Well the point of market based interventions and government regulations like this is primarily to reduce information asymmetry. You still ultimately need to increase supply or reduce demand to move price.
> Intelligence per dollar spent/token output seems to be increasing rapidly.
I would argue this is more due to market economics than actual inherent cost. Opus 4 was when the open models started catching up. The R1 bootstrapping chain of thought paper via RL paper was released a couple of months before Opus came out and the open models started to significantly catch up after that. The duopoly was effectively broken and they lost their price setting power.
When I was very young, I had normal hearing, but I don’t remember any of the sounds I heard back then. I think I lost my hearing around first grade, which in Korea is around age seven. Until then, my hearing was normal, and that’s when I learned to speak. But these are such early childhood memories that I can’t really be sure. What did everything sound like back then...? I don’t know.
(Sorry if my last post seemed to have some mistakes. I was tired yesterday and didn’t review it carefully, so there were a few contradictions. I’m trying my best to write as accurately as possible)
Someone owns a blue shirt/green socks clearance warehouse, this is all just and ad? I've seen weirder. I can imagine visiting SanFran in a few months, and it looks like a weird sci-fi movie scene, everyone dressed the same.
This ballpark has been the case since 8 gen 1 days and there were always OnePlus and Xiaomi undercutting everyone with their sub-1000 flagships. I got my OP15 for like 800 eur.
Speaking of OnePlus, why do chinese brands not include cellular in their tablets? Very few chinese tablets (at least the global versions) have biometric fingerprint sensors or 5G.
The OnePlus tablet 4 would be amazing if not for the corners they cut..
Cellular modems are huge, complex, draw tons of power and have high price tags. In the market that is already cutthroat to the extreme I can 100% see why they'd skip it.
Bunch of fancy cameras (same as every other flagship smartphone) and following the unwritten "thou flagship shall be expensive" rule that has little to do with silly things like hardware cost.
Somewhat surprisingly, Lenovo/Motorola here has some of the more affordable mainstream phones (200€-ish for the G56), beating other Chinese brands that played around tiny margins and got hit even harder by memory prices now.
There will be more devices from Motorola providing official GrapheneOS support including budget devices. It has to start from the top down since Qualcomm currently only provides the security features we need for flagship Snapdragon. We also still need proper long term updates for budget devices.
Is there any possibility of Motorola pulling the rug from under GrapheneOS 7 year support? Like cutting down driver updates or anything else?
I'm currently using a Pixel 9 Pro with GrapheneOS and not in the market for the Signature 27 because of size and low RAM. But I'm definitely considering upcoming Motorola devices with GrapheneOS support.
We're more confident in our ability to properly support it long term than Pixels. Pixels did pull the rug out from under us and everyone else relying on them having AOSP support. We had to do a lot of work to keep supporting them, to add support for new Pixels and to keep up with new releases. We have to backport the drivers from QPR1 and QPR3 to the yearly and QPR2 releases on an ongoing basis along with much more. Motorola is doing more than we expected them to do. They're helping port and maintain GrapheneOS for their devices.
I don't see why people are complaining about the UI. The calibre codebase is just Python and you can vibe code/customize a nicer UI for it in minutes. It's not like the core changes much. Their metadata resolution and Epub handling and (formerly DRM cracking) are best in class.
Vibe-coded or not, I prefer staying close to upstream unless I have very good reasons not to, and I would not want to have to half-heartedly maintain a UI fork of this. I would still be quite excited about an official visual overhaul, though
Can we please stop with the suggesting vibe coding for everything? It’s not an interesting response: it doesn’t advance the discussion and no one learns anything. The goal of this website is (ostensibly) intellectual curiosity, and suggesting AI as a solution to every problem is basically a thought-terminating cliché.
I agree, but I think the sentiment is "it's opensource, if you don't like it, change it." Saying "just vibe-code it" is just a reaction to the response people would have given to the first statement in past times, which was to complain about the barrier to entry.
Would you be mad at somebody for suggesting “Cmd+=“ in response to a complaint about a website font being too small? It’s becoming nearly that easy to fix.
I’m not mad and I would appreciate if we stopped assuming combativeness from the start. That too is detrimental to discussion and intellectual curiosity, and there’s too much of it on HN. I was polite and courteous while making a comment asking for a change in behaviour. Not every disagreement needs to be a fight.
Moving on, that example is different because not only is that solution specific to the problem and teaches you something, it’s also not as pervasive. Suggesting a keyboard shortcut to change text size is like teaching you how to hammer a nail, while telling you to vibe code is like telling you to hire a carpenter. Sure, you can hire a carpenter for your problem, but everyone already knows that is an option and it’s too general. It’s not a solution to the problem, it’s a suggestion of an approach and doesn’t even have a helpful guiding direction. Again: not interesting, doesn’t advance the discussion, and no one learns anything.
> but everyone already knows that is an option and it’s too general
There are cases where it's not only an obvious option, but also the only viable one e.g. suggesting to someone they should hire a lawyer: the advice there isn't just that they have this option, but that this is the only viable option, and that otherwise taking legal advise from a forum is dangerous; IANAL-YANAL-GAL!
programmers are overwhelmingly the type of people to solve problems whenever someone complains about something.
