<rss version="2.0" xmlns:dc="http://purl.org/dc/elements/1.1/" xmlns:atom="http://www.w3.org/2005/Atom"><channel><title>Hacker News: coderenegade</title><link>https://news.ycombinator.com/user?id=coderenegade</link><description>Hacker News RSS</description><docs>https://hnrss.org/</docs><generator>hnrss v2.1.1</generator><lastBuildDate>Thu, 11 Jun 2026 07:34:32 +0000</lastBuildDate><atom:link href="https://hnrss.org/user?id=coderenegade" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml"></atom:link><item><title><![CDATA[New comment by coderenegade in "Mercedes‑Benz starts large‑scale production of electric axial flux motor"]]></title><description><![CDATA[
<p>Series hybrids can compete with parallel hybrids, because the full decoupling of the engine from the wheels claws back some of the efficiency you lose through the energy conversion. It's series-parallel hybrids they can't really compete with, because those are able to do the same trick, but they also lose less energy in conversion, because the engine does some of the heavy lifting.<p>Series hybrids are great for packaging, though. Parallel and series-parallel commit to certain packaging decisions like having a transmission, or a long, monolithic unit, because it's the mechanical coupling that buys them smaller motors and potentially better efficiency. Series hybrids don't care about any of that, so even though you have bigger motors and potentially higher losses, you have more freedom over where things go.<p>Personally, I think there's a massive untapped market in converting old cars to hybrid engines. You wouldn't try to upgrade the old engine, you'd design a smaller and more power dense package and rip all of the original gear out. Because electrification lets you cut the size of the engine down so aggressively, this is probably a feasible strategy. As you pointed out, series hybrids are probably best suited to this because of their packaging flexibility. As others have pointed out, there's tremendous potential there for replicating original driving characteristics using software and the electric motor. And if we're being honest, off-road vehicles probably should get rid of the transmission and low range, because electric motor torque is just better. As is, the potential for cars is enormous, but we're getting the worst possible outcomes thanks to legislation.</p>
]]></description><pubDate>Wed, 10 Jun 2026 23:11:37 +0000</pubDate><link>https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=48484053</link><dc:creator>coderenegade</dc:creator><comments>https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=48484053</comments><guid isPermaLink="false">https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=48484053</guid></item><item><title><![CDATA[New comment by coderenegade in "Claude Opus 4.8"]]></title><description><![CDATA[
<p>It's hard to know for sure. There are good information theoretic reasons to suspect that general models will always be better than smaller expert models, but maybe a MoE can claw some performance back, albeit with redundant computation. The properties of conditional entropy, for instance, always favor more generality. This assumes that the harness isn't a factor, or is at least equivalent across different models.</p>
]]></description><pubDate>Sat, 30 May 2026 08:13:40 +0000</pubDate><link>https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=48333891</link><dc:creator>coderenegade</dc:creator><comments>https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=48333891</comments><guid isPermaLink="false">https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=48333891</guid></item><item><title><![CDATA[New comment by coderenegade in "Bun support is now limited and deprecated"]]></title><description><![CDATA[
<p>Yep. These days, simplicity is a massive part of my development style. I don't want to be looking at a codebase, even my own, and thinking "shit, this guy was way smarter than me".</p>
]]></description><pubDate>Sat, 23 May 2026 02:30:13 +0000</pubDate><link>https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=48243980</link><dc:creator>coderenegade</dc:creator><comments>https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=48243980</comments><guid isPermaLink="false">https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=48243980</guid></item><item><title><![CDATA[New comment by coderenegade in "Antigravity 2.0 Tops the OpenSCAD Architectural 3D LLM Benchmark"]]></title><description><![CDATA[
<p>There are good information theoretic reasons to suspect that general models will be better than specialized ones, because knowledge and skills often overlap different areas, sometimes in surprising and unintuitive ways.<p>And yes, I'm aware that that statement might seem to fly in the face of much of the past two years of industry development, where specialized models have been in vogue. I think they'll settle to being appropriate for low cost "good enough" applications, but I'm less convinced they'll have anywhere near the fidelity of larger frontier models.</p>
]]></description><pubDate>Sat, 23 May 2026 02:00:17 +0000</pubDate><link>https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=48243811</link><dc:creator>coderenegade</dc:creator><comments>https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=48243811</comments><guid isPermaLink="false">https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=48243811</guid></item><item><title><![CDATA[New comment by coderenegade in "Antigravity 2.0 Tops the OpenSCAD Architectural 3D LLM Benchmark"]]></title><description><![CDATA[
<p>It is, but they have different use cases. CadQuery uses a geometry kernel that does boundary representation, which you need for path generation for modern manufacturing tooling. OpenSCAD produces a standard mesh representation (i.e. triangles), which is insufficient for cutting and subtractive manufacturing, but often fine for additive manufacturing (3D printing).</p>
]]></description><pubDate>Sat, 23 May 2026 01:54:08 +0000</pubDate><link>https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=48243772</link><dc:creator>coderenegade</dc:creator><comments>https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=48243772</comments><guid isPermaLink="false">https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=48243772</guid></item><item><title><![CDATA[New comment by coderenegade in "The IBM-ification of Google?"]]></title><description><![CDATA[
<p>The context here is that at one point, IBM was an innovator and global leader in the technology space before it got outcompeted. It was the first company to cross a $100 billion market cap. If you think of the IBM of 50 years ago as being roughly analogous to Apple today, the difference is pretty clear. Google is much closer to Apple than it is to IBM, and I don't see that changing.</p>
]]></description><pubDate>Fri, 22 May 2026 05:22:30 +0000</pubDate><link>https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=48232300</link><dc:creator>coderenegade</dc:creator><comments>https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=48232300</comments><guid isPermaLink="false">https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=48232300</guid></item><item><title><![CDATA[New comment by coderenegade in "The IBM-ification of Google?"]]></title><description><![CDATA[
<p>IBM got to where it is today by being complacent and not keeping up with innovation. Google is notably at the forefront of innovation, in a driving seat, and that innovation directly stands to benefit one of their core businesses in a way that the market is probably only just beginning to understand. It's an entirely different situation, imo.</p>
]]></description><pubDate>Fri, 22 May 2026 03:28:39 +0000</pubDate><link>https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=48231644</link><dc:creator>coderenegade</dc:creator><comments>https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=48231644</comments><guid isPermaLink="false">https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=48231644</guid></item><item><title><![CDATA[New comment by coderenegade in "The IBM-ification of Google?"]]></title><description><![CDATA[
<p>Google is in an incredibly strong position. They're a top tier AI vendor, and in a world where content creation is largely commoditized and outsourced to AI, advertising companies will determine what gets seen, and what gets buried in the noise. They control both generation <i>and</i> visibility of what gets generated. Facebook could be in the same position, but they aren't as strong in AI. OpenAI wants to be Google, but they don't have the advertising reach.<p>Yeah, they aren't perfect or always necessarily the best in a given area, but to compare them to IBM is probably missing the forest for the trees.</p>
]]></description><pubDate>Fri, 22 May 2026 01:20:39 +0000</pubDate><link>https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=48230820</link><dc:creator>coderenegade</dc:creator><comments>https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=48230820</comments><guid isPermaLink="false">https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=48230820</guid></item><item><title><![CDATA[New comment by coderenegade in "Self-Distillation Enables Continual Learning [pdf]"]]></title><description><![CDATA[
<p>The policy is how you select your actions -- in this case, the next token. It can be random, but it doesn't have to be. "Deterministically choose the best action" is a valid policy (we would call it the greedy policy), as long as you have some other means of injecting stochasticity so the model explores the space. Uniform random is also a valid policy, as is always selecting the same token (it obviously wouldn't be very performant, and would defeat the purpose here, but it might be fine in, for example, a multi-armed bandit scenario). Most of the time, the policy is a parameterized distribution, and we want to learn the model parameters that maximize some measure of success (the reward component).<p>Off-policy versus on-policy refers to what data the model is trained on. On-policy training is where the training data is collected by the policy. Off-policy training is where the data was collected by a different sampling process (e.g. we have a standard dataset that we're going to use for supervised training).</p>
]]></description><pubDate>Sun, 17 May 2026 05:16:37 +0000</pubDate><link>https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=48166215</link><dc:creator>coderenegade</dc:creator><comments>https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=48166215</comments><guid isPermaLink="false">https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=48166215</guid></item><item><title><![CDATA[New comment by coderenegade in "Access to frontier AI will soon be limited by economic and security constraints"]]></title><description><![CDATA[
<p>The distillation risk has been brewing for a while now. In a very real sense, the model <i>is</i> the data, so if the data is locked down because of how valuable it is, it was only a matter of time before fully open access to the models would be revoked.<p>There's also an additional economic concern that rarely gets mentioned: because no one has cracked continual learning, keeping models up-to-date and filling in gaps in performance requires retraining on an ever growing dataset. Granted, you aren't starting from scratch each time, but the scaling required <i>just to stay relevant</i> looks daunting.<p>I don't know where any this goes on a societal level, but I've believed since the release of deepseek r1 that access to frontier models would eventually be locked up behind contracts, since the only moats protecting the models themselves are purely artificial. It remains to be seen how effective China is at pushing the envelope, and whether <i>they</i> are interested in providing unfettered access. And on top of that, it remains to be seen how well these models actually turn out to scale in the long run.</p>
]]></description><pubDate>Fri, 15 May 2026 04:35:41 +0000</pubDate><link>https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=48144602</link><dc:creator>coderenegade</dc:creator><comments>https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=48144602</comments><guid isPermaLink="false">https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=48144602</guid></item><item><title><![CDATA[New comment by coderenegade in "A recent experience with ChatGPT 5.5 Pro"]]></title><description><![CDATA[
<p>You only get good at the things you actually do. Our ancestors had to maintain a minimum level of fitness in order to be able to eat -- a level that most people today never reach, because the modern world has removed that need. Thinking is a skill just like any other, so what happens when people no longer have to exercise that skill to survive? It's a scary thought.</p>
]]></description><pubDate>Sun, 10 May 2026 10:02:30 +0000</pubDate><link>https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=48082510</link><dc:creator>coderenegade</dc:creator><comments>https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=48082510</comments><guid isPermaLink="false">https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=48082510</guid></item><item><title><![CDATA[New comment by coderenegade in "Landmark ancient-genome study shows surprise acceleration of human evolution"]]></title><description><![CDATA[
<p>The problem is that if you don't stick to truth and make an attempt at objectivity, others will step in to fill the void. This is how you sow division and undermine trust in science.</p>
]]></description><pubDate>Sat, 18 Apr 2026 02:38:34 +0000</pubDate><link>https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=47812687</link><dc:creator>coderenegade</dc:creator><comments>https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=47812687</comments><guid isPermaLink="false">https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=47812687</guid></item><item><title><![CDATA[New comment by coderenegade in "The future of everything is lies, I guess: Where do we go from here?"]]></title><description><![CDATA[
<p>If anything, the golden age of third places coincided with the golden age of suburbanization, which was obviously heavily car dependent. Their death almost certainly has more to do with financialization making it harder for small businesses to stay afloat, a drop in demand due to competition for attention, and decreasing work-life balance eroding people's ability to socialize.<p>In my grandfather's day, one income was enough to support a household, and there was less free work being done on the job, which meant fewer hours and being less drained at the end of the day. And yes, people spent less time commuting, meaning they had more time and energy for socializing after work. But communities were also more decentralized, and population centers had fewer people in general. A big part of the problem is that modern cities can be massive, and invariably funnel people to a handful of work districts, which just doesn't scale. When you double the distance to the CBD, you quadruple the number of people coming in (give or take, it's not exact because we tend to increase density close to the CBD as a response to this). Take it from someone who's lived in a place where cars aren't really necessary, the logistics of urbanization are still a crap experience when you're crammed into a train carriage during rush hour. It's common for people to commute for 90 minutes on public transport in Asian megacities, for example.</p>
]]></description><pubDate>Fri, 17 Apr 2026 01:49:46 +0000</pubDate><link>https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=47801699</link><dc:creator>coderenegade</dc:creator><comments>https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=47801699</comments><guid isPermaLink="false">https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=47801699</guid></item><item><title><![CDATA[New comment by coderenegade in "The future of everything is lies, I guess: Where do we go from here?"]]></title><description><![CDATA[
<p>Cars won because they were (and are) better than the alternatives. The need for powerful individual transportation with utility has always existed, and was originally met with horses. Bicycles meet the transportation need, but not the need for utility. Cars do both, and they do it better than anything else. Even before fueling infrastructure was rolled out, you could still run a car on petroleum you bought from the chemist, which is still infinitely better than the acres of pasture you need for horses. If you had an early diesel, it would run on oil, which is even easier.<p>The idea that cars needed all this infrastructure that other alternatives didn't just doesn't match the reality of the history of the automobile. And yes, we've leaned on those advantages in the century since, which has <i>also</i> created vast areas where a car is necessary to participate in society, but we only did so because the advantages and utility were so undeniable.</p>
]]></description><pubDate>Fri, 17 Apr 2026 01:12:18 +0000</pubDate><link>https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=47801503</link><dc:creator>coderenegade</dc:creator><comments>https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=47801503</comments><guid isPermaLink="false">https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=47801503</guid></item><item><title><![CDATA[New comment by coderenegade in "The future of everything is lies, I guess: Where do we go from here?"]]></title><description><![CDATA[
<p>Except rural communities are both more car dependent than cities, and have more tightly knit communities, so isolation probably isn't just a function of owning cars. Cars are probably the wrong mode of transportation for <i>large cities</i>, but then the question becomes: is that how we should all live, and to what extent does a better solution for the group override a better solution for the individual? Because, like it or not, cars <i>are</i> a better personal solution if you aren't bumper-to-bumper in a commute. I'm not going to take my dog or my surfboard on the bus or a train, and I have a life that doesn't end at the city's boundaries.</p>
