humbleferret

Nice writeup! I imagine these results change as harnesses are updated, so you'd need to frequently rereview.

I'd love to see a tiny, reproducible benchmark repo that anyone can drop on their own hardware and then run against all harnesses at once to compare the per turn prefix token count, time to the first token, experienced tokens/sec (and prefill), cache reuse % and a pass rate on a deterministic set of small tasks. I think it could also be useful to have some way to share results and hardware for others to compare.

Great film!

This piece hits on the idea you can cultivate luck. It's about increasing your 'Luck Surface Area' (L = D x T: Luck = Doing x Telling).

My notes/ points that stood out for me:

- Actively seek diverse social, intellectual, and professional interactions. Each one expands your surface area for serendipity. TAKE MORE SHOTS!

- Don't go into interactions with an agenda. Real interest opens doors unexpected.

- Always aim for excellence. Even in small tasks. People notice this. A strong reputation pulls in opportunity.

- Give before you take. Offer attention, time, or resources without expecting immediate return. That builds high trust relationships.

- Share your authentic self. Put your unique thoughts out there. It's a magnet for those who truly resonate with you. Don't fake it.

- Host stuff. Simple, low pressure events work best. Taking the initiative to create connections is often more effective than just showing up.

I think some of the sources like the Reviews.org survey, JAMA analysis and Sleep Medicine study have flaws and are largely correlational, not causal. The Reviews.org data is self reported, not peer reviewed or randomised, and probably has sampling bias. JAMA's analysis is observational, so it doesn't prove causation. The Sleep Medicine study uses a tiny sample, short duration, and likely has self selection bias.

Regardless, we all sense that excessive smartphone use ties to lower mood and higher depression risks. There's already an influx of people experimenting with timers, dumbphones, or just switching their phone off, but app builders will keep chasing our attention no matter what. It's their core business. As the patchy research (in both quantity and quality) shows, real change won't come until we as a society dig deeper into the problem.

key points that stood out to me:

- Smartphones are built to addict via dopamine from notifications and scrolling. Americans check theirs 144 times a day on average. Strong links to anxiety, depression, poor sleep, and weaker focus.

- Short breaks (24 hours to a week) can boost focus and mood. Limiting non work screen time to under two hours daily correlates with lower depression.

You can't completely outsource defence.

International cooperation is important, but over reliance on a single foreign partner, even a close ally causes risks. It leads to a situation where a country possesses shiny new military hardware but lacks the logistical support, sovereign weapons integration, skilled personnel, and overall control to use it effectively and autonomously.

I imagine the UK's experience with the F35 is a major driver in it's decision to partner with Japan and Italy on the next gen Tempest fighter, so they can regain sovereign control over its future air combat capabilities.

However, the problem extends beyond the F35. Although the UK has increased its defence budget in real terms, the extra funding has been outstripped by soaring equipment costs (Boeing mark up the costs of soap dispensers by 7,943%!), the legacy of decades of under investment, and the spiralling expense of strategic programmes like the nuclear deterrent. The budget for conventional forces does just not exist.

What a great post.

Some points that stood out to me:

- Progress is iterative and driven by a seemingly bottom up, meritocratic approach. Not a top down master plan. Essentially, good ideas can come from anywhere and leaders are promoted based on execution and quality of ideas, not political skill.

- People seem empowered to build things without asking permission there, which seems like it leads to multiple parallel projects with the promising ones gaining resources.

- People there have good intentions. Despite public criticism, they are genuinely trying to do the right thing and navigate the immense responsibility they hold.

- Product is deeply influenced by public sentiment, or more bluntly, the company "runs on twitter vibes."

- The sheer cost of GPUs changes everything. It is the single factor shaping financial and engineering priorities. The expense for computing power is so immense that it makes almost every other infrastructure cost a "rounding error."

- I liked the take of the path to AGI being framed as a three horse race between OpenAI (consumer product DNA), Anthropic (business/enterprise DNA), and Google (infrastructure/data DNA), with each organisation's unique culture shaping its approach to AGI.

Barbarian Days: A Surfing Life by William Finnegan

No better way to be reminded there is a big difference between someone that surfs for fun and someone who is a surfer.

Surfing parts aside, this book taught me to appreciate the different parts of your life around your 'obsession' as you get older.

I think it's circumstantial and dependent on individual situations. I personally think you should optimise for equity as much as you can. If you wanted to optimise just for cash, you could have found a better paying job most of the time.

From the small sample size of my friends in SF/NYC and are well funded by a top-tier VC, most take lower salaries for more equity. The majority have the same salary as their seed round with small bumps along the way, but nothing crazy. A couple have reduced their salaries to extend runway without diluting themselves further.

The only exception seems to be those with families and dependents.

'Prompt Injection' is everywhere. While it's cheeky, you can't help but feel it's a fair countermeasure. If the academic publishing world is so overwhelmed that reviewers are resorting to AI, maybe the system itself is the real problem.

The only people affected are the lazy reviewers who weren't doing their job properly to begin with.

A system that matches by name rather than a unique ID is wild. It could easily identify the wrong people.

Great work!

Are there any particular niches or applications where community-sourced splats are especially well-suited? I see them mentioned on HN from time to time, but I'm curious about their primary use case at the moment.

I was curious so looked at a few power wheelchairs...It's wild how expensive they are, especially considering the advancements in electric mobility tech elsewhere. You'd think they'd share some components with e-scooters, e-bikes, or even electric cars – motors, batteries, controllers.

Are the powertrains and control systems in power wheelchairs really that specialised? Or is it another case of the medical device markup and regulatory hurdles driving up costs?

Blockchains are not intended to be a universal solution, they excel in different ways, particularly enabling trustless and censorship-resistant value transfer. Which, for many new chains, is still their most used function.

I really enjoyed reading this. It made me think about how this perspective might change over time.

I agree about the points about elitism in creative fields – there will probably always be some resistance to new tools and techniques like AI-generated art. But will that always be the case? It's possible that AI tools for artists could become so commonplace that they're expected — leading to entirely new and unforeseen styles and forms of expression.

Your points about authenticity and transparency also really resonated with me. Perhaps people will start to seek out and value art that's verifiably human-made or AI-free? Or maybe we'll see a greater emphasis on proving the authenticity of digital works?

In either case, we need to expose the grifters and ensure that traditional artists get the recognition and rewards they deserve. A world without original artists would be a far less vibrant and inspiring place.

Ash's main takeaway is solid — Immerse yourself in hobbies or creative pursuits without being overly concerned about external validation or the potential for monetary gain.

Other takeaways that stuck with me were:

— Finding enjoyment in the process of learning and improving your own skills is crucial.

— Setting personal goals can help fuel growth.

— Sharing your work with others is a way to receive feedback and learn from other perspectives, but don't let pursuit, perfection or seeking monetisation overshadow the joy of the activity itself.

— Intrinsic rewards of your hobby or pursuit trump validation or financial gain.

In the end, you need to find something you enjoy doing, and do it because you ENJOY it.

It really is.

My takeaways after reading it were not to surf, but rather, the importance of uncertainty, taking risks and how transformative the power of obsession really is.

Thank you for the detailed reply – I appreciate the insight into how the shorter queries are handled.

Good work!

The sample searches were particularly strong for uncovering discussions on specific subjects, i.e. 'Dedicated Vector Databases'.

With less focused searches, such as 'Deep Work', I notice some results feel only loosely related. Is this an aim – to broaden the scope of discovery that may not seem directly related?

Barbarian Days: A Surfing Life — William Finnegan — (2015)

I've seen two primary strategies for handling cross-time zone communication in teams:

Synchronous: A single time zone is designated, and all team members adapt accordingly. Although, this can be a pain for people far away.

Asynchronous: Flexible “overlap” periods are defined where everyone must be online.

In practice, though, remote teams I've worked in just seem to understand and accept that: A) You don't need a 'call', 'quick chat' or 'meeting' over video or voice most of the time B) If you are in a remote team, there is shared acceptance that there will be A LOT of asynchronous communication and people will reply when they can or are available. C) The situation changes the more time-zones you cover. Be flexible.

Those with roles that are 'mission-critical' or 'perpetually online', are usually on call or have a phone that is always available.

A handy resource for aligning schedules: https://www.timeanddate.com/worldclock/converter.html

Overall, this suggests that farmed salmon loses some nutrients compared to the wild fish it eats and that we're better off eating a more varied diet of the wild fish species that are fed to farmed salmon, such as sardines, mackerel, and anchovies.

> "I think your choice of wording above is important to call out: The advice "maximizes" the chance of success; but it doesn't guarantee it."

This is a great observation!