I don't see you berating people for complaining, after all if the purpose of this website is intellectual curiosity then comments complaining aren't in line with the purpose right?
> programmers are overwhelmingly the type of people to solve problems, whenever someone complains about something.
No one complained about anything, read the parent comment to the comment I replied to. The comment I replied to just suggested vibe coding out of nowhere.
> berating people
Come on, let’s please not be ridiculous. My comment was as polite as can be while presenting a disagreeing opinion. You don’t need to fake outrage, there’s enough of that in the world already and it’s a major reason why everything is turning to shit.
> after all if the purpose of this website is intellectual curiosity then comments complaining aren't in line with the purpose right?
Oof, HN is so tiring. More and more it proves right everyone who calls this “the orange site”. Look, you’re probably not a dumb person, there’s no need to play one and make arguments in bad faith. This is not hard to understand:
If there is something detrimental which you perceive as being done in excess, you should call it out and ask the person to stop, even if you have to go outside the norms a bit, for the greater good of the community. If you are, for example, in a renaissance fair and a couple of guys are being disruptive, it’s absolutely fine to break character to get them to stop; you don’t have to do it while pretending to be a medieval peasant, and it’s idiotic to suggest that would have to be the case.
It’s supremely stupid and frankly embarrassing for this community that I have to point this out as if we’re children. Don’t be Mr Gotcha, he’s not smart and no one likes him.
> If there is something detrimental which you perceive as being done in excess, you should call it out and ask the person to stop
that's exactly what i'm doing. there's so many people on here complaining about LLMs in general, I perceived your comment in that same class and thought that it too wasn't adding anything to the discussion. The suggestion to use LLMs is, I think, useful. People might not have thought of it, might not know what the underlying code of calibre is and how easy it would be to modify with an LLM.
I view suggestions, even if rote or obvious, more useful than negative comments like yours.
Suggestions can go either way. "Use an LLM." and "Don't use an LLM." are in the same class of comment. It's quite biased to treat one as a negative comment and the other as a suggestion.
which you interpreted as combative on the basis that it implies you are 'mad' about something. I wouldn't interpret their phrasing as such.
In this case, a poster who sees your own post as hostile ("berating people"), you describe it as "fake outrage"', which seems to imply their perception is a dishonest one. Their are other impolite and combative elements there too, e.g. "you’re probably not a dumb person", "This is not hard to understand".
The point is, this response is not de-escalating, but the opposite.
No ... Russia's communist government rejected access to computers and their own version of the internet for fear of dissent ...
If you were working in military research, you got access to western computers. Academics, generally no. Companies, never. Even party members couldn't get access.
So no this is yet another victim of the priorities of communism: priority #1 is preventing dissent. And I hope you do at least understand why that means "no computers, and certainly no networks".
Not sure what you mean by "their own version of internet", but access to any means of trans-border communication was indeed restricted.
As to computers - it's not like you could walk into a store and buy one, they simply didn't produce them in quantity (central planning economy took a while to recognize that need). But if you could find one, access was not particularly restricted. You could also build a simple home computer yourself if you were into electronics. Schematics were published in hobby magazines and it was a cool thing to do, not something frowned upon by authorities.
Regarding computers, yes and no. I don't think fear of dissent played any role, but rather the availability of western equipment.
For example, SM-4 and SM-1420 machines were quite common in the academic institutions in mid-80s. These were clones of pdp-11/45, which means about 10 years gap in computer tech.
That's complete nonsense detached from reality. For the reference, I was a kid during the Soviet personal computing boom in the 80s, and it was the reason I got interested in electronics and computers at all. There was a huge push since the 60s, and computers were everywhere in the 80s, just not readily available to private owners due to the incapability of producing enough (you needed connections, not just money) and being expensive as hell.
"computers were everywhere in the 80s, just not readily available to private owners"
Agreed on that, and access to a computer system, e.g ES mainframe or SM family was not a problem for people who wanted it. I was in high school in mid-80s. I found a fortran book in the library, and it took me very little time to get access to the university-owned SM-1420, RSX-11, and a fortran compiler. That same lab ran free programming classes in the evening with faculty volunteers.
"But by the early 1970s the idea of transcending the status quo was abandoned by the Soviet leadership, who felt the system threatened Party control of the economy."
And that was that, for the idea of connecting Soviet computer networks or directly connecting people in the Soviet union (without party-controlled channels in between).
The article deals with the failed OGAS network, which is interesting, but I am not sure how this is related to what I said about individual access to computing facilities.
They literally gave western computers (up to 486s) to people who were involved in weapons research, even managers who had no use for them. It really was policy to not have computers for individuals, except for training and (mostly military) research.
It wasn't my experience really, and I think the cost was the main issue for individuals. Some families who had no relation to the military had computers at home, that's where I spent quite a lot of evenings. But I was in high school and didn't know much. Access to large computers in educational institutions was not a problem at all.
reply