nsingh2

Reasoning like this is part of the reason why history keep repeating itself. Completely ignoring how previous US led decapitations turned out, and just hoping this time will be different.

It should not be contentious at this point, the US only cares about the geopolitical value of Venezuela, and if supporting another dictator helps towards this end, then that's what will happen.

That's quite the long esc key. An ortholinear layout would be nice too.

One quick way to estimate a lower bound is to take the number of parameters and multiply it with the bits per parameter. So a model with 7 billion parameters running with float8 types would be ~7 GB to load at a minimum. The attention mechanism would require more on top of that, and depends on the size of the context window.

You'll also need to load inputs (images in this case) onto the GPU memory, and that depends on the image resolution and batch size.

> Be kind. Don't be snarky. Edit out swipes [1]

[1] https://news.ycombinator.com/newsguidelines.html

DINOv3 was released earlier this year: https://ai.meta.com/dinov3/

I'm not sure if the work they did with DINOv3 went into SAM3. I don't see any mention of it in the paper, though I just skimmed it.

Telling of where the boundary of competence is for these models. And to show that these models aren't doing what most expect them to be doing, i.e. not counting legs, and maybe instead inferring information based on the overall image (dogs usually have 4 legs) to the detriment of find grained or out-of-distribution tasks.

The other way around it seems, on `07-29-2025 23:24:56 UTC` went from 8 to 8.7 [1]

[1] Table on https://www.tsunami.gov/

Cosine similarity is the dot product of vectors that have been normalized to lie on the unit sphere. Normalization doesn't alter orthogonality, nor does it change the fact that most high‑dimensional vectors are (nearly) orthogonal.

In general, it's the classic mistake of blaming people for societal-scale events instead of systems.

Do you mean the text input box only allows one line? In that case, try pressing Alt+Enter for a new line. It's a little unintuitive; I would expect Shift+Enter for a new line.

> It is completely typical, but at the same time abnormal to have tools with such poor usability.

The main difference I see is that LLMs are flaky, getting better over time, but still more so than traditional tooling like debuggers.

> Programming languages are notoriously full of unnecessary complexity. Personal pet peeve: Rust lifetime management. If this is what it takes, just use GC (and I am - golang).

Lifetime management is an inherently hard problem, especially if you need to be able to reason about it at compile time. I think there are some arguments to be made about tooling or syntax making reasoning about lifetimes easier, but not trivial. And in certain contexts (e.g., microcontrollers) garbage collectors are out of the question.

These kinds of selfish policies backfire when they cut the ground out from under you. Trump and his cronies live in the US and are predominantly invested there, and undermining the US in the long term also undermines them and their interests. The stability of the US correlates with the stability of their power, I would consider this to be basic systems-thinking on the scale of a nation.

> If this was such an obvious slam dunk on how to win the presidency, why didn't the Dems come up with such a candidate?

The Democratic party in it's current state is ineffective & incompetent in many ways.

> Managing to become president twice is insufficient evidence?

Yes. You are ignoring the damage he is doing now, which is direct evidence against him being a good “systems thinker”

He’s definitely a good salesman. People already distrusted the elites and the `deep state` and he marketed himself as the outsider who’d fix things.

That still isn’t sufficient evidence in his favor, given everything happening now.

> As an example, I can think of one politician who is definitely a systems thinker (who is not nice, but is successful and generally outplays his opponents because of it) and ~80% of Hacker News is convinced beyond the shadow of any doubt that he's an evil idiot loser who always makes stupid mistakes.

Not sure whether you’re talking about the Orange Man, but calling him a systems thinker is a hard sell given the damage his tariffs, defunding, and other nonsense are causing.

Same experience, these "background agents" are powered by models that aren't yet capable enough to handle large, tangled or legacy codebases without human guidance. So the background part ends up being functionally useless in my experience.

In Cursor, there is an 'ask' mode that isn't as over-eager to make edits as the default agent mode.

Better served to students and those unfamiliar with the field, but noisy to those familiar. Considering that much of mathematical work is done using pen/paper, it would be a total pain to write out huge variable names every time.

Consider a simple programming example, in C blocks are delimited by `{}`, why not use `block_begin` and `block_end`? Because it's noisy, and it doesn't take much to internalize the meaning of braces.

Whats are some use cases for these local small models, for individuals? Seems like for programming related work, the proprietary models are significantly better and that's all I really use LLMs for personally.

