If we are going to be clever we should follow the statistics and go for 12 that where not on the toplist!!

The latest I heard about an alternative to Google play services was https://www.heise.de/en/news/Paying-without-Google-New-conso...

If you where able to send and receive I was obviously wrong. I'm very glad but also confused.

When that are said. I 100% agree with you - one step at a time.

I think Wero will no longer depend on that in 3–5 years. It's just real challenges that the European banking system needs to figure out.

The EU works slow, but it does move :)

Kind of like the Ents in LOTR

AI / LLM usage disclosure

AI was used as an engineering assistant for parts of the Zig 0.16 migration, build/debug investigation, and focused test work. The project scope, architecture decisions, review of changes, and build/test verification remain maintainer-directed. This is not a purely AI-generated project.

I could live with ai content if it was short and to the point. But it's always so lengthy. Hope that will change.

A tl;dr section at the top and then the long read from ai could also be OK if they marked it.

What? I do understand that a CRUD app with little to no logic do not focus on test.

But any kind of engine.. i can not understand that it's not a priority? In general I'm not a big fan of unit test on simple websites, they do not give any real value compared to effort

But I remember working on a complex codename. It was extremely important to have close to 100% unit test in the core part. Saved me a lot.

Fable is using less tokens to achive that same tasks compared to sonet and opus. If so that is a good thing. It feels like we for a while there was spitting out tokens to get a better result. If the model themselves are getting better without generating more tokens that feels like a real win.

Q1: Why is number of steps relevant in this graph? What does it tell us?

Q2: and why have they flipped the horizontal graph so that 0 is to the right and not at origo? Is that some kind of new smart thing? can't say i have seen it before

From https://cepr.org/publications/dp21577 :

The losses are largest in social science subjects, followed by STEM and languages, and are especially large for junior students, high-achieving students, and boys.

No mention of the weakest student. Which probably means they did not have a significant worse or better score

The description of the paper also said:

AI users who maintain similar homework completion time as non-AI users experience small learning losses.

This was a surprise too me. I would have thought otherwise.

Would love to see some evidence about if more or less people fall behind and have worse results. In my head the AI should be able to get the weakest students a bit highere.

This is probably the big problem, or at least one of them.. If you use less time on learning, it will probably be harder to remember what you learned also. We need to spend some time to make it stick

If there are no guidance teachers and schools can do what they want and some teachers would probably go to far to early