Both the curl and the SQLite project have been overburdened by AI bug reports.
Unless the Google engineers take great care to review each potential bug for validity the same fate might apply here. There have been a lot of news regarding open source projects being stuffed to the brim with low effort and high cost merge requests or issues.
You just don't see all the work that is caused unless you have to deal with the fallout...
This project has nothing to do with bug reports... it's an opt-in tool for reviewing proposed changes that kernel developers can decide to use (if they find it useful).
Grok, in my experience, is extremely prone to hallucinations when not used for coding. It will readily claim to have access to internal Slack channels at companies, it will hallucinate scientific papers that do not exist, etc. to back its claims.
I don’t know if the hallucinations extend to code, but it makes me unwilling to consider using it.
I had Grok write me a 150 line shell script which it nearly oneshot, except for the fact it made a one character typo in some file path handling code that took me an hour to diagnose. On one hand it’s so close to being really really good for coding, but on the other with this sort of errors (unlike other frontier models which have easily diagnosable error modes) it can be super frustrating. I’m hopeful we will see good things from Grok 5 in the coming months.
Fair - it's gotten significantly better over the last 4 months or so, and hallucinations aren't nearly as bad as they once were. When I was using Heavy, it was excellent at ensuring grounding and factual statements, but it's not worth $100 more than ChatGPT Pro in capabilities or utility. In general, it's about the same as ChatGPT Pro - once every so often I'll have to call out the model making something up, but for the most part they're good at using search tools and ensuring claims get grounding and confirmation.
I do expect them to pull ahead, given the resources and the allocation of developers at xAI, so maybe at some point it'll be clearly worth paying $300 a month compared to the prices of other flagships. For now, private hosts and ChatGPT Pro are the best bang for your buck.
What are you doing with GPT Pro? I've compared it directly with Claude Max x20 and Google's premium offer. I just don't see myself ever leaving Claude Code as my daily driver. Codex is slow and opaque, albeit accurate. And Gemini is just super clumsy inside of it's CLI (and in OpenRouter) often confusing BASH and plans with actual output.
It is geek bait — most people read too far into these “spikes” and cut out healthy foods in doing so. It’s taking literally one metric as gospel which is moronic to be frank.
Yes, and elephant in the room - we already have very good measurements for diabetes risk that doctor's look at, A1C. It doesn't matter much how your glucose happens to be at a point in time because diabetes is a chronic condition that takes a very long time to develop, which is why doctor's aren't going to be looking at your glucose anyway.
You can obsess over your glucose all you want, but if you aren't lowering your A1C then you aren't lowering your risk.
This is going to sound partisan, but I genuinely think it’s because Trump connects with people on more levels than the Democrats do.
The name calling is part of his blustery comedic Hollywood side, which people understand is different to his policy making side. Watch the all-in podcast episode with him if you genuinely want to see a different side to him.
In contrast, Democrats often come across as only having a singular serious facet to their personality, and so immaturity undermines their entire character.
I have the same perspective. On top of it, society has gotten use to seeing reality TV shows. DC looks like a reality TV show for ugly people to them. It's not even done well.
Whatever different side you are seeing is the act, the name calling is part of his normal behavior. I don't want to say too much, but I have a family member who had to deal with Trump briefly in the 00s. From the things I heard back then, I know for sure that he tries to bully people to get what he wants and will end up shouting threats if things don't go his way.
It goes from "its the lefts fault, and maybe you shouldnt call people Nazi."
To "It works for Trump!"
to "trump connects to people. the left doesnt"
Lol. This is like when you are in an abusive relationship, and you are always wrong, and theres no real way to explain why you are always wrong - until you accept that one side is meant to be the loser in an abusive realtion.
Yes thats the key word. Control perception, and you can win. Which is what the repubs do. They can make someone who says heinous things, sound presidential.
The dems need to create that. Its cheaper, its more efficient, and it works.
I'd love for someone to come up with a workable alternative, but until they figure that technique out, the dems should figure out how to emulate what is working. Within their constraints of course. They are still a big tent party, so they cant do the same things as trump.
> They can make someone who says heinous things, sound presidential.
They do that by lying and gaslighting their voters. Fox News will call January 6 a "day of peace" and refuse to show the footage from that day of the insurrection, to the point where when Republican voters are shown footage of insurrectionists beating cops with American flags and crushing them in doors, they are surprised that's what actually happened.
