That equates to AUD$66/kWh, after shipping, installation and connection to the grid. It seems very low. Have you got citations for that number?

https://theconversation.com/big-us-style-trucks-are-killing-...

My understanding is the Wildcat lake 304 is that replacement, and it's been "released" for a while. It can be configured down to 10W vs 6W for the N100. Both draw about 7W from the wall when idle. The 304 is about 80% faster for the same power draw, has a better GPU in includes a 15 TOPS NPU.

Despite the 304 being released, it's not easily available yet.

The images out of Russia are a little different. Billions of dollars of plant and equipment blown up, hundreds of ships disabled, entire Wildberry warehouses covering acres going up in smoke. It doesn't seem to be in the same ballpark as a few days outage while you move stock and employees to a new location.

Maybe I'm missing something.

Because, to quote Jeff Bezos, your margin is my opportunity. And did he ever squeeze every drop from that opportunity. Just ask the brick and mortar stores in your street.

> I’m not convinced that basic economics works when output capacity isn’t fully scalable.

Economics works for land, which isn't scalable.

> Same reason no lawn care team tries to deeply undercut competitors

That works right up until Fred down the road loses his job, and then it dawns he could be making more money with his mower because of those sweet fat margins those other lawn care people thought they could keep all to themselves.

It is what I want.

If you own a mobile phone it's unavoidable. The physical SIM is a guarded area with secrets you can't know or touch - the secrets it holds prove you paid for access to their network.

If you want to carry a zillion others devices you can't access the innards of that prove something about you then good for you. But don't assume the rest of us think that's a good idea. We no more object to carving out a little bit of firewalled memory for the exclusive use of the bank than we object to the electricity meter in our houses. It's also a locked down piece of equipment we can't modify or touch that lives on our property. Most people are happy to grant that intrusion on their personal space in exchange for having the electrity connected.

It's no different on your phone. In return for your phone protecting its details from you, you no longer have to carry a credit card, or driver's licence, or prove you paid for ads to go away in some app, or access your works VPN. I honestly can't see much difference between carrying a credit card the hides some information from me, or putting the same info in the phone and it hiding the info. Except for having one less device to haul around, of course.

That one ruling took a huge toll on social discourse and civil society in Australia. It was a very sad day. Section 230 was a inspired piece of law making.

Norway is a smallish country (you can fit 24 Norway's in Australia - so less range anxiety), whose government pushed the transition to EV's hard. Australia has the worlds most competitive new car market and with one of the least restrictive emissions controls on ICE engines.

It's not that surprising that Norway's government engineered transition to EV's was successful. In Australia EV's became around the same price as ICE vehicles in the last 12 months, and it feels like we've hit a market driven tipping point.

If battery developments take their predicted path, with pricing dropping about 10% per years and range per unit weight doubling, it's difficult to see how it isn't all over bar the shouting - for USA car manufacturing.

Trump sealed the USA's fate, when his changes EV policies lead to $51B in direct write downs. I don't see how you can recover from that.

Formal proofs of code are almost beyond the capabilities of the best human programmers (3.7 lines per day!), but LLMs can bash out code at an amazing pace. It's often crap, sadly, but the proof they are bashing out is the hard bit. If possible at all, the task is EXPTIME. Verifying the proof is only P, so when it's wrong you tell the LLM to do it again. A stable agentic loop is what makes it possible. The results in the article I linked to speak for themselves.

Here I was thinking The Squid Game was a work of fiction.

If an article features a humanoid robot it's sure sign its a PR fluff piece. This one looks to be a recruitment ad. Tesla's Optimus is being used to pump some sort of investment scam. God knows China's humanoid marathon is about. Whatever it is, it isn't getting from A to B quickly and efficiently.

I'm fine with that. Going by the comments here, most people are fine with that. Given the choice between LLM-generated text or not seeing these sorts of novel ideas from different parts of the world on HN, they take the former.

I don't think the HN guideline "Don't post generated text or AI-edited text" is going to age well. My guess is it's already broken more than it's observed. The next bit: "HN is for conversation between humans" will be ageless. The mistake they make is "AI-edited text" is often net positive when humans converse, particularly if they come from very different backgrounds (language or culture).

This isn't a poetry forum. Bad spelling, bad grammar, inappropriate metaphors are all very human - but they get in the way when humans are just trying to communicate rather than create written art. The rule "Don't post generated text or AI-edited text" looks to fall into the category "there is always a well-known solution to every human problem — neat, plausible, and wrong".

This anti LLM crusade on HN is driving me nuts. It means I have to view with showdead on, because otherwise I miss clear, insightful and consequently interesting posts because someone to an dislike to am em dash. Dead posts are so faint I often have to copy and paste them into a comment box to make them readable.

Everyone hates LLM generated "ideas". But LLM phrasing of a humans original ideas is a different thing. Not ideal perhaps, if the alternative is not to hear the ideas and opinions of different cultures and countries, I'll take it every time. For fucks sake, learn to tell the difference between the two - don't just moronically down vote because of LLM tells.

If you use recursion, both the absolutely necessary state and the temporaries are pushed onto the stack (along with the stack frame the language runtime wants). If you use iteration, the programmer just pushes the necessary state onto the stack, and reuses the temporaries in place.

The rest of his claims follow from those facts. Space consumption is less because you are saving less. Cache locality is better both because the temporaries aren't scattered across the stack, and because you are reusing the same locations over and over again.

The downside of iterative solutions is stacks are more efficient memory allocators than heap algorithms - especially if you are forced to grow the array your pushing things onto many times. But if you know that in advance so you can allocate the full amount up front, then at the limit when N -> ∞ iteration will always win over recursion.

Maybe, but "maintainable" has a simple definition: minimising the effort to incrementally grow a software system as its size grows to infinity (while maintaining some defect ratio). Humans (called senior software engineers) figure this out over decades by working on a number of large software systems.

So far models haven't figured the same thing out. I can only guess why. All their learning comes from examining code on the internet. Somehow whatever the patterns are that make large software projects like the OSs maintainable by large groups of people working independently has escaped them. Maybe the bulk of code they look at is in the small so they miss it, maybe the patterns are just hard to discern in big systems.

My theory is there are anti-patterns which the larger projects somehow manage to keep to a minimum. It's hard to learn something that's not there. Instead, you learn these anti-patterns by doing them, and watching a system all fall apart over the course of years, and if you're good you manage to pin the blame on the right thing.

If you want to wrap it up neatly in a package, models have learnt how to program, but programming is not the same as design. Design requires very different skills to using a programming language. At a very high level, big systems are sets of interconnected modules. The things that matter are narrow APIs with minimal coupling, and where coupling is unavoidable making it explicit and easy to reason about. Concrete examples of the anti-patterns to be avoided are global variables, leaky abstractions and APIs that require complex sequences of interconnected calls.

Those things don't bite hard until you program in the large. The current crop of LLM's seem to be useless at all of them. If you've got a big context window and you are only writing 100s of kloc, a budget of kilowatts to understand the complexity, it doesn't matter. But humans don't have a budget like that, and so far everyone I've seen who reads large chunks of vibe coded software recoils in horror, gives up, and walks away.

Even with that budget, the models fail anyway once the size gets way beyond their context window - it's just that they fail much later than humans. Which I guess makes learning the lesson so much harder - perhaps near impossible as your "they need labeled examples" hints at. Oddly the solution would be to train with smaller context windows (a less powerful model in some ways), so the failures become apparent much earlier.

It looks like they have been going with your solution for now - giving engineers cheap tokens via flat-rate plans, and watching how they do things. I don't think that will work. Engineers who chew through the billions of tokens offered by these plans are vibe coding. The code they produce is so poor it can't cross the threshold from small to large. There is nothing to see there about programming in the large.

:( what a rant - it looks like an LLMs CoT as it thinks through things. Which is what I was doing, I guess.

Like the others here I know almost nothing about bio weapons, but I think perhaps the fact that smallpox's genome sequence has publicly available in scientific databases like GenBank for 30 years is relevant. That horse bolted a long time ago.

Time have changed. This should be:

Closed-source: You point an LLM at it, and get back source that's often easier to understand than the original.

Given the USA companies have been loudly claiming the Chinese models are distillations of their models, also claiming "no access to source materials" seems dubious. As it was dubious anyway with because the Chinese publish lots of papers on how their models are designed, I'm left feeling I'm looking at the south end of a north bound bull.