dcre

The fact that there is not even a sentence explaining why it's a fork, i.e., how it differs from the original, suggests this was only on the front page because of the name. Kinda dumb!

Note that they define “more software” by “more tickets closed.” Make of that what you will. They argue that this is a good measure because the scope of tickets did not increase. Worth considering whether you believe this captures what they claim it does. Are the extra tests you write thanks to coding agents represented in the tickets for your work?

“But all that extra code doesn’t translate directly into improved software output on the firm level. On the contrary, the resolution rate for Issues and Epics (i.e. wholesale software features) tracked by tools like Jira did not change in a statistically significant way after AI tools were introduced (the researchers also found no “compositional shift” in the size or complexity of those Jira-tracked issues across the AI introduction).”

This is exactly why we have the materials process and the materials are the primary filter. It’s one identical artifact we can all look at.

Sorry to come off a little abrupt!

You do know: we are telling you. We advance very few candidates to interviews and hire a surprisingly large proportion of those who interview. The written materials are the primary filter.

https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=50021846

https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=50021016

In our interviews, the interviewer has read the applicant's detailed written materials, and the candidate has received the interviewer's materials from when they applied. So there is no elevator pitch, no walking through resume, no getting to know you. Just a conversation.

We also advance very few candidates to interviews and hire a surprisingly large proportion of those who interview, so it's not like you're doing all this interviewing for the usual slim chance of being hired. The written materials are the primary filter.

Hiring process RFD: https://rfd.shared.oxide.computer/rfd/0003

Not quite — the formal statement of the problem in Lean may be correct, and therefore the Lean proof gives quite a lot of confidence that the statement is true. It's just that the proof given in natural language doesn't necessarily match up with the Lean proof, so the natural language proof might be unsound even though the statement it's proving is true.

The version in the acknowledgements is the one you want:

> An Anthropic employee used an internal research model to investigate open problems in the theory of cryptography. One of them was about cryptographic constructions based on the average-case hardness of Zero-k-Clique [LLV19, AHY25]. Claude was tasked with verifying and improving the constructions, but instead developed this algorithm, first for the average case, then for the worst case. The session used 16M output tokens with no human input.

> Anthropic shared the algorithm with the authors in September 2026 under a confidentiality agreement, offered compensation, and provided access to the public version of Claude.

No it doesn't.

Agent harnesses I think will usually look at it. Chat is much less inclined to do tool calls. Though it seems like both OpenAI and Anthropic are trying to close this gap by merging an agentic product into chat.

The site doesn't make clear whether the models are looking at the image while they work on it, but the code includes a "look" tool they can call: "Every painter sees its looks at its provider's best image resolution."

https://github.com/aliceisjustplaying/claude-paint/blob/f038...

It would have freaked me out if they could do this well without that, especially the dumber models.

$200 a month is what people pay for morning coffee in the Bay Area.

What is stopping anyone from finding the value they would have found before?

Worth noting they claim they did not choose the line of attack. Of course we don’t know whether that is true.

“Not every one of those 11,970 carries the same weight, and the paper is careful about that rather than rounding it up.”

AAUGH IT BURNS

Here's the post that made it click for me. It works through a practical example in both git and jj.

https://lottia.net/notes/0013-git-jujutsu-miniature.html

I also used to use a GUI (https://gitup.co/) for that reason, and jj has completely replaced it for me.

It's great to use what you prefer, but I don't think most people would see that and think "ooh, convenient!"

The CNBC report I linked, which appears to be the primary source, mentions growth in the second paragraph. It is the main characterization of what Friar said.

“In an internal meeting with employees on Wednesday, finance chief Sarah Friar and board chair Bret Taylor touted OpenAI’s revenue growth and addressed competition with Anthropic, CNBC has learned.”

A few advantages for me, even for the same 5 commands I use over and over:

- undo

- shuffling commits around with squash, split, and rebase is much better than git’s interactive rebase

- make commits without having to come up with a branch name (I might make three versions of the same change in parallel to see how they compare)

I see git is working on adding some of this under the history command. The revset language is really not esoteric: @ is head, @—- is two behind head. That’s about it.

Part of it is that the sorts of shuffling I used to avoid because they were a pain in git (so I didn’t feel I needed them improved) are so easy in jj that I do them all the time.

Completely agree there.

But you are using the misquote to do the thing Zitron does that you hate! I don't get it!

She, and we do not have the direct quote. It's a paraphrase, and the report can't seem to decide whether they're talking about revenue or growth. If she was talking about growth, "the ARR growth in July exceeded the ARR growth of Q2" is perfectly coherent.

https://www.cnbc.com/2026/07/29/openai-cfo-sarah-friar-tells...

OP is way overinterpreting something we don't even have verbatim in a way that unfortunately resembles what they're rightly accusing Zitron of.

You're broadly right but I think you're dead wrong about the CFO statement — I think "July revenue alone exceeded all of Q2" is an extremely normal thing to say when revenue is going up at an insane rate. For example, if it was not true that June revenue exceeded March-May revenue, the point would be to show how their revenue growth has accelerated.

No, you can't. The numbers are genuinely confusing, and Zitron actively works to make them more confusing rather than explaining what they mean because he needs them to sound as bad as possible. He also buries the numbers in thousands of words of prose!

Yes, and his post about the exact same data was noticeably more confusing and less illuminating than theirs because he was primarily concerned to point to whatever the biggest number was and go "Ooh, big number!"

https://www.wheresyoured.at/exclusive-openai-financials/

https://www.ft.com/content/e15b0d7e-ff6b-4f16-ba7a-4068feddb... (https://archive.ph/pAIEa)

Macrofinance expert Nathan Tankus has an excellent post on why the financing situation around the AI boom is just not big enough to mess up the financial system.

https://www.crisesnotes.com/sigh-no-ed-zitron-ai-bond-issuan...

Generating alt text for images in social media posts.

No.

Their quarterly revenue looks exactly the same. It's literally the same data. Annualized revenue can be gamed when it is fluctuating. It can't really be gamed when it is growing exponentially for three years straight. There's nothing to cherry-pick.

https://www.cnbc.com/2026/08/15/anthropic-revenue-jumps-to-o...