]]></description><pubDate>Fri, 17 Apr 2026 00:57:45 +0000</pubDate><link>https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=47801393</link><dc:creator>coderenegade</dc:creator><comments>https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=47801393</comments><guid isPermaLink="false">https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=47801393</guid></item><item><title><![CDATA[New comment by coderenegade in "Why the US Navy won't blast the Iranians and 'open' Strait of Hormuz"]]></title><description><![CDATA[
<p>The issues the US faces are political and humanitarian (and economic) rather than military. I don't see any compelling evidence that the US couldn't open the straits if it really wanted to, it's just that the cost in lives and hardware would be unlike anything the US has seen since Vietnam, maybe even the second world war. And of course, once you open the strait, you have to keep it open. The whole thing is a lose-lose situation for everyone involved.<p>It should probably also be pointed out that doing nothing has a cost too, and it's probable that the bill for doing nothing over a long period of time has come due. I, like most people, never bought the WMD claims leading up to Iraq. I'm not sure what to think here. I certainly don't buy that Iran wasn't working towards getting the bomb after how well it worked out for North Korea. I can't claim to know the calculus involved in determining whether or not it's worth going to war with Iran to stop them from getting the bomb.</p>
]]></description><pubDate>Wed, 01 Apr 2026 00:59:59 +0000</pubDate><link>https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=47595496</link><dc:creator>coderenegade</dc:creator><comments>https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=47595496</comments><guid isPermaLink="false">https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=47595496</guid></item><item><title><![CDATA[New comment by coderenegade in "Open source CAD in the browser (Solvespace)"]]></title><description><![CDATA[
<p>Does this use a boundary representation for the geometry?</p>
]]></description><pubDate>Tue, 31 Mar 2026 23:30:23 +0000</pubDate><link>https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=47594845</link><dc:creator>coderenegade</dc:creator><comments>https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=47594845</comments><guid isPermaLink="false">https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=47594845</guid></item><item><title><![CDATA[New comment by coderenegade in "Goodbye to Sora"]]></title><description><![CDATA[
<p>I for one can't wait for ChatGPT-style sexting to become a thing.<p>It's not just dirty talk. It's a whole new paradigm in verbal filth.<p>On the topic of sora, though: current models are astounding. I watched a clip of Leonidas, Aragorn, William Wallace, Gandalf etc. all casually riding into a generic medieval town together, and if you showed that to me a few years ago, it would have seemed like magic. We're not far off from concerts featuring only dead artists, and all video and image testimony becoming unreliable. Maybe Sora was a victim of timing or mismanagement, because I don't see how this isn't still a seismic shift in the entertainment industry.</p>
]]></description><pubDate>Wed, 25 Mar 2026 01:35:06 +0000</pubDate><link>https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=47512062</link><dc:creator>coderenegade</dc:creator><comments>https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=47512062</comments><guid isPermaLink="false">https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=47512062</guid></item><item><title><![CDATA[New comment by coderenegade in "Epoch confirms GPT5.4 Pro solved a frontier math open problem"]]></title><description><![CDATA[
<p>This is my take as well. A human who learns, say, a Towers of Hanoi algorithm, will be able to apply it and use it next time without having to figure it out all over again. An LLM would probably get there eventually, but would have to do it all over again from scratch the next time. This makes it difficult combine lessons in new ways. Any new advancement relying on that foundational skill relies on, essentially, climbing the whole mountain from the ground.<p>I suppose the other side of it is that if you add what the model has figured out to the training set, it will always know it.</p>
]]></description><pubDate>Tue, 24 Mar 2026 07:00:15 +0000</pubDate><link>https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=47499399</link><dc:creator>coderenegade</dc:creator><comments>https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=47499399</comments><guid isPermaLink="false">https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=47499399</guid></item><item><title><![CDATA[New comment by coderenegade in "Epoch confirms GPT5.4 Pro solved a frontier math open problem"]]></title><description><![CDATA[
<p>That's just not true at all. There are entire fields that rest pretty heavily on brute force search. Entire theses in biomedical and materials science have been written to the effect of "I ran these tests on this compound, and these are the results", without necessarily any underlying theory more than a hope that it'll yield something useful.<p>As for advances where there is a hypothesis, it rests on the shoulders of those who've come before. You know from observations that putting carbon in iron makes it stronger, and then someone else comes along with a theory of atoms and molecules. You might apply that to figuring out why steel is stronger than iron, and your student takes that and invents a new superalloy with improvements to your model. Remixing is a fundamental part of innovation, because it often teaches you something new. We aren't just alchemying things out of nothing.</p>
]]></description><pubDate>Tue, 24 Mar 2026 06:34:28 +0000</pubDate><link>https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=47499257</link><dc:creator>coderenegade</dc:creator><comments>https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=47499257</comments><guid isPermaLink="false">https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=47499257</guid></item></channel></rss>