I've loved using Cowork recently for sourcing decisions. Things where seemingly everyone's out of stock or questionably reputable, just let Cowork spin for 20 minutes, find the best new and best used options that meet your requirements, probably also suggesting a different item that does the job and is available for cheap. I've done it enough that I'm starting to loathe clicking through these sites myself.

With the countdown, you more want to care about the high level stuff: Keep your brain agile enough to get the next one, figure out more general patterns, ensure you "cover" the promising patterns, notice tough spots (with tons of patterns) where you you'll need to lock in. That stuff is more fun to focus on than speed.

Everyone wants to fail less, sure. It's not surprising people's feedback focuses on the mechanic that made you fail! That doesn't mean changing that bit will make the game more fun.

Not at all? LLMs are a terrible match for the kind of analysis a chess engine does (scaled deep search, deeply trained position evaluations). It's just not that kind of tool.

In our own universe, the fact that electroweak symmetry breaks ensures there are 4 electroweak particles and not other combinations. There's no corresponding thing to contain gluons to individual particles, you'd need laws of physics we don't have to add that constraint.

W and Z bosons, photons, etc have fixed masses, charges, interaction strengths with other particles. These properties can exactly be listed and looked up in a table of elementary particles with discrete rows.

Gluon color is continuous property in a vector space. Gluons can have any color in that space, with any combination of the 8 basis vectors (and that choice of basis is also completely arbitrary). The color |g1> is no more valid than the color (|g1> + |g2> + |g8> / √3) or any other of infinite combinations.

Calling this "8 gluons" is like saying there's "3 photons" because they can have momentum in 3 dimensions. If you want to argue there's infinite kinds of gluons, go ahead, but there aren't 8.

[0]https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Red_Queen%27s_race

It's just hard convince people with a general feeling something's wrong and a specific picture of something wrong that the two are almost certainly unconnected.

On the other hand, nothing here substantiates this promise. We've got a video render of what a hypothetical device could look like. It's probably more than nothing (they got exclusive license on these butterfly chips in 2025, and it's at least plausible that the best solution to the data bottleneck in an absurdly noisy system like this is real-time AI image processing)... But it's certainly less than something. It's a hype video that doesn't prove feasibility of anything, yet.

EDIT: This is all in reaction to the second video on the announcement post[0], which is much more informative than anything on the page currently linked.

[0]https://www.midjourney.com/medical/blogpost

Not until June 22 you won't!

What you're seeing in those paragraphs is patience and empathy. Let's not let LLMs have a monopoly on these.

The lack of downvotes on posts on HN has always felt like more of a bug than a feature to me.

[0] Yes this is a plea, if anyone has the good stuff

But I absolutely can't see how feeding the entire context into a more expensive model multiple times per task, just to propose context edits that might indirectly help, could ever be worthwhile.