Yeah, I hadn't used Fedora-based distros for over a decade. I haven't ran into issues with Nobara, but I'm sure that if I do any LLM can help me debug/resolve them.
Definitely lowers the barrier of entry for someone entirely new to Linux as well.
At first I thought spec driven development would be an obvious solution to the deficiencies you’d laid out, but thinking a little more I’m concerned my original words and prompts which are “captured” in the roadmap, tech-stack, mission and the in subsequent feature documents doesn’t always preserve the exact prompt I’ve given and I’m concerned that something I said would be lost and then forgotten.
Yeah for sure. I think I made a mistake in neglecting to mention the core differentiator in this editor, which is that it maintains a source map from your pseudocode to the generate source. So as a codebase grows, you'll be able to point to the exact lines of your written prompt for any given line in the codebase. This way it acts as a frame of reference, for both agents and humans.
Doing the whole “pay per token rate” when logging into a harness not made by them is not only being enforced by anthropic/claude though. It also is what Google does with agy (their TUI).
Is there any provider that doesn’t do this? That’s the one I want to support.
> TLDR: they are all probably doing it because they are banking on you not using all your tokens.
I would be surprised though, it makes business sense to make the default vendor native TUI cheaper because it’s understood that most nascent users will just use the harness offered by the LLM provider and those that would stray off that would probably be more power users who would spend their token share more consistently till it drains.
OpenAI allows you to use the subsidized limits outside of their products. I don't think they clearly "tell" the world that this is the case, but they do put out a product surface that- I dont think they would, if they didnt allow this usage.
I don’t know about you, but sometimes ambition is just to put food on the table. That’s all it’s ever got me and the rest is the dream to escape a life of work work work.
Not to discount that it’s great when you play with your kids, but it’s different when your kids play together, and in particular when you can’t play that they have someone to interact with.
Yeah, the group dynamics of, say, a family with two children:
1. Kid A plays with Kid B
2. Kid A plays alone and Kid B plays alone
As compared to a three-child household:
1. Kids A, B and C play together
2. Kid A plays with Kid B, Kid C plays alone
3. Kid A plays with Kid C, Kid B plays alone
4. Kid B plays with Kid C, Kid A plays alone
5. Kid A, Kid B and Kid C all play alone
So, in a bigger family, many more communication patterns between children can arise, which, among other things, might develop the child's empathy etc.
Adding mom and dad as "players" would give us many more possible scenarios here (Kid A playing with mom, Kid B alone or with dad, etc).
I'm a father of two with a low income, and I would like to have a third child for precisely the above described reason. As a sociologist in my country put it -- somewhat harsh words maybe, but probably largely true: a single child might get spoiled, two children may start competing too heavily, but three children and above is company.
I disagree, when looking at 3-kids setup out there in the world. Ie my wife comes from such, she is the oldest and all 3 follow the typical 3 kids pattern - oldest was pushed into most responsibility to the point of trauma, middle one feels unappreciated and has inferiority complex as middle ones often do, and youngest is by huge margin the most spoiled one. This is the default for 3 kids that many parents end up with, unless fighting hard against this natural direction.
And yes a lot of interaction, but it doesn't guarantee anything further down the line - when long time adults youngest is still spoiled and selfish and not really a pleasant person to be around with for anybody, including siblings and their own mom. Middle one is scared to have kids, a decision that she may end up regretting later easily. And my wife is also carrying her part of the burden, won't bother you with details.
The grass is always greener behind the fence and all that.
There are so many stereotypes involved in this that it may be hard to believe but at least I know I have caught myself repeating the stereotype almost to a T (especially with regard to the oldest being worked so hard or, as I would put it, constantly on the hardest jobs).
That said it does help that it’s a stereotype/generalization/trope that I’m aware of because I get to take that as part of my feedback loop to make the attempt to iterate around the negative aspects you’ve pointed out.
I think I’m doing better - I’ll know if my kids still talk to me after they move out.
Insightful comment, got me thinking, thanks for sharing. I suppose, in the end, there isn't all that much logic in human relations, or there are always far too many "unknown unknowns".
There's very few humans that have enough time, energy, skills, wherewithal, and money to devote to 3+ kids to make these sorts of positive "three's company" interactions happen in the modern world. I am not saying that it's impossible, just that it's difficult and doesn't happen naturally like you're implying.
On a personal note, I never had much positive interactions with either of my siblings, certainly not as children as not now that we're in our 40s either. Lots of fighting, absolutely zero closeness or positive feelings.
I think you have a really different experience from me. In my experience it doesn’t cost any time, effort or money to make those interactