qua `term -> context -> decision`, bound to a particular term, is a program `context -> decision`, and the other approach is also a program `context -> decision`. I guess it's defunctionalization, not "nothing", but a next-door neighbor of "nothing".

So you're telling me that cells use an attention system for DNA?