I switched over to Temporal, and so far pretty happy about it.

https://m.bjnews.com.cn/detail/1792137269129878.html

Apparently globally recognized top 10 models (so Deepseek 4.1 Flash and GLM 5.3 Flash) would have fallen under this export registration.

I count 32 people on their team photo + the dog, and even this seems like a somewhat sizable number of people to manage. When I see news of these lay-offs it’s terrible for those people but at the end of the day I feel like those companies never should have reached those numbers. I fear for Larian

Prompting claude 5.5 has more appeal it seems.

So what he’s saying is correct, there is no separate cache pricing, which by normal standards should be 10% of the cost, which can become exceedingly expensive for anything other than single turn. The way they are stating this is of course strange..

Googling it returns no matches but I think it was supposed to be “live viewer”?

Slightly bummed out about it because in the past you could try different situations during a planning session and it wouldn’t pollute the cache but now it does. I’m not sure if forking the conversation has the same problem.

I wonder how this approach is having such an high reduction in memory usage compared to what’s stated in the article. I would assume both use the exact same WebView here.

The only explanation here that I can think of would be that the “Add an application” starts it under an existing Edge process which shares it’s memory instead of completely isolated.

Not sure what longer contexts we're talking about but didn't we have an old math problem optimized, which even the LLM itself was surprised about, just a week ago? Something which wasn't possible 6 months ago.

Obviously in hindsight it would be unfair to Anthropic to judge them on an unstable day so I'l leave those complaints aside but I hit the session limit way too fast. I planned out 3 tasks and it couldn't finish the first plan completely, for that implementation task it has seen a grand total of 1 build log and hasn't even run any tests which already caused it to enter in the red territory of the context circle.

It was even asking me during planning which endpoints the new feature should use to hook into the existing system, codex would never ask this and just simply look these up during planning and whenever it encounters ambiguity it would either ask straight away or put it as an open question. I have to wonder if they're limiting this behavior due trying to keep the context as small as possible and preventing even earlier session limits.

Maybe codex's limits are not sustainable in the long run and I'm very spoiled by the limits but at this point CC(sonnet) and Codex(5.4) are simply not in the same league when comparing both 20 dollar subscriptions.

I will also clearly state that the value both these tools provide at these price points are absolutely worth it, it's just that codex's value/money ratio is much better.

Just reading now that they went out of production half a year ago which is a shame. I was very impressed being able to upgrade with the same motherboard 6 years down the line.

That said I don’t go beyond 70% of my weekly limit so there’s that.

HN is a great place to get genuine thoughtful discussions compared to a big portion of the rest of the internet. Reddit used to be the place for finding genuine experiences for products with subreddits like buyitforlife (or more specific) but now these and other subreddits are filled with bots and marketeers promoting what they sell and hammering their competition in the same thread.

Some bots are already here but I fear when the marketeers come.

> if err != nil return err