In both cases, you feel super productive all the time, because you are constantly putting in instructions and getting massive amounts of output, and this feels like constant & fast progress. It's scary how easy it is to waste time on LLMs while not even realizing you are wasting time.

> this company is wilfully burning 200% to 3000% of each Pro or Max customer that interacts with Claude Code

There is of course this meme that "Anthropic would be profitable today if they stopped training new models and only focused on inference", but people on HN are smart enough to understand that this is not realistic due to model drift, and also due to comeptition from other models. So training is forever a part of the cost of doing business, until we have some fundamental changes in the underlying technology.

I can only interpret Ed Zitron as saying "the cost of doing business is 200% to 3000% of the price users are paying for their subscriptions", which sounds extremely plausible to me.

I’m definitely worried about job loss as a result of the AI bubble bursting, though.

If US pulls back from NATO, and Europe builds up military power to compensate, then the US loses this de facto leadership seat of an empire.

Today, the US appears in parallel to be doing two things:

1. Causing fragmentation in Europe, by promoting right-wing nationalist politics in the EU

2. Threatening to drastically reduce their role in NATO

At the very least we can both agree that these two efforts are completely in contradiction with each other, and it's very unlikely that Europeans will want to go for more fragmentation without the military power of the US on their side, right?

Comments URL: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=46146287

Points: 1

# Comments: 1

Am I wrong to think that the answer is obvious? I mean, who wants web apps to behave differently every time you interact with them?

And then, even if you break their TOS and create an account in another country, you're still constantly inconvenienced - you can't pay for games using your local payment method, for example, and a useful Playstation mobile app is not even listed in the local app store.

IMO they should either provide the same level of service in all countries, or be forced to charge significantly less when selling their hardware in unsupported countries.

> What you're probably thinking is "it's faster to write a TODO example app with hooks". That's not really relevant for actual software development.

For me, that's not the case at all. I think with hooks, it's easier to reason about what values are actually used during what renders.

I've been using hooks since they were introduced, in several teams (at several different companies), and I've never experienced them being complicated to understand, either for myself, or for team mates - even juniors who are new to React. In my experience, it takes very little time (<1 hour) to understand the basics of React, and once you have that mental model in place, hooks fit in immediately.

I wonder if it's the case that many people on HN are just used to some completely different libraries and thus are coming in to React with a completely different mental model? And that's the cause of this sentiment being so common here.

Personally, the only real solution to fix RSI has been strength training & regular breaks during work.

If it's a perfect replica (as you said in your original comment) then by what parameters is it different from the original ship? Sure, cooordinates might be different, but cooridnates can change. If the exact replica switches places with the original, then even that difference would disappear.

By the way, I am strictly speaking about this topic in the context of the thread we are in. If a replica is built according to exact blueprints of a snapshot of the original (and assuming no mistakes are made), then why would the result be any different than just replacing one part on the original with an replica part made according to exact blueprints of a snapshot of the original part?

In your first paragraph, you say that we can take for granted that when an original is destroyed, having a replacement will preserve consciousness. Then, in your second paragraph, you say the opposite - that destroying an original would NOT preserve consciousness, even if there exists a replacement.

There must be some key assumption which lets you not see this as a contradiction. Maybe you believe that there is something extra-cellular which wouldn't get replicated in a teleporter?

In both cases (gradual and instant replacement), at any given moment, there exists only one entity with your consciousness and self of sense and continuous memories leading up to that moment.