That's the degree of information control that's necessary to make Trump sounds presidential, and we shouldn't wish our own representatives to gaslight and lie to us like that.
I don’t wish this anywhere in the world. But until the righteous find a solution to this tactic, people need to emulate it, if only to bring their political battle to parity.
Restraint IS a value, and it might well be yours. But the value needs someone to create a path for it to be viable and competitive. Otherwise your choice is simply between restraint and electoral irrelevance, or between combat and a chance to get some votes.
You are talking about an unsustainable war economy that is overheating. Soaring inflation, brain drain and a falling ruble are only just the short term phenomena.
If you would truly believe what you say, you should convert all your savings from dollar to rubles. No serious economist would think that doing so would be a masterstroke though.
the dollar as the reserve currency already has a serious impact on the US (ie. the big upside is that it allows the US to borrow for very cheap, but the nasty downside is keeping the purchasing power of the USD artificially high, which is not great for the non-finance sectors of the US, not great for people who work in those sectors, and double-plus-not-great for US exports [which are not the dollar itself]), basically it's the "natural resource curse" again
A weak dollar is good if you own a company that relies on exports. For the rest of us who are paid in dollars and need to buy imports, a weaker dollar hurts.
That is one opinion. We can already see China and Japan selling off their US bonds and the BRICS countries are working on solutions to get off the dollar with high priority.
They were long reads, but thank you. They generally cover history and speculation on BRICS, but we will need to see how it works out. I have seen their meetings and open statements about intent to diversify away from the dollar for trade as a high priority. The articles don't really explain what happens if/when they do figure out international payment systems that avoid dollars. Think of this: You have a trillion dollars you printed floating around the planet. It didn't cost you much to print them, but you did get goods and services for them. If that trillion is halved to $500B, what happens?
Okay, so it's an especially hard topic, because the soundbites seem simple and dangerous (dedollarization, end of the dollar hegemony, BRICS will move off the dollar, the first signs of the beginning of the inevitable and long predicted extremely overdue fall of the West, etc.), but the prosaic technicality-dense details are simply long and turn out to be extremely anticlimatic.
Payment systems are already here that avoid the dollar. (From the extremely simple blockchainish digital-synthetic currencies like Ripple XRP to the classic SWIFT-like China's CIPS[1].) And these are already in use. After Russia got thrown out of SWIFT they are now basically using CIPS. (Of course they also have their own version, SPFS. "Coincidentally" its development started in 2014.)
However, on the CIPS wikipedia page you can notice that the important things needed for the actual settlement is a boring list of stuff about each member institution (account numbers, settlement procedure description, credit rating). And each member institution has its own rules about what transfers to accept. And of course in hard times trust is in low-supply, transfers start to get manually reviewed, tolerances start to decrease, everyone starts to hoard good money, thus only bad money remains.
All in all, the important thing is that there's no magic system that can handle payments without the usual institutional-societal framework. (Well, of course there are blockchainish things. For example Visa is doing something on Solana. And Solana is pretty fast and cheap. And a horror show to develop smart contracts on, but that's not really relevant now, and not important for Visa or Russia/China/banks, because they don't care much about the ethos of decentralization, they just want to have something quasi-trustless, fast, and cheap.)
> If that trillion is halved to $500B, what happens?
It depends, but, well ... nothing really. Most of money is already at rest. It represents exactly that stuff you got for it. It represents all the wealth created. It was printed to keep inflation around 1-2%. If it disappears in some computer system people will start to scratch their heads, but the ratios will remain mostly the same, so purchasing power and wages/salaries will not change.
That said if some bank decides to flood the market with cheap US Treasury bonds nothing happens. That's already in USD, the bank loses on the transaction a lot. And a lot of these reserves are in bonds.
Okay, what happens if that bank asks for the cheap bonds not USD, but let's say rubels? Okay, they will end up with a shitton of rubels. The exchange rate shifted, but nothing actually happened, sure the ratio of flow of goods and services will adjust as the overpriced rubels will be exchanged for a bit more goods and services than without this huge transaction. But what does this lead to? More exports from the typical exporters. It's not particularly good for anything that's hard to scale up, it will just result in price inflation. And then eventually the exchange rate will go back to reflect the actual flow of goods and services.
Thank you for the thought out explanation to a complex topic important for us to understand.
You recognize impact to exchange rates when one currency is in more demand than another. If this causes an increase in exports sold in the devalued currency, rates could eventually stabilize, but that depends on many things. Those exports could be gold in our treasury, US land, and factories. Those assets that are fixed in place are only valuable to a foreigner if they can be assured they will not be confiscated.
