Dang's response a while ago when I reported a dead 404media link:

> The site 404media.co is banned on HN because it has been the source of too many low-quality posts and because many (most?) of their articles are behind a signup wall. So that's why that one was killed. I've unkilled it now.

(I'd extremely disagree with the low-quality part)

Some of those weren't really wrong.

> Remember all the "no more data" craze? Despite no actual researcher worth their salt saying it or even hinting at it?

We ran out of fresh interesting data. A large chunk of training needs to generate its own now. Synthetic data training became a huge thing over the last year.

> Remember the "hitting walls" rhetoric?

Since then the basic training slowed down a lot and improvements are more in the agentic and thinking solutions, with lots more reinforcement training than in the past.

The fact we worked around those problems doesn't mean they weren't real. It's like people say Y2K wasn't a problem... ignoring all the work that went into preventing issues.

> We ran out of fresh interesting data.

No, we didn't. Hassabis has been saying this for a while now, and Gemini3 is proof of that. The data is there, there are still plenty of untapped resources.

> Synthetic data training became a huge thing over the last year.

No, people "heard" about it over the last year. Synthetic data training has been a thing in model training for ~2 years already. L3 was post-trained on synthetic-only data, and was released in apr24. Research only was even earlier with the phi family of models. Again, if you're only reading the mainstream media you won't get an accurate picture of these things, as you'd get from actually working in this field, or even following good sources, read the key papers and so on.

> The fact we worked around those problems doesn't mean they weren't real.

The way the media (and some influencers in this space) have framed it over the last year is not accurate. I get that people don't trust CEOs (and for good reasons), but even amodei was saying there is no data problem in early interviews in 25.

Companies with $20M revenue will not normally have spare $1M available. They'd get more money by charging reasonable subscriptions than by using lawyers to chase sudden company-ending fees.

it's monthly :) $240M revenue companies will absolutely find a way to fork $1M if they need to. Kimi most likely sees the eyeballs of free advertising as more profitable in the grander scheme of things

I'd much more prefer to review something written in Rust or Go, even if I'd much rather write it in Python if I had to do it manually.

The better structure and clear typing makes the review much easier.

My biggest reason for liking Go, over Python can be summed up in one word: Discipline.

Python was supposed to be embracing the idea of "there's only one way to do it", which appeals after Perl's "There's many ways to do it", but the reality is, there's 100 ways to do it, and they're all shocking.

> the SF Bay Area has thieves like this because it's part of local native culture

You mean like Coast Miwok or Pomo?

I’m with you but local culture is to run arbitrary tests to see if you’re a “native” or not. The tests usually go back to high school or something.

This is awesome, but we'll still need to hear the full support status. Which subsystems are covered by existing development, which need new drivers. Can't wait for the update on https://asahilinux.org/fedora/#device-support

Ridden? There are issues from time to time, but it's not like you can grab the latest, patched Ubuntu LTS and escalate from an unprivileged seccomp sandbox that doesn't include crazy device files.

Any sandbox technology works fine until it isn't. It's not like you could escape Java sandbox, but Java applets were removed from the browsers due to issues being found regularly. In the end, browser sandbox is one of the few that billions of people use and run arbitrary code there every day, without even understanding that. The only comparable technology is qemu. I don't think there are many hosters who will hand off user account to a shared server and let you go wild there.

> Any sandbox technology works fine until it isn't.

Tautology is tautology.

> but Java applets were removed from the browsers

Java applets provided more scope compared to the browser itself, not less. They're not really comparable to seccomp or namespaces.

> hosters who will hand off user account to a shared server

There's lots of CI or function runners that expose docker-like environments.

> Java applets provided more scope compared to the browser itself, not less. They're not really comparable to seccomp or namespaces.

They are comparable because they provided a restricted sandbox to execute untrusted code.

> There's lots of CI or function runners that expose docker-like environments.

These are running inside VMs.

> Java applets were removed from the browsers due to issues being found regularly

Java applets were killed off my MS's attempt at "embrace, extent, extinguish" by bundling an incompatible version of Java with IE, and Sun's legal response to this.

They never worked nice and always felt slow, unreliable and janky at the time. It’s easy to blame MS but no one was sad to see the back of them.

I was fine with the few I used, and Java works much better on the hardware we now have. A lot better than a lot of cross platform things we have now.

No, Microsoft has nothing to do with it. Browsers are controlled by Google and Mozilla and they decided to block Java plugin.

The Linux API surface is massive. And the fact it's written on C leaves lots of room for vulnerabilities. I don't think you need to reach for a VM, but without a slimmer kernel interface, it's difficult to trust the kernel to actually uphold its required duties in the face of adversaries. This is why folks push heavily for microkernels. Chrome needs to work incredibly hard to provide reliable sandboxing as a result.

Or minimax - m2.1 release didn't make a big splash in the news, but it's really capable.

While is a cool idea on its own, I don't get why they try to reinvent it as a new system. We've got swagger, openapi, graphql and many other systems that already describe the APIs. They mostly include documentation too. Why not just expose those for the same effect? (If I was cynical, I'd guess Vercel wanting a proprietary thing of their own just for less portability)

It's the vercel way. There have been plenty of experiments leading up to this (even by vercel employees before they joined) but re-packaging it as "the" solution, rather than just a tool renderer from props (tool schema)

OpenAPI, JsonSchema, GraphQL all describe *Data*.

This describes *User Interfaces*. The closest alternative would be to just return React JS code directly.

But this adds a layer of constraint and control, preventing LLMs to generate e.g. malicious React JS code.

Yeah, that's kind of what I mean. This way will always be restrictive and not flexible enough. We could get some style guidelines injected instead without other restrictions. Let people use all the API access possible instead.

OpenAPI is great, there are a lot of tools to go from OpenAPI to UI, but you don't have a lot of control over the presentation.

For instance, you can specify that "first_name","last_name" and "email" are strings, but not that first/last name should be next to each other and email in its own row.

There are supersets of OpenAPI that can control the look and feel more. JSON Forms, for instance.

This is cool, too, though.

those describe server APIs

how would it relate to ui?

OpenAPI is a superset of JSON Schema. You can look at properties in JSON Schema and turn that into UIs.

For instance, strings would get a text box, enums would get a dropdown, etc., with validation and everything.

Check this out as an example: https://prismatic.io/docs/jsonforms/playground/

> Given the size of the lease system for Tesla's in the UK.

Given the size they have a legal department which can deal with things like that. Once you get fined for failing to cooperate, you should figure out what happened. At 18 cases, they're willingly covering for people who could (or should) lose their driving licence otherwise.