It really didn't come up with anything crazy. It was basically cutting spending and raising and creating new taxes. With the plan being to spread the pain based on tolerability and medium to long term sustainability. With actions like a fedral consumption tax with planned rebates depending on household wealth.

Its also tried to be careful around things that might create long term problems like dramatic education cuts and what not.

The reforms it gives are altogether pretty numerically radical but its not radical in the internet way where its a polarized solution. It's not a reddit style eat the rich or a business trickle down wealth solution.

I mean you can download and use verilator, openroad, yosys, ngspice, bsim-cmg, klayout and all this fun stuff.

The big blocker is really pdks. Where are you gonna get something that actually fabs? ASAP7 is just predictive.

And foundries are incredibly geopolitically important so they aint revealing anything.

If the context can be above average quality the result should be too as long as the AI is sufficiently smart. Especially if people iterate on the produced work to push it up in quality.

However if you don't have a good topic and don't iterate to improve the result then you get incredibly poor writing.

They tend to be wordy, long, and leak chatbot history or project management in unimportant ways that just distract.

I could point this out in my own code, but I don't need to since a vibe coded GitHub repo is linked in this very article.

> https://github.com/WordPress/openstation/blob/dd21eb131a2029...

  // `const` now: the entry is no longer reassigned here, because
  // `ensureGameRender()` moved inside the render callback below and
  // its upgraded copy is consumed there.

  * Phase 5 (boot decomposition) will move the runtime facade
  * assembly here as well — a single `attachPublicApi(services)`
  * function that wires every `wp.os.*` method in one place.
  * Until then, the runtime assembly continues to live in
  * `src/desktop.ts`.

  * Phase 3 only ships drag-within-folder. Cross-folder drags
  * (drop into a folder, drop out to root) and the Recycle Bin
  * drop integration land in later phases.

  // v1: no-op. Phase 4 will populate this from the push payload.
  // We claim the event so a hosting environment that signs us up
  // for a push subscription before the v2 PR lands doesn't see
  // silently-dropped pushes — the empty handler still satisfies
  // `Notification` capability checks on browsers that gate them.

Flash lite is very noticeably more idiotic than 3.8 Flash. It's why the quick AI overview is often much worse than the AI mode one.

Like in my experience the real burn is if there is some sort of feedback edge where an agent is producing stuff that eventually it has to reconsume.

Like if there is a dag of agents doing something its almost fine.

But if there is a loop somewhere without a huge amount of damping then you have an issue.

If you have ever been a human debugging in the middle of an agent it produces like so many commands and tests for you to do. Like way more than a human would.

I'm pretty sure they do the same thing to each other. Like the loop will amplify the yapping.

Regular chat, even on extra high thinking mode, is sort of unlimited. Idk at what point you hit the abuse gaurdrail but its really high whatever it is.

I have explicit instructions to tone it down. Less taglines, eyebrow text, subheadings, decorative spacing, pills, cards.

Hopefully this doesn't bleed into the chat...

> To keep the experience safe and welcoming, every published game undergoes safety screenings aligned with our Community Guidelines, along with user reporting.

Kind of cringe. I mean I suppose its one thing to stop people making CSAM but safety screens make it sound like you can't have any sort of mature game? Gore, violence, drugs, suggestive themes or nudity etc all disallowed or something? Everyone has to make a T for Teen game?

Like there is somehow redundancy in a fourier transform that makes it sub Linearithmic?

Which low and behold ->

130. Fourier transforms below n log n.

109. Integer multiplication below n log n

Surprising that this is possible.

158. The Euclidean plane cannot be colored with five colors.

Only 6 and 7 remain!

376. Universal computation in forced Navier–Stokes flows.

Morning coffee proven turing complete

> Create a cartoon pelican riding a bicycle. Need SVG only output.

Compare it to some other products from that time:

- AMD FX Piledriver CPUs

- Skylake i7-6700K

- iPhone 6s

- Ubuntu 16.04 LTS

- Oculus Rift CV1

- Android 6 Marshmallow

> The cloud giant will then lease the advanced AI chips back from the SPV

I mean nothing is disappearing off the balance sheet. They have this lease agreement they will need to pay.

I would watch for what they do with the freed up cash though. If they use these GPUs they already own as collateral to *double down* on buying more GPUs then we got some serious downturn risk building because its leveraged.

Btw this is like 100% what Jensen was saying when he said gpu compute would be an "investable asset class".

There was Deepseek v4, which then later Deepseek v4.1 came out and it went back down again.

I think the spicy take is definitely this stance that longstanding mathematical problems shouldn't be used as benchmarks for (specifically proprietary) models. Stated right at the very top.

The justification is pretty clear.

> The use of proprietary internal models by AI labs to do mathematical research risks creating a two-tier system where labs outrun the rest of the field, effectively alienating the mathematical community from its own discipline.

It is all fun and games (for non mathematicians) when mathematicians can't compete with AI labs but I think the more dangerous direction is when this starts being true for the rest of everything. For example cybersecurity or whatnot. Hence why I think Anthropics whole stance of being completely against open anything is actually *extremely* dangerous due to the centralization of power which they completely ignore as a risk factor.

The most discussable thing in this is certainly the idea that labs should fund mathematicians to do expositions.

> One of our principles is that AI labs have a responsibility to provide support, including funding, for the development of human understanding of the AI mathematical output that they release.

Obviously this directionally sounds like the role of mathematicians would be shifting towards interpreting AI results instead of making proofs. I'm not sure who would should really be billed for that. Plus how would you decide who gets the grant?

An interesting thing is that by stating that that the lab that dropped the result provide the funding, this is *directly* proposing an example of taxing AI labs for displacing knowledge workers.

My point was that AI isn't some productivity software thing. The addressable market is white collar work that can be done on a computer.

You think its implausible for AI to replace some fraction of white collar workers? To me this is directionally exactly where this is heading?