I agree that Paul is framing an inspiring narrative, especially when targeting younger people. You're spot on, suggesting that this advice sets people up for success in general, whether they become entrepreneurs, standout employees, or something else entirely.

We need more narratives about those successful 'in-between' tech roles.

Paul's giving the ingredients for good outcomes, but the recipe is up to the individual.

This essay isn't a step-by-step guide to building 'Google', rather, a call for young people to consider entrepreneurship as a fulfilling alternative to traditional careers.

To maximise their chances of success, Paul suggests:

1. Become a builder: Gain expertise in technology or other fields you're passionate about. (Does not have to just be coding, either!)

2. Start personal projects: Build things you and your friends find useful. Paul suggests this is the fastest way to learn and potentially discover startup ideas.

3. Collaborate: Work on projects with like-minded people. This fosters skill development and could lead to finding potential cofounders.

I liked how Paul also emphasises the importance of good grades in order to access top universities, where you'll find other bright collaborators.

There are obviously many other paths, but if I wish I had this advice at 14 or 15.

This was an interesting read.

In essence, a randomised controlled trial looked at the effects of gut microbiome modulation on muscle function and cognition in older adults. Participants in the trail received either a prebiotic or a placebo.

My takeaways: - The prebiotic improved cognitive function, but not muscle function, for members of the trial.

- The gut microbiome composition changed in the prebiotic group, with an increase in Bifidobacterium abundance. (Was not clear on a first read if that is necessarily always positive).

- The trial suggests that microbiome modulation might be a target for improving cognitive function in older adults.

- Prebiotics the trial mentions: inulin and FOS

That's fascinating! I definitely hadn't heard of Methylhexanamine before. It's certainly a good reminder that we need more research on these complex supplements before jumping in.

I hear you about “adaptogens” too. I tried Ashwagandha once and had a similar experience to yours — felt a bit too relaxed and, well, not exactly sharp.

Overall, it seems like caution and a healthy dose of scepticism are key when it comes to these kinds of products. Thanks for sharing your thoughts and experiences!

A couple of key points that stood out to me:

1. ADHD traits could have been beneficial for exploring new food sources in ancient times. 2. While ADHD is often seen as a disorder today, it might be better suited to different environments.

Intriguing stuff about ADHD traits maybe being helpful in some situations! Makes me rethink how I view ADHD, and chimes with my own experience of folks with ADHD doing really well in certain tasks compared to others. A good reminder to consider different perspectives.

I also learnt that the DRD4/7R gene was linked to ADHD AND risk-taking behaviour.

This product seems to be a blend of mushroom powder, adaptogens (such as roots and herbs), and a small amount of caffeine powder, wrapped in a generous layer of marketing fluff.

While I find mushrooms intriguing, I find the claims around their specific benefits lack concrete research on dosage, ingredients, and potential interactions.

I really enjoy the ATM analogy. Got me thinking.

You could also stretch out that analogy a little and draw a parallel for how AI can be seen in software engineering: both are tools that enhance, not diminish, human capabilities.

Calculators made complex calculations faster and more accurate, allowing for greater focus on higher-order problem-solving.

Similarly, I think AI that automates routine tasks can enable software engineers to concentrate on more complex, creative or strategic aspects of their work. I don't think they stop being software engineers, but they can do 'more' in a sense.

I think that they probably won't be minimum wage jobs.

However, as more people become interested in software engineering and AI helps make basic tasks easier, the pay for these jobs will vary a lot. Ultimately, I expect this variation to consolidate around two primary AI-impacted groups.

- Those that sit high on the abstraction stack caused by AI, i.e. those developing, training and debugging new models.

- And those using AI to do their day to day SWE job.

There will be fewer jobs higher up the abstraction stack you sit, but the pay will probably be very competitive. The further down the abstraction stack you go, the lower the pay.

However, I don't believe software engineering roles will ever approach minimum wage levels as long as they require the ability to read, write, and comprehend code. In addition to understanding the problem at hand in the 'bigger picture' and devising scalable solutions.

If one's role is reduced to merely overseeing AI-generated code without actively engaging in problem-solving or considering alternative solutions, can such a position truly be considered software engineering?

Thank you for your reply and for breaking down how identity worked. It makes perfect sense now.

The idea of having no user tracking also aligns brilliantly with the ethos of a truly P2P application.

I'm right there with you, hoping to see more decentralised models of communication in the future!