The naming of these Gemini 4 models is ridiculous.
In order of sophistication and cost, the models are Hydrogen -> Argon -> Carbon.
What kind of ordering is that?!?
With the introduction of Hydrogen, it's no longer ordered alphabetically. That would be Argon → Carbon → Hydrogen.
And it never was ordered by atomic mass, which is arguably the best ordering if you're going to name your model classes after chemical elements. That would be Hydrogen → Carbon → Argon.
It's also not ordered by prevalence in the universe. That ordering would also be Hydrogen → Carbon → Argon.
It's not ordered by electronegativity, boiling point, melting point, or any other remotely defensible chemical property I can think of.
It's not even ordered by letter count, Scrabble score, or NFPA 704 Flammability Rating, all of which would be Argon → Carbon → Hydrogen.
Per Business Insider[0], Argon and Carbon were part of an alphabetical lineup:
> An internal document shows that Google has tested a series of Gemini 4 models, internally named Argon, Barium, and Carbon.
Then I suppose they tacked on Hydrogen since it's supposed to be a "light" model and hydrogen is the lightest element. I agree that it's super confusing though.
+1 to this the naming is totally opaque and ridiculous.
There is no hint of what each one does. I get that these were internal code names, fine, but to everyone outside Google it's not helpful to have these meaningless names.
ChatGPT and Claude aren't much better - there is still quite a lot of assumed knowledge there assuming you know what e.g. a sonnet is and what an opus is - but at least if you squint there is something there.
Google's names just seem to be randomly generated.
Maybe they were worried that the 3.1 Pro model being around for so lunch ruined the brand? But 3.8 Flash was pretty decent I thought so it's not like "flash" was burnt. I dunno.
The choice is really odd. Hydrogen and Carbon could have an organic chemistry theme going if they chose Oxygen, but then they go with Argon? Anthropic and Open AI have the names figured out in terms of obvious size: Luna->Terra->Sol->Astra and Haiku->Sonnet->Opus->Fable->Mythos makes intuitive sense. I have no idea how the Google model size class works.
I know some people are still a bit confused by astra, sol, terra, and luna, but at least you can explain the reasoning and it makes sense. Google's new naming scheme is just pure luna...cy.
If I were considering this as a Christmas gift for a 16-year-old who likes making things in Garage Band, would the Lite edition still be a step up, or should I more seriously consider the next level up?
If you buy them a midi keyboard or controller it will usually come with a lite or introductory license. The push is fun but a real keyboard feels special and the pads and sliders and knobs really make Live feel like a real instrument rather than just a piece of software
That said you do get a ton of cool stuff with the higher editions
A subscription to splice or other sample/preset libraries opens up a world of possibilities as well
Having the full edition also makes it possible to use more of the example projects and templates out there, and you can follow along with the tutorials from Mr Bill too!
This is the best option by far. Lite/Intro is currently $80 on sale, but for $10-$20 more, you can get an MPK mini [1] which includes it. That version is limited to 16 tracks, but I mean... that was enough for most people up until the 90s.
+1 on this.. hardware is really what makes Ableton shine, Launchkey series all flow super well with Ableton and allow you to throw things together super fast.
I recommend GP just ask what kinds of things they might want. Or for a budding musician, a music store gift card would be really appreciated. I recommend Sweetwater (in the US.)
DAWs and MIDI controllers are sort of like keyboards, notebooks, or text editors. They all do the same things, but when they're your primary work surface little idiosyncrasies add up to flow-wrecking annoyances.
Lots of people love Logic, but I'm not one of them. It's not anything wrong with the product, it's just that Live clicks with my brain in a way that Logic doesn't. The Live interface has things arranged where I expect them to be. Logic hides everything in drawers.
That said, your teenager might be using Garage Band because they really like it, or they might use it because it's free and what they have. On the controller side, if they have experience with piano, they probably want a keyboard. If they don't, they might or might not want piano keys. If they do play piano, they will have preferences about key feel and size. My old piano muscle memory can't handle mini keyboards, for example.
Eh, I find the workflow and UI of Logic clunky. I prefer Ableton, also there are more resources online and it's better for live performance. Second best for me would be Fruityloops.
I'd say Ableton lite is still a step up, and gives you familiarity with the Ableton interface, which means you are primed for using one of the bigger editions. However, if said 16-year-old does not currently have a midi keyboard / controller I would look at buying one that includes bundled Ableton Lite as the gift. Something from the Novation Launchkey range would fit the bill.
Ableton suite is amazing because of all the content you get with it (instruments, effects, samples), but lite comes with enough to get you going and you can always add vsts and samples from 3rd parties.
You don't usually purchase the Lite version, you get it with like a $50-100 worth of hardware from the likes of AKAI or Novation or whatever.
It has a hard limit of 8 tracks, Intro doubles that to 16, while Standard is the first version without limitations. Intro should be more than fine for most beginners.
Lite is far too limited and you can't buy it on its own anyway, it only comes included with various hardware. Intro is limited to 16 tracks, Garage Band to 32 tracks. There's various other limitations too. Ableton has generous educational pricing though (50% off).
To make it a gift comparable to Garage Band, I feel strongly that Standard edition would be the right play. Lite doesn't necessarily feel like a benefit to Garage Band beyond setting you on a more formal track for digital audio work.
