Heh. Summarising allows the benefit of full intelligence whilst preventing "misuse". Where "misuse" is likely competitors stealing thinking traces. Even though this is clearly work inspired from the OpenAI Strawberry era.
This is pretty normal for tech stocks. Most have a big pop on the first few days of IPO and then they drop. After 180 days, insiders can start selling shares so there's another drop around that time due to a higher supply for shares on the sell side.
Hypothetically, a train could derail, the train was carrying nuclear waste, the derailment occurred in a highly populated area, near a Virology Lab. The lab was damaged, which released a deadly form of Smallpox, which spread to every corner of the Earth, killing every single human. That would be pretty bad, but not sure if it would be the absolute worst.
I appreciate where the author is coming from, as we often have much more context because of training that have since atrophied a bit, but in defense of the dynamic programming solution, this generalizes very well.
As stated, the choose(2n,n) solution of course works but as soon as you deviate from a square, things can get more complicated. What if it's a rectangle? An arbitrary shape? One with holes? The dynamic programming solution takes all of this in stride (assuming, of course, that the conditions of only going right and down still hold).
Pascal's triangle is, after all, a dynamic programming solution. It just so happens that there's a "closed form" solution to their entries.
I'm all for clever tricks but I also appreciate much more a solution that generalizes well and gives more insight into a class of problems.
They aren’t able to control whether the important facts people want to be updated on are positive or negative. But I find it less addictive to read the news with minimal colors and no images.
It's terrible at hunting security bugs (I expected it to be, but I wanted to be sure). I added it to a benchmark I made with a corpus of some Mythos-discovered bugs, and it found zero. The smallest pretty successful models remain Qwen 3.6 and Gemma 4 (but I haven't tested the very small variants of those yet).
Options is gambling only for the vast majority who're inexperienced with them or don't have a sound theory for them. I can trade them in my setup with over a 95% success rate, perhaps even 99%. Of course I am not going to type out my theory here.
Such an overgeneralization ruined your otherwise reasonable comment. Always stop when you are winning.
We already have many components and solutions for "firewalls", like everything we've done with microservice isolation. If you mean "sandbox" more than "firewall", there are 100s since Claude Code came out
The article assumes that the skills need to be used by the same model. If a model like Opus develops a skill that is then used by another model like Qwen3.6, that feels like it could also add value.
Too bad that most Coursera courses are now behind a paywall. First they were free without certification, after a few years they removed the access to quizzes and tests but you could still audit for free. Now, you have to pay.
So apps like Continuum now they need to spoof their identity as RedReader, if you use them with your own API key. Sign out and sign in again and confirm RedReader access.
Also anonymous unauthenticated .json access is now blocked.
Alright, so at what price does your opinion stop being true, because there will certainly be consumer hardware price hikes again in 6 months, due to further RAM demand
I’m deaf and just got a pair of Even G2 glasses, which have a live captioning mode and no camera. They’re already lifechanging, even if they come with the risk of being taken away at any moment if the company shuts down or discontinues support.
I basically said a similar thing in another comment, but this is the real problem.
The ultimate power of the modern oligarch is gaining far more wealth than the value their assets bring to the market.
It would be healthier for our society if Tesla’s stock came back to earth to a valuation that made some level of sense for the business that they’re in. Musk would not be so astronomically rich in that case. The same story goes with SpaceX.
We don’t really need to be concerned that mom and pop are going to lose their life savings in their index funds to SpaceX. It’s actually the opposite: it’s more concerning that stocks like SpaceX and Tesla don’t crash down to better reflect reality, and their continued overvaluation serves as a massive transfer of wealth to major shareholders at the top.
I don’t bet on SpaceX stock crashing down anytime soon because the oligarchs who own it have so much soft and hard power to prop it up. Only the salaried employees are going to sell shares, while the biggest owners will just borrow against the collateral.
I'm still gaming on a 980. I have never been chasing pixel perfection or the latest and greatest.
I would say I am the exception, but hardware survey says otherwise. There are a lot of people for whom the Steam Machine would be at worst a sidegrade.
