raylad

If you need implants, look into zirconia. They don’t have any potential corrosion issues and are more biocompatible.

https://pmc.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/articles/PMC12109504/

Doesn’t work on mobile Safari latest version either. At least not when using iCloud private relay.

Completely failed if you search by Artist name

How do you keep the caches valid?

Really? San Francisco? Candy crush is produced by a Swedish company.

An obvious flaw in this study is that the meals were not anything like equivalent.

The minimally processed food consisted mainly of cheese, egg, and pieces of whole fruit: No unbound simple carbohydrates.

The ultra processed food included jelly, turkey, chips, a cookie, cereal, instant mashed potatoes: Lots of unbound simple carbohydrates and much less fiber.

Of course insulin would spike higher with such a meal. There’s nothing at all non-obvious about that.

Also, the protein wasn’t equivalent. The turkey roll is meat protein and cheese is dairy protein. Also, the salt content was probably higher in the ultra processed foods, and that was not controlled for.

If this could be replicated using exact equivalents that are either processed or not processed, I would be more convinced. But I really doubt that it would replicate.

There’s nothing surprising about this for people who have done casual mobile games (the genre including Candy crush).

What we do for those is to instrument them such that we know what levels are more difficult, what levels cause more users to abandon the game temporarily, or permanently, etc.

We then dynamically tune these levels until they at least no longer cause abandonment and ideally until they increase engagement.

Looks cool but you may want to rethink the blue LED for an alarm clock, because blue light interferes with sleep.

https://www.health.harvard.edu/healthy-aging-and-longevity/b...

My take away from this is that perhaps it’s better to not compact and instead to start new sessions whenever possible. I tell the agents to write a HANDOVER.md file that contains sufficient information to resume but not any extraneous information. That can be easily reviewed because it’s usually fairly short. Then, /clear and tell the new session to read that file and continue.

I just checked that model (ISTA-DASLab/Qwen3.8-27B-GSQ-RCO-GGUF:IQ3_S) and it does much much worse on the "Please recite Jabberwocky" test than the original bf16 does.

The bf16 only misses "snicker-snack" and this quantization becomes confused after the first stanza.

How does that compare with the bf16 version?

For my "Please recite Jabberwocky" test the bf16 almost passes but the ternary and even fp8 versions fail badly.

Wait till they start mixing every language in one sentence, and using poetic allusions that only scholars of each language would know.

Sounds great except it’s too tall to get under the bed.

In 5 years the models will probably be so much better and more compact that phones will be running models equivalent at least to Opus 4.6 if not Fable, at least within the areas they are tuned for (which probably won't include coding).

It seems to fail. I sent the prompt:

“ 5° warmer”

And it said:

“ setting the temperature to 5°F”

As a child, I lived in Firenze (Florence, Italy) and had a pet cricket. All the kids had them, in little bamboo cages, for the Festival of the Cricket:

https://www.italymagazine.com/forums/do-see/6010-festival-cr...

I tried to take good care if it, but it died after a couple of months. I probably didn't know what to feed it (but then again I was only 5 years old).

Love it!

But 10 is a bit of a time commitment. I feel like 5 would be ideal for a daily diversion.

Anything you ever do with any non-locally-hosted model always "uploads code" to the inference provider because that's how it works: the model uses tools to inspect the code, the result of the tool use is sent in an API call to provide context (and a prompt for the next turn), and then the response continues the process.

This is true and has to be true for any hosted model that works with existing code: it's not specific to this application.

This got a downvote and I understand why: because I didn't describe the test, which is to ask it "Please recite Jabberwocky".

This is actually difficult because there are so many invented words in the poem which have extremely low frequencies in the training data. So a model that can do it properly is likely to be very good in other ways. Qwen-3.6-27B can do this until it gets overly quantized.

Not impressed. It fails the "Jabberwocky" test.

Looks very cool. I would like to try it, but don't want to use API billing. OpenAI I think would allow it to use account login. Would you support that?

Possibly a deliberate strategy by the Chinese to undermine the US AI industry, data centers, and basically everything that’s powering the economy.

Just like they did with the US steel industry in the 80s.

I wonder if this violates noncompete/no reverse engineering clauses in many or some SAAS agreements?

Seems very cool, but also opens an additional attack vector into your development machine or personal laptop as the case might be.

So all these sites like EquityZen or Forge Global or Hiive etc. who sold "shares" in these companies through SPVs are now going to lose their customer's money?

How would that all play out?

The Pedometer functionality is free, and I’ve been using it for many years just because its display is pleasant.

The map tracking features cost $29.95 a year.

The article complains about the keyboard layout. And they are probably right.

But if you are going to use a VT-100 keyboard you might as well try an editor actually designed for that keyboard, which I remember really loving at the time. KED:

https://avitech.com.au/?page_id=959

Also, if you want efficient and fast displays on that screen, remember to use scrolling regions. They scroll the sections of the screen in hardware. By using them correctly you can insert and delete single lines without repainting the screen.

Actual write up:

https://www.arimlabs.ai/writing/loss-of-control

I haven’t noticed this sort of behavior with opus 4.6, but the first time I used 4.7 it decided to “simplify“ an existing piece of functionality rather than fixing it, which of course made it completely unusable.

That was more than one task. It was 3.

I also had Opus 4.7 and Opus 4.6 do audits of a very long document using identical prompts. I then had Codex 5.4 compare the audits. Codex found that 4.6 did a far better job and 4.7 had missed things and added spurious information.

I then asked a new session of Opus 4.7 if it agreed or disagreed with the Codex audit and it agreed with it.

I also agreed with it.