I miss the old CashKeys[1]. Some cities had a digital 'key' (basically an EEPROM in a funky key-like TRRS form factor) that you could buy and preload $10-20 at a time on. When you clicked them all the way into the meter, it acted like you inserted one quarter. You'd pull it out a click and click it back in, and it'd drop another 'quarter' in. Repeat as much as you needed, and you could mix the CashKey with actual coins being dropped in the slot.
They lasted to the mid-2010s, when Duncan stopped selling keys and software and eventually, support.
Is it? If it's just on your key, you get out, park, shove the dongle into the parking meter a couple times, and walk off. Every few days you stop by one of the various shops that could reload it, shove the key in, give the clerk some more money, then not have to think about a pocket full of change.
Literally all the same steps as quarters, except you can’t use it to buy anything else, and need to refill it only at a special place - instead of anywhere that handles cash and can make change.
I'm a Delawarean, and I have done research and reporting about the state's unique role in corporate America.
You may wonder why two-thirds of the Fortune 500 are incorporated in Delaware. Is it because the cost of incorporation is lower than in other states, or because corporate tax rates are lower? Those are factors, but they are not the primary reason. The primary reason is risk avoidance, and in particular legal risk avoidance.
Delaware benefits from a flywheel effect: Because so many companies are incorporated in the state, its Chancery Court has a more developed set of case law than other states, and so outcomes of lawsuits involving corporations are more predictable -- which makes it an even more attractive place to incorporate, which continues the flywheel effect.
The down side is that the state is incredibly dependent on corporate licensing fees and escheatment. States like Nevada have, in recent years, been competing against Delaware as a corporate haven, and if we start to see a significant migration, we'll be in a real pickle, because the state imposes no sales tax and has relatively low property taxes.
DE law is also, broadly speaking, favorable to corpos -- they didn't just go there because common law got hashed out. Plenty of other east coast states with long histories and lots of lawsuits.
but the parent poster is correct: it is unambiguous and well litigated in its benefits and downsides.
even if the benefits are only mild, it makes it easy to map out and control the legal risks.
Off topic: I’ve never seen a flywheel analogy that actually understands what a flywheel is. People love to use it to describe a forever growing thing, when it’s actually just a buffer.
In this case, the flywheel analogy only demonstrates is that there is low friction in the legal system aspect.
If we are talking about a flywheel as an energy storage, low friction is a key component of its ability to store energy as a buffer. If this was not the case, the flywheel would lose its energy quickly on its own and the buffer would be gone.
> People love to use it to describe a forever growing thing, when it’s actually just a buffer.
A thing has other characteristics other than its intended purpose. Your assumption that you need to use intended purpose for a successful analogy is false.
This reminds me of a billboard I saw about 15 years ago when the state of Delaware was considering changing its laws to permit new casinos in addition to the three that had been grandfathered in when the restrictions went into place.
Delaware Park, one of those three casinos, put up a billboard opposing the bill, and it said, "No more casinos! THREE IS ENOUGH!"
It just goes to show that corporations will take any position -- even a casino taking an anti-casino position -- as long as it's self-serving.
Aren't they both ripoffs of the 2019 boardgame Mapmaker?
(Great Kickstarter, they played games of it on the steps of the supreme Court, and had pledge levels where you could have copies sent to your Congresspeople or the court)
Not really, they're not ripoffs. Maybe loosely inspired, but besides the hexes and the theme, they look to be mechanically different. The board game is a competitive versus game, not a set of puzzles; it has varying numbers of voters per hex; the game board is of a preset shape and not freeform.
The game in the post is basically identical to Gerrymandle, they're far more similar to one another than either game is to what you've posted.
I can understand alphabetical ordering in some circumstances, but if the point is to indicate which model family is lighter or heavier, surely atomic numbers should be taken into account?!?
Argon - 18
Boron - 5
Carbon - 6
I don't think I'll be able to cope with this level of elemental disorder.
I thought Carbon for composable stood well on it's own marketing. As did Argon, for impervious. Next to one another the pair comes off utterly cockeyed and sleazy.
I've been a user for more than 20 years. With their shared hosting plan, which was about $5/mo. when I joined and is now $13/mo, I've been able to host my personal blog and professional site, as well as probably 3 dozen other sites over the years, including several that have hit the HN front page and never got hugged by the squeeze of death.
Honestly, compared to some of the professional environments I've worked in, it's a joy to have an idea, create a few PHP files, and in a matter of seconds have that idea live.
I know the log scale of that chart is valuable when surveying the full breadth of possibilities, but I would encourage people to make decisions between nearby models based on linear scaling. Linear cost is often more useful for making the actual decision.
In order of sophistication and cost, the models are Hydrogen -> Argon -> Carbon.
What kind of ordering is that?!?
With the introduction of Hydrogen, it's no longer ordered alphabetically. That would be Argon → Carbon → Hydrogen.
And it never was ordered by atomic mass, which is arguably the best ordering if you're going to name your model classes after chemical elements. That would be Hydrogen → Carbon → Argon.
It's also not ordered by prevalence in the universe. That ordering would also be Hydrogen → Carbon → Argon.
It's not ordered by electronegativity, boiling point, melting point, or any other remotely defensible chemical property I can think of.
It's not even ordered by letter count, Scrabble score, or NFPA 704 Flammability Rating, all of which would be Argon → Carbon → Hydrogen.
reply