Though I can imagine a few commercial applications where something like this would be useful. Maybe in some sort of document processing pipeline.

One thing with Cursor is that you can use other non-anthropic models like o3 or Gemini. I've found o3 more useful for cracking localized difficult problems, and Gemini for large context refactoring.

The religious absolutism you criticize is present in Israel's current leadership. Smotrich and Ben Gvir call Gaza reconquest and West Bank annexation a religious duty, claim that it's a redemption. Justifying tens of thousands of Palestinian deaths and a war bill funded mostly by the US [1].

There is also hatred within the Israeli population against Arabs and Iranians in the region, and still that's no reason to justify continued aggression.

I'm seeing these no-nuance, dehumanizing, views everywhere on this thread, though I'm not sure why I expected better. Maybe because this "Iran big bad" rhetoric closely mirrors what happened during the Iraq war, and only helps justify further escalation.

[1] https://www.cfr.org/article/us-aid-israel-four-charts

US foreign policy is uniparty: anti-war candidates enter office, face pre-existing security briefs, donors, contracts, and pro-Israel politics, and align with the existing consensus.

Much of the money fueling election campaigns flows from entrenched defense contractors, lobbyists, and think tanks. That momentum has more predictive power than what the current "Commander-in-chief" claims they'll do.

Campaign rhetoric may change, but policy is harder, and this is another reason to believe that US democracy is a veneer.

Judging by history, external forces toppling a regime through violence usually leads to instability, with the result being militancy.

I hope if this does happen in Iran, the day after involves a movement towards a secular and free government. But I have my doubts, especially considering a government led by a dictator tends to be easier to control, so external powers may lean towards that option if given the choice.

> Iran believes in martyrdom

Don't confuse religious rhetoric with actual state behavior.

In Iran’s case the highest religious authority has repeatedly issued a fatwa declaring the use of nuclear weapons forbidden.

Pakistan’s army motto invokes jihad, yet it has treated its arsenal as a shield against invasion so far, not a ticket to paradise.

Israel’s so-called Samson Option evokes a biblical suicide attack, but I doubt they'll use nukes for anything but deterrent.

North Korean propaganda urges citizens to die for the Leader, and I'm sure there are other nations I've not listed who's dominant religions have some sort of martyrdom idea, which use nukes as deterrents.

Look at political interests, command structures, and the costs of escalation, not whether a nation honors death in battle (which one doesn't?)

Empathy for the Iranian people, whose budding democratic movement was crushed by the United States, for oil. The ones who are trying to fight for their own freedom from a repressive government, in the middle of this whole mess.

All these events risk spiraling the whole region into chaos, and creating another ISIS-like militancy, the brutality of which is going to be felt by the Iranians first and foremost.

He's been saying this since 1992, so 33 years so far.

This conveniently ignores decades of context. The CIA-backed coup that toppled Iran’s elected government, the sweeping sanctions, support for Saddam during a brutal war, assassinations and cyber-attacks on Iran’s nuclear program.

Painting Iran as the sole aggressor skips the part where outside powers kept breaking the "rules" they imposed. Also forgetting that Iran's current repressive and theocratic government is itself a direct consequence of US interference.

> Yes. Do not proliferate nuclear weapons. It’s not a big ask.

It's a very big ask to not proliferate nuclear weapons, because nukes correlate with sovereignty. You didn’t address that point at all.

> This is a completely acceptable and reasonable solution. It is how most of Europe operates.

US friendship in the case of Iran means a puppet ruler (Mohammad Reza Pahlavi, the last Shah of Iran). And now Europe is in the process of decoupling itself from the US. Not to mention how the US completely dropped support for Ukraine. Turns out relying on an "ally" for defense like this is not such a great idea.

Israel also understands this, and so has multiple nukes in its arsenal. Why did Israel "simply" not proliferate nuclear weapons even when it enjoyed the protection and support of the US?

What if the U.S. simply stopped interfering with other nations[1]? Have you considered that option? But of course, the U.S. can do whatever it wants because of its military might and the fact that it has nukes.

And there's the answer: on the world stage, you’d better be close friends with someone who has nukes, have your own, or be forced into a client state.

[1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/1953_Iranian_coup_d%27%C3%A9ta...

This absolutely is a conflict that the US has been involved in from near the start [1]. This a continuation of that, not something entirely new.

[1] https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=4CsJPrHcaBs