>the company said its new chips will deliver up to 50% higher performance at the same power, or up to 70% lower power for the same performance.

>IBM's VP of silicon technology R&D says the new innovation "can improve performance by 50% compared to the best available chip today, and at the same time can reduce power by 70%."

One of these things is not like the other.

I think it may be evidence that Amazon has a shitty corporate culture that squeezes every penny it can out its employees.

Corruption can happen anywhere, but it's more likely to happen in totalitarian cultures where people feel like the system is rigged anyway. That's why countries like Russia and China have corruption problems. But I suspect the same feelings of me vs. the system occur in a capitalist enterprise like Amazon where employees are governed by dystopian, rigid, computerized metrics.

Yep. The fundamental problem that requires loops is that opus et al are lazy AF. They do not "implement the plan, make no mistakes". They'll do a subset of {A..M} phases in a plan (90% of A, 70% B, 30% L, 0% M, etc.) and then say "all done!" when it compiles. So, you've got to loop it "do this until it's done". It's fundamentally brute forcing the problem, because the models aren't designed for completeness, just complete-enough, and then lies to you.

The harness exacerbates the problem. People have implemented some privately which do this correctly, but aside from the one I just made available on gh, I'm not aware of any that are public which do so natively/by core design. (And even then, it's sometimes iffy...)

This is all just marketing to try to cover for the fact that Claude Code wasn't properly conceived or designed on the onset to do what agentic tools like Hermes (and others, like Meept, or that Paperclip company with its autonomous employees) already do: create autonomous agentic workflows with clearly defined executors.

"It's a loop" is just bullshit to cover for the fact that they've got no clear, clean way to constrain context or workflows. They're trying to make themselves sound edgy so they can seem at the forefront of something they've clearly fallen far behind on.

Watch, they'll come out with some "new" feature in a couple of months which is already old hat to those at the forefront.

"Direct to Satellite" tech is coming right along and both the satellites on cell towers and the batteries to power them are going to be obsolete fairly soon.

Latency to LEO is not a dealbreaker for backup usage. 25-50 ms for Starlink.

Granted, your issue about bandwidth still stands and seems hard to fix. They form virtual cells on the ground with beamforming, but I don't know how many satellites are in view of a city at the same time to divy it up.

It started as a very easy to use wiki, for internal knowledge at a company. It still is good for that use case.

But they tried to bolt on everything else under the sun to it, and it now tries to compete with Trello, Asana, Monday, JIRA, and everything else... and now apparently GMail as well.

The more a company tries to do in Notion ("because we already have it"), the more messy and unusable of a mess it becomes.

All of the software on all of these devices comes from random anonymous people from all over the world.

All of the software on everyone's phone and PC and server is based on open source coming from all over the world.

The rule is there for economic protectionism.

That is the reality.

Vs Android:

- The device is relevant (updated and secure) for 2+ years
- Things usually work, and what doesn't work, is predictable and consistent (total grabbag with Android, where nothing will get fixed)
- IPv6 support

Vs Windows:
- No mandatory online accounts
- Stable
- Performant
- It's not Windows

General:
- superior AI inference and memory bandwidth
- Able to play older games (unless they're old mac games, ironically)
- Able to use UNIX-like tools because it's UNIX
- Superior hardware (runs cool, good battery life)
- High performance graphically and otherwise for the cost

You're mistaken. Those H4 headlights are absolutely visually assaulting, and some of the worst on the road.

It's mostly simply kept 'light trucks' out of the US market entirely - or did, for about 20 years, until federal legislation caught up and made them simply illegal for one reason or another (safety, fuel economy).

On the flip side, even most US vehicles are (Ford, GM) are made in Mexico and Canada.

"most people only need a small family size car"

Even in town, I will find myself using my truck's "truck" capabilities at least 2 times a week for things which would be awkward or impossible with a "small family sized car".

* Going to the grandparents' house with the kids and their bikes
* Helping a neighbor donate furniture
* Getting soil for the garden
* Getting plants for the garden
* Camping
* Moving equipment for work

Granted, I've got a Tacoma and not an F150, and I largely agree that large trucks are excessive (and they've been made to be so due to fuel use regulations not consumer desire). But, you can't buy "small family sized car" today with the capacity and capability of a 1980s family sedan.

You used to be able to get a family sedan that's big enough to take you and your family to do things, but 'efficiency' and 'safety' mandated features and capabilities which were no longer possible in smaller vehicles - so they pushed everyone to 'commercially exempt' vehicles, instead, because those have the capability to do the things people want to do. You can track the advent of the double cab pickup to the changes in government regulations exactly.

You realize how silly your cost comparison is, right?

You're evaluating a full sized truck to an 'economy' car. Entirely different capabilities.

I don't disagree with the gist of what you're saying, particularly with new vehicle prices getting insane in the past couple years and the increases in gas cost. Also, Dave Ramsey is a complete bumbling idiot who is out of touch with the economy, and has been for years.

This is almost as dubious as claims of baby car seats saving lives (which, if you look into it, isn't significantly supported by the data and tracks consistently with other vehicle safety changes - it tracks the general population decrease in vehicular deaths/injury).

Did they control for the following (just off the top of my head)?

* Changes in demographics of drivers
* Age and gender of those buying newer/ high-hooded cars and trucks
* General population mental injury (eg. from covid)
* Autonomous vehicles interfering with traffic
* General traffic pattern changes
* Cyclist density

As a counterpoint to their dubious rationalization: cars made 'around the turn of the century' had smaller A pillars and often obscured blind spots and made seeing everything from street signs to pedestrians and cross traffic almost impossible due to their length/horizontal view. They were horrible.