rockmeamedee

It's very very important to note that there was an existing 2025 arxiv preprint that had a >66% proof assuming some weak condition, and this result removes that weak condition.

It didn't do this whole 41.6->67.2% jump by itself, humans had done most of the work and it came in at the end and found a way to remove the condition. Impressive, but not as massively impressive as when it sounds like it did the jump by itself.

This isn't goalpost moving, it's clarifying what exactly happened bc at first I thought it had made the jump by itself. The blog post is written in a technically correct, but misleading way where it takes credit for the whole jump.

I hate this. The style of LLM-written prose is unbearable, and I found several mistakes. This is "dazzle them with bullshit details" with no understanding behind it.

I assume the book this post is marketing is also AI slop too and I lost respect for its author.

For Bun to not have torched its reputation among its users, it would have had to publish this blog post _before_ pressing merge on that PR.

That's what underlies most of the vitriolic reaction to the events, it was done really in a really rash way.

All they had to do was a)not gaslight people about your intentions when they found the branch b)publicly post the intent to do this, and then c)publish a doc like this one right before merging, ideally leaving the branch open for like a week in case anyone in the "community" finds things to fix.

Then those UB/Miri issues others found would have been "yay collaboration" boosts instead of negative issues that prove that the approach was risky/unthoughtful.

If you're going to cross a rubicon, maybe tell people a)that you actually want to do it, b)why you want to do it and c)what it looks like after you've done the rewrite.

Reminds me of the "mathematical proof that there is no least interesting number". Because if there was a "least interesting number", that would make it interesting: it would have this unique property of being "the least interesting".

Here each candidate for "least interesting art" loses that property in much the same way, becoming interesting by being not_viewed_much.

I don’t understand. Gitoxide exists and is great.

It might have missing pieces, but it’s easier to vibecode any needed networking additions to Gitoxide (which is maintained) than to just go and burn tokens trying to clone all of git again.

Git wants to add Rust. Gitoxide is a multi year project that’s going to be more maintained than an ad-hoc “it says it passes the test” vibeclone.

I’m not even against vibecloning things when it’s useful, but this shows no benefits. Git is a beloved tool that few people dislike, it’s not like vinext (people disliking the vendor lock-in they have with nextjs).

Also execs should keep in mind that “we burned thousands of dollars on tokens to re-create this beloved software so we can have our own copy”, even without the copyright/licensing argument, just isn’t something positive that the community will react positively to.

It doesn’t feel nice to see your favourite works cloned for no benefit. We’re past the “it was an experiment to see how far AI can go” stage now.

What does this mean, that you can take Kimi and RL finetune it a little more and blow the big AI shops out of the water?

Would this have been extensively fine tuned, beyond what Anthropic/OAI would do themselves?

I guess this is Cursor's own benchmark, so you can finetune on your own dataset and get better results on your own specific tasks I guess.

I'm interested in the topic, and the book cover looks great, so I'll probably read it.

But it seems a bit "Maintenance: For Boys". The items mentioned on this page are "the maintenance of sailboats, vehicles, and weapons", and "Soviet tanks, or tricked-out Model Ts".

No mention that for millenia we were mending our clothes, cleaning our houses, maintaining our food systems.

The reason this book sounds interesting is that maintenance is systematically undervalued, and basically in our human history pushed onto women and the lowest social classes. But the marketing material seems to highlight only the "sexy" stuff like weapons and vehicles. Where's the maintenance of washing our hands, washing our clothes, cleaning our streets?

There's this artist, Mierle Laderman Ukeles, who was the "Artist in Residence" at NYC's department of sanitation in the 70s, and tried to use conceptual art as a way to highlight the work of the department and make "maintenance art" a thing. I'm interested in that kind of re-valuing of maintenance.

I bet this book will be interesting, I just don't like the framing as "Maintenance: Of Everything" since it's clearly not the whole story. Hopefully part 2 has a broader scope and mindset.

Yeah, uv is cool and a step above conda, but that business model doesn’t look very profitable…

They did say they want their thing to have understanding of the code, so maybe they’ll sell semgrep-like features and SBOM/compliance on top. Semgrep is ok popular, but if it maybe bundled into something else (like the package registry itself) that might get enough people over the line to buy it.

Private registries and “supply chain security” tools individually aren’t the hottest market, but maybe together the bundle could provide enough value. Let’s see how it goes.

yeah but they're still >50% off SFBA salaries. SFBA comp for a sr dev can easily be $200k+ (and can go higher, lots of anecdotes on here about $350k+ salaries at BigtechCos), for an EU dev scratching 90k euro is considered "good". Devaluing the dollar by 10% and increasing the price of EU salaries by 10% doesn't really change the picture.

Oh this is great! I always have this problem. I find that's one of my biggest barriers when reading queueing theory content. I'm only doing it intermittently so I don't have memorized the meanings of ρ,σ,μ,λ...

Visually I also often confuse rho and sigma, and math texts will use psi ψ and phi φ in weird fonts and I can never tell them apart.