It's nice to see more storage being added, but we have keep thr order of magnitude in mind: the peak electricity demand for the US is 750GW, so the added storage for the past 3 month corresponds to just 96 seconds of peak consumption.

There's still a very long way to go !

But we generally don't need to satisfy the peak with battery - peak US demand occurs while the sun is still up, in July, so you can satisfy a large chunk of that with solar still. The hard part is those ~4 hours after solar stops producing enough and it's still hot and people are still up. So what we need is several hours of about half the gap between {nuclear, wind, hydro} and peak. Remembering that we also use even non-pumped hydro as a form of storage, by drawing on it more in the periods just before and just after sunrise/sunset.

For example, if you look at the energy production across PJM from two days ago: https://cdn.bsky.app/img/feed_fullsize/plain/did:plc:hiovtnl...

(Using that b/c I run the bot and it's data I'm very familiar with. You can see similar patterns in CAISO but they've already got so much solar it's a little more messy/duck-curved by all of the behind-the-meter solar.)

You can see hydro coming online from roughly 16:00 - 23:00. There's still a big gas peak that we'd need a lot of storage to shave, and you're right that it's a long way to go before we do that, but it's not quite as bad as "we need enough battery to satisfy 100% peak demand".

As others have stated, neither storage nor generation is evenly spread.

But, like with UPS, 96 seconds is ample time to let delicate systems glide to a standstill or to start the diesel generator.

> I think the names are more of a reference to price. Luna is always cheaper than terra which is cheaper than Sol which is cheaper than Astra

Per token, yes. But per task it's not even necessarily the case depending on how much thinking is needed.

That's why "They have orthogonal capabilities" matters. You need to find the one that's best suited to your particular task.

But the model names are linear by price.

> Put another way Anthropic has committed 52 billion dollar a year

Idk where you got this figure from, but the actual figure are very different from that:

It's 120B over four years for SpaceX alone and 120B for Broadcom over 6 years. These two players, representing less than half of the total commitment, already give you an annual commitment above 50B.

I don't think they are betting on that many people subscribing to their $200/mo plan, there's pretty much no upside in using a frontier model for the average consumer.

But on the flip side I don't think aiming for 1M businesses spending $40k a month in token in average is going to be more viable. And I'm not sure having 1000 corporations spending $40M a month is a option either.

It's not a rust specific thing at all, HN has had it's share of “ but written in JavaScript” (as well as in Go[1]) back in the day, it's just a common thing when a language becomes popular, as their are more people wanting to show off that they did something than people with genuinely original ideas worth posting on HN.

It's not that Rust or Go aren't used to write new things, it's just that the bar for reaching the HN front page with new things is much higher than for mere copycats.

[1]: https://hn.algolia.com/?q=written+in+Go

Interestingly enough the “before it was cheap” version was distributed for free when this one is for sale for half the price of the game this is supposed to run on.

The other criticisms are valid but this one is too much:

> No comparison to astra/6.1 sol/fable 5.1/opus 5.5

I mean, should a 27B model beat Fable 5 but not Fable 5.1 that would still be an incredible achievement.

The problem is that it's a very simple, older benchmark, and qwen was trained after fable 5. You need to test against similarly modern models so you aren't putting the models on uneven playing fields in terms of contamination. And for the stuff qwen is trained to be good at (agent stuff) opus 5.5 is light-years ahead of fable just because it's a newer model amd they RLed on it.

Though point taken that in a case where they didn't even bother making sure they were using the same qwen quants for every run or even test fable in their harness probably that is the least of the issues here.

Interestingly enough, Libya did in fact bomb France two decades before France bombed Libya, via the multiple terrorist proxy Gaddafi financed.

I'm pretty sure it's actually anti correlated: not because degoogled Androids are safer by themselves, but because the average user is way savier than the average Joe (which have an out of date Android full of unpatched security vulnerabilities, in the first place).

My theory is that they're trying to counter simulated phones. In the old days fraudsters would use their stolen credentials on a windows RDP rented from someone who sells fraud infra with clean IPs. I wouldn't be surprised if fraudsters have tried to develop an android based VM meant to look like a legitimate customer endpoint.

Though the most effective way to cut out that kind of fraud is to stop using SMS for authentication, which banks don't seem to be interested in doing.

Which is silly because you can get an attested phone for like $50 and factory reset it between "customers"

What's actually used is banks of old, used phones with broken screens, controlled via usb. They can be had for rather cheap.

That's my first instinct too. I've seen a claim that devices with root, which is distinct from degoogled, both of which are distinct from using a third-party Android distribution, have an increased probability of malware. I suspect that statistic includes things like secondary devices people use for cheating in pay-to-win games and the like.

It would be interesting to see statistics comparing who 1. Byod (just gets a SIM card from the carrier) 2. Keeps updating their phone to whatever the carrier offers via billing credits 3. Just keeps using the same phone they got from the carrier when they started

> Are you saying people unfamiliar with the 'pixel arts' can't enjoy it their own way?

The problem isn't that they look shitty to pixel artists or experts, they look shitty for anyone with a bit of observation.

It's junk art the same way Mc Donald's is junk food.

It's calorie-dense and high in sodium?

I think we could do a bit better here with the explanation of what looks bad to you..

I am just a layperson when it comes to pixel art, but to me the example in the article is clearly garbage/low quality.

- the magenta background is still visible along the edges - the color palette is all over the place - random noise pixels of totally different colors are visible scattered around - the lighting and shading doesn't look that good

> It's calorie-dense and high in sodium?

There's plenty of real food that is as heavy and as salted, and as such no healthier, than junk food. But it actually tastes good. (I can't exactly put the finger on what makes an Italian pizza better than a US 7/11 one, but it's not about the former being healthier).

I'd say it's the fermented, charred dough in combination with fresh, varied toppings.

With the exception that it's harder to make the argument that "it's bad for the consumer."

McDonalds', over time, will make you less healthy.

AI slop over time will perhaps change aesthetics, but hard to chalk that up to anything other than personal preference.