_fw

Because Pangram is snake oil.

Then give devs slack or an equivalent alternative? The point the author making is that forcing devs into Teams, because the org uses it, is a red flag. And they’re right.

It’s an indicator that developer experience pales in comparison to bean-counting, and that is an indicator that the business focuses on ROI in the wrong areas.

I’m sure there are finance teams that love it. I work in marketing and I sure as hell don’t, after it using it in two different full-time roles.

It’s as much as a red flag for me as the author.

Afaik flagging acts like a super-downvote as far as the algorithm is concerned

That’s different to the 2014 Model S that he said he could do it a decade ago

Rockets, cool.

Teslas can’t drive themselves, you can’t lease out your Model 3 as an autonomous taxi. The Cybertruck isn’t bulletproof, doesn’t have a 500mi range and it didn’t launch for under $40k. You can’t do a 90-second battery swap on any Tesla.

Yes, we all saw what looked like a car do a flip. But judge Tesla on their actions, not dumbass statements Elon makes on a stage.

It’s impossible for this car to beat the vaporware allegations. If you see the car that “flies” in the video… it’s a prototype on a ladder frame chassis with no driver. It’s not even a tech demo, it’s a publicity stunt.

None of these ‘groundbreaking’ features will make it to market, mark my words.

And is anybody actually able to suffer through the entire presentation? My entire body writhed with cringe when I had to listen to Musk make up a VMAX target of ‘Mach 0.5’.

Mate Rimac made a good point when the Tesla Roadster’s rocket boosters were announced. There are MAJOR major downsides, including massive added equipment weight (tanks, compressors, valves, and nozzles) that acts as dead weight immediately after the air/gas is expended in 2 to 3 seconds, which completely overloads tires and chassis dynamics.

This dork is trying to impress people with attention-grabbing impossibilities once again. The Cybertruck is totally different to the concept he unveiled. It sucks and this will too.

You sell the most shovels right before the gold rush ends.

I agree with this deeply. I’d even go as far to say I don’t think it’s just software this is applicable too, it’s perhaps any body of collaborative, thoughtful and developed work

That’s a really good point! But I am always surprised by how often people will avoid putting their prototypes out there and let the market shape their product.

Rapid prototyping is an amazing opportunity afforded to us by AI. But some people use that potential to spend even longer on a more developed prototype that they are too attached to to get feedback on!

I am not sure it IS impossible to make anything good fast. Look at how many incredible songs have been made in a single afternoon, or fantastic ideas for a simple product came to somebody in an instant.

Your comment made me think two things:

• Sometimes constraints make things better, and ‘speed’ can occasionally make you prioritise the things that actually matter so you deliver stuff that counts

• Sometimes, thinking longer about something doesn’t get you closer to the correct answer. You can rearrange and refactor and rewrite and redesign, but you won’t always get something objectively better than what you originally came up with. It’s still your thoughts, your brain and your ways of working that shape the output (and they haven’t changed).

Investing more time to make something better should be a conscious decision. Perhaps it’s one people decide against for the wrong reasons.

But sometimes things need something other than time and effort spent to make them better.

As somebody responsible for the acquisition of users and growth of a company in terms of customer and revenue, this is a VERY salient point:

> “… we could not have accelerated Zotero’s conception, because we did not know exactly what we wanted, and so could not have written coherent prompts for an LLM.”

A surprising proportion of software products, maybe even businesses today, are solutions in search of a problem.

Sometimes that’s okay, but only sometimes. And being a solution in search of a problem requires you to get everything /else/ pretty much perfect if you want to succeed.

The fact Zotero paid attention to what people wanted, and gave it to them, and were market oriented, is demonstrably a big part of their success.

It is MUCH easier to make something people want, than to make them want something you made.

I can confirm I’ve seen this with Deepseek V4.1, I imagine it’s with other models too.

I’m not everyone else but I am SOMEBODY else and you’re absolutely right. I was paying for Claude since they first offered subscriptions, right up until this summer.

I respect Anthropic (and OpenAI to a lesser extent) but I’m not going to play these games.

My theory is that for a large amount of people, “work are paying anyway so what do I care?”.

I lost my job recently, so gave myself an AI budget of $100 to help with search and applications.

If I put that in OpenAI or Anthropic, I’d hit limits quickly and lose whatever I didn’t use.

Or… I could put the same money in OpenRouter, use open models at 1/25th the price, and only need to pay more when I’ve spent what I put in.

Back in January when Claude Cowork was new and Claude Code was one of the only performant harnesses, it would have been a tougher decision.

But Hermes, dsh, agy, codex, opencode, pi… they make it so easy to achieve so much with such a low budget.

I know it’s a cliche nowadays to say “just use cheaper models” but the value they offer is SO much greater. And i can switch to GPT6, or Opus 5.5 in two clicks for tasks anyway.

My point is this: OpenAI and Anthropic are pulling stunts like this because they don’t care about you and your subscription. So stop caring about them.

Google aren’t back in the boat. They’ve announced that they have seen the boat, intend to swim over to it and will sail not quite as fast or as far as the other boats.

Google should be dominating, but instead all we currently have is a disparate collection of consumer facing apps and a flash model that’s fast, clever and expensive.

Muse and Dots are doing what Google should have brought out last year, with their resources and know-how.