I know this is simplistic, but let's walk through this flow. I print up a $100 bill and give it to China for a washing machine. China will take it because they need it to buy a barrel of oil from Saudi Arabia. That $100 floats around in the world perhaps never returning as long as others accept and use it. If Saudis start accepting Yuan in payment for oil, China does not need that $100 bill as much. They start reducing their dollar reserves and US bonds. They use those dollars to buy the gold, US land, and factories. The US then has a lot of dollars but not as many assets. The dollars become less valuable because we have so many of them but not as much demand for them. If they are afraid of US sanctions, China will be less inclined to buy assets that could be seized and so the currency is less useful to them.
Admittedly there are many other factors. We will need to see how it plays out.
So let's do it realistically. You take out a loan for 100 USD, it gets printed by some bank, let's say Chase. You buy a washing machine from China, they put it in their central bank. (And they don't but bonds, let's assume.)
What if they want to buy oil, which happens to be sold by the Saudis, who want 100 USD for it. They can do it, or they can print more yuan, and use that to buy more USD on some exchange. (And they did it a lot, to keep the yuan artificially low. That's basically half of how they ended up with this huge reserve.)
And since their inflation was around 2 percent since 2010, and currently even negative unfortunately, they can print a lot.
And this is how economic development and exchange rates connect. One man's trade deficit is another's reserve basically. As long as there's some slack in economies (mostly some unemployment metric is used as a proxy for this) it makes sense to spend. (Otherwise it'll just push up prices more, ie. lead to inflation. Hence the very technical sounding name of NAIRU, Non-Accelerating Inflation Rate of Unemployment, I think hands down the worst name for any concept over many fields.)
If China starts using its reserves to buy US assets, that leads to a lot of USD getting back into the US economy, it's like a stimulus. It would push up prices of course, the Fed would increase interest rates, maybe it would even start fiddling with some other knobs (it could increase the fractional reserve ratio, it could increase interest paid on reserves, or interest paid on excess reserves).
> If they are afraid of US sanctions, China will be less inclined to buy assets that could be seized and so the currency is less useful to them.
Yes, and one read of the belt and road initiative is basically this, instead of giving it to citizens to spend, they tried to use it for geopolitical/colonialist/mercantilist projects.
All in all, my understanding is that using their huge reserve to cause some crisis would be a zero-trick pony (because after 2008 and the recent bank crisis, and the Russian sanctions implementations the West seems capable of handling speedbumps), and a slow decoupling would be good anyway. (As it would help the non-finance sectors of the US.)
Our body has been using mRNA for at least hundreds of millions of years if not billions. (I'm not going to bother to look up how far back it goes.) We have DNA to mRNA proteins, we do not have mRNA to DNA proteins.
Why should our body suddenly start doing something that has never happened? The mRNA vaccines are simply slipping some bogus production orders into the job queue, they go nowhere near the master blueprints. There are various forces that would like you to believe otherwise. Mostly originating in Beijing and Moscow.
You’re aware that mRNA is a fundamental part of DNA based life biology, so there are lots of long term issues, by design of biology. Just probably not the ones you’re thinking of.
I would note there’s billions upon billions upon billions invested in developing cancer treatments across hundreds if not thousands of research labs, not just Moderna. This isn’t an all eggs in one basket thing.
My paycheck has not increased in size relative to increase of prices of necessities. Every dollar going to necessities is a dollar that can't go to discretionary spending.
Lower discretionary spending for a long enough time means growth slows. The prices traders are willing to buy stocks is a function of a company's future growth prospects. Slowing growth rates makes for a recession.
Too many politicos define "strong economy" in terms of unemployment rates because they're simple scalar values. Full employment with high prices doesn't make for an environment where anyone can eke out margins.
Appeal to authority is a weak argument. We are trying to use reason to figure out what's going on, not close the discussion by saying that we are not the entity that gets to decide such things.
Everyone knows no country besides the US has ever experienced a recession, since the NBER didn't declare it. And even for the US, they've only happened since the establishment of the NBER, since they weren't around to declare recessions before they existed and thus there were by definition no recessions. We should just abolish the NBER and thus ensure there will never be another recession.
NBER has declared that the definition of a recession is when NBER has declared a recession. NBER has declared that disagreements with that definition are clearly invalid, since NBER is the source of the official NBER definition of recession.
