Java factory factories was really a work of zealots...
But on the other hand you can't escape patterns - it's like trying to escape math - you will discover new patterns or circle back to old patterns, maybe with other names.
Planning architecture really is a thing. Just sometimes it takes 3rd implementation and domain knowledge...
This seems like a (probably vibe coded?) copy of windy.com and mapy.com. Both the name and the UI. I would atleast name it differently, this is just blatant infringement of Seznam's copyrights.
They need to rollout a 50 dollar plan then. I often run out of codex 5h limit and this would lock me out of simple google like queries. Can't justify the 100 dollar plan while also paying for claude and having a github copilot at work.
My usage pattern is "one or two evenings a week I'll sit down late at night and do something heavy". I have a life, y'know?
Their 5 hour limit works better with a "constant background trickle" usage pattern. I don't think the $20 account is a good fit for hobbyists-who-have-day-jobs (which is where I think it should be targeted). It should meet "binge" needs.
I would love the option to choose whether you want to use 5 hour limits or some type of burst limit where you could use all of your weekly quota. Trying to spread my work out over a day with gaps is painful and while I understand that this is some intentional friction to get people to upgrade to the $100 plan that's just never going to be justified when I'm only using this plan for hobby projects, I'm not going to pay $100 per month just because I might have the time to work on something big that month. Congestion wise, I wonder if there's any real difference to 5 hour windows vs using all your weekly quota in one chunk at some random point in the week? They allowed it for a while as what I assume was an experiment to measure that and then switched back so I guess there are some consequences to it.
Once this change comes into effect and I'm not able to use the chat side of things for more casual inquiries and ideation it'll be the motivation I need to try out Claude or Grok again. I'd rather have a second subscription with a different provider than double up on one for more of the same.
I'd say it's both intentional friction, as well as just some degree of load distribution throughout the day, instead of peak hours (US work hours).
At OpenAI/Anthropic scale, they're can't just scaling up-and-down on demand on rented autoscale GPUs (to be honest; that's not really practical anymore for even medium size volume); the peak hours are basically the same for everyone.
With the way things are, they actively drive you to get another $20 subscription at a competing service, since that's the only official way you can spend $40 on AI without going the full $100.
I don't know why, but the benchmarks still fails to cover the difference between large models and small ones. The small ones are great for many things, including general coding, but the larger ones, like fable and astra, have some kind of intelligence that is not present in the small ones.
It is possible to spend an infinite amount of money keeping a human being alive, and every year there are more ways to spend more money keeping someone alive a little longer. Once you're not spending an infinite amount of money for each person, you are in the territory of denied claims, "death panels", waiting lists, and all the other things people like to complain about depending on their political persuasion.
What does cost driven system and driver even mean? The cost of something is the ratio of demand to supply.
If something is not costing a lot, then it means there is sufficient supply that obtaining it is not going to require sacrifices elsewhere.
If something does cost a lot, then it means there isn't sufficient supply, and obtaining it is going to require sacrifices elsewhere.
Healthcare is obviously one of those things, especially with a top heavy population age histogram, where supply is not going to be sufficient so costs will remain high. And if costs are high, then obviously they will decide how resources get allocated, that is the very nature of something that is high cost.
It will always be the driver. The question is always going to be whether we spend X amount of resources to get Y probability of restoring Z health to someone (or someone to Z level of health.)
Costs are just another way to say resources. If we only have $100, and it takes $100 to have a 33% chance to give Bob a 50% better life, but $50 to have a 15% chance to give either Sara or Rose a 100% better life, we need a rubric to make that decision.
We can't just do first come first serve (maybe the first person in line takes all the health care for a 1% chance of getting 1% better), or pick the person we like better (who is we?). We have to figure out how to manage and grow the limited resources we have. We manage them by coming up with algorithms on how to spend money, and we grow them by cutting costs and investing. This is better when it is done in public through democratic means than when it is done behind closed doors (to avoid the above problems.)
There will always be death panels. There are currently death panels. The reason for single-payer is not to avoid trying (imperfectly) to maximize these equations, it's to get rid of massive amounts of administration and graft (cutting costs.) If all that savings goes to the Pentagon, we wouldn't be any happier than before single-payer.
But it's not good to come up with some fuzzy way to determine who gets treated. Efficient spending is a way of minimizing injustice. To say a health system is not being driven by costs is just another way of saying that it's going to be driven by undeclared and unexamined biases.
I'm not sure I'd call that "meaningful" in the sense of "trillions of dollars and datacenters built all over the place" meaningful. Yes, I can now tell Claude to build a feature and it often does an okay job. I can ship faster. I can't tell you that it's worth spending the true cost of AI for that however. What'll be nice is 5 years of data showing that companies are raking in more money because they shipped more features. We haven't seen that yet.
Now, if Claude starts synthesizing more drugs that can help those with diseases (like OpenAI has just done) we might be trending in the right direction. For now, all I see is squirrels water-skiing. And while that's great... it's not meaningful.
there's a popular misconception that AI is so extremely costly that when the world finally comes to terms with it, we will stop using AI and things will die down. i'm sorry to burst your bubble: this won't happen.
the inference cost of AI has been dropping ~5x over every 6 months. AI today is around 100x cheaper than 2 years ago. it will continue to get cheap.
That doesn't cause the amount that's already been spent to simply disappear. To recoup, they're going to need to sell a LOT of subscriptions. In about 3 years, we'll need to upgrade the GPUs that we use - if we're still chasing frontier models. That cost remains to be seen. There's a ton of unknowns here.
My job hasn’t completely changed. It’s changed, but fundamentally I solve problems. Sometimes LLMs help me do that now.
The job market sucks, but there are so many confounding factors: pandemic over hiring, the loss of ZIRP, an economy that would be recession if it weren’t for data center investment, and may be in
recession soon even with it.
This industry has been in down cycles before. It’s just been a while. So far it feels like a down cycle, not the sky falling.
It’s not clear what the future will hold, but I’m 100% sure it won’t evolve the way Anthropic predicts. Both because they have strong biases and because there's just no way to predict how this technology will play out. Humans are, if anything, remarkably adaptable.
I started my professional career in tech in the early 1990s. At that time, I sat in a chair with a keyboard and a screen to do my work. In 2026, I still work that way. So fundamentally how I work has not changed. Well, now I have two screens.
reply