I appreciate their reluctance towards MCP, but /something/ is better than nothing.

It’s suboptimal for the reasons the author outlines: but so is USB-C. So is NVME, so is HDMI.

We use these hugely successful technologies in spite of their flaws because they’re widely compatible and easy for the end user.

That’s why MCP is everywhere. It might not be performant, robust and uniform but it WILL get better over time.

And I’d much rather have the broad MCP ecosystem that we have now than seven or eight different “optimal” ways of plugging in an LLM to something useful.

I still can’t find a place for Sonnet models, I never have.

I bounce between ”fuck you, give me an AGI-approximate robot god” or ”how dare you charge me more than $0.04/million tokens”.

Give me the frontier, or give me the cheapest form of good enough.

I remain convinced the whole notion of AI-detection algorithms with any semblance of precision and accuracy is a con.

Critics say the author almost exclusively relied on AI to create his work, based on Pangram’s findings.

Pangram says it “is trained specifically to detect the latest AI models from frontier labs like OpenAI, Anthropic, Google, Meta, DeepSeek, xAI, and more. [They] benchmark against 26 models (so far)…”.

I can probably list more than 26 models off the top of my head. Granted, some models have been distilled against others and will be “detectable” but that’s NOWHERE near a large enough sample size to be reliable in 2026.

You or I could get a flag by that detector in our first attempt, and it wouldn’t take long for a false positive against enough attempts of truly original thought either.

The only thing I’d actually believe is things like Claude’s text watermarking system. However, those systems will never be present for EVERY model, so reliable blanket detection remains an impossibility.

The entropy in written text of meaningful length is simply too great for detection to be reliably possible in 2026, especially considering the changes the author can make.

I used a memory palace for my A-Level Law exams. I was able to remember names and details for up to 250 different cases very easily, in fact so easily it felt like cheating.

The trick is to embrace incredulity. The more bizarre and strange the “tags” you assign to what you remember, the easier they stick in your head. It feels daft and cringeworthy, but it really, really works.

For this, however, I’d argue a memory palace is overkill. And I still don’t know how well it lends itself to remembering numbers by rote.

Consider this: how many telephone numbers have you memorised?

I can recall four of my own, each of my parents, my wife, and a handful of home phone numbers too.

That’s easily 100 digits in a specific order. Perhaps it’s possible to chunk the 100 digits of pie into smaller pieces, and memorise them like phrases, just as we do with phone numbers.

It does, but typically instructions issued at the beginning of a session can fade away as context length grows. The way Claude speaks is distilled into its training and RLHF, which is perhaps a ‘stronger’ direction than a simple “don’t talk like that” prompt.

I’ve also had limited luck in trying to get models to write in the way I want. It’s more like they’re putting on a voice or wearing a wig: you can see what they’re going for, but it’s easy to see through.

I never thought I’d see the value of copywriters increase after LLMs hit the general population, but I think the demise of artisan wordsmiths remains a little way off yet.

And the more people machine-gun AI slop everywhere, the stronger aversion I think people will develop.

Who knows; maybe they’ll actually fix this in the next wave of models and we’ll see more distinct copywriting techniques between them.

I’d echo this. You can see it with other, perhaps lesser, models: GLM5.3 and Deepseek 4.1 have such a recognisably “Claude”-sounding patter I’d have (ill-informedly) SWORN I was using an Anthropic model.

If you’re distilling output from a frontier model, as we expect the open-weight leaders to be doing, it’s natural you’d pick up the language styles.

Great idea! I tried this just after reading your comment, 20s later I had a working extension that does exactly this for HN.

Thank you!

A blazing fast chip, even by Apple standards. Exceeds M5 iPad Pro in single core for a new record.

It even surpasses the iPad Pro M3 on multi-core, so very capable indeed.

All iOS devices on Geekbench: https://browser.geekbench.com/ios-benchmarks

Also, a max frequency of 4.93Ghz according to Geekbench!

My biggest bugbear with Gemini is that I can’t organise chats into folders and projects.

It’s such a powerful model, truly useful for general purpose and marketing tasks… but the UX is basic beyond belief.

I literally find myself using AI Studio for general tasks as it’s a better workflow.

I briefly worked in the web agency SaaS space and hoooo boy, I have never known a more gossipy or dramatic industry.

That’s not to pass comment either way on Mullenweg

It’s just WordPress folk are nuts.

Sorry to inform you about Patek Phillipe:

https://www.watches-of-switzerland.co.uk/Patek-Philippe-24-H...

This sounds really great. Can’t wait to start relying on it for them to abandon it in 2 years after neglecting it for most of that time since launch.

I found myself trying to come up with a system that used the position of my hands to “solve” the problem for me.

But then I worried if my system worked, I would be misdiagnosed.

It didn’t work. I was 98th percentile.

Thanks for sharing this!

There’s a specific GDPR carve out as outlined by the ICO here: https://ico.org.uk/for-organisations/uk-gdpr-guidance-and-re...

I don’t have evidence that shows specific examples of where it happens, but the state apparatus for it to do so exists. I think it’s a reasonable assumption that it is happening on a daily basis.

There’s also transparency theatre here. “If it WAS part of a nefarious system, surely we wouldn’t be talking about it so openly?”

It’s especially disappointing when the entire system is foiled by the balaclavas worn by so many of the country’s criminals every day anyway.