Comments URL: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=47774376

Points: 4

# Comments: 0

We tend to use Opus 4.6 High and GPT 5.4 High.

1. Sky looks jank 2. Blurry/warped behind the horse 3. The head seems to move a lot more than the body. You could argue that this one is desirable 4. Bit of warping and ghosting around the edges of the flowers. Particularly noticeable towards the top of the image. 5. Very minor but the flowers move as if they aren't attached to the wall

> but not appropriate for a mobile phone that you may want to operate untethered for hours at a time.

I do think this shifted a little when the first M1 Air came out. Anecdotally, many now associate it with being more than capable unless you’re an actual professional.

The 17 Air reports 27 hours of video playback - the same as the 16 Pro.

My point is that discounting historical accounts with a link to current information is neither particularly useful nor interesting.

IMO it is much more interesting to understand how our understanding has changed over time.

From your link.

https://jamanetwork.com/journals/jamapediatrics/fullarticle/...

USA: 69th

https://worldpopulationreview.com/country-rankings/healthies...

This isn't a straw man - I'm not claiming you think life is all about movie optimization. I'm making the point that the effort of optimization might not be worth it in the broader context.

> Straw man again. And again -- why not choose quality instead of choosing ignorance and rolling the dice?

Also not a straw man. I'm illustrating that the downside of a bad movie is so minimal that extensive optimization might not be justified. This directly addresses your argument about opportunity cost by suggesting the cost is actually quite small.

> Again, straw man. Nobody's talking about ruining your life. But why intentionally choose a bad movie...?

Again, not a straw man. I'm making a proportionality argument about how much a sub-optimal movie experience actually matters in practice.

> To the contrary. For a lot of busy people, the plane is one of the few moments they have time to watch a movie. So it sure does apply.

Even on a plane, the stakes just aren't that high. A less-than-perfect movie isn't going to meaningfully impact your life regardless of how busy you are.

> You're arguing in favor of choosing bad things, because it's not going to ruin your life. Huh?

You're interpreting my position as "arguing in favor of choosing bad things," but that's just not accurate. I'm suggesting that the effort of optimization might outweigh the minimal downside of occasionally watching something mediocre. There's a middle ground between actively choosing bad things and obsessing over choosing only the very best.

Watching a bad movie is not going to harm you. Maybe you'll take something away, maybe you won't.

Much like having a bad day is unlikely to ruin your life - it'll just give some nice context to the good days.

And we're talking about watching them on the plane, so the "busy person" argument really doesn't apply here.

The issue with for-profit healthcare isn't about individual compensation - it's about corporate entities having the power to make sweeping decisions that affect access to healthcare. When large healthcare companies control substantial market share, they can unilaterally raise prices or restrict coverage in ways that leave patients with few alternatives. Unlike choosing a different doctor, patients often can't easily switch insurance providers or hospital systems, especially in emergencies or in areas with limited options.

Comments URL: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=42241870

Points: 2

# Comments: 0

Comments URL: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=41696151

Points: 4

# Comments: 0

In theory the benchmarks should be a pretty close proxy for quality, but that doesn't match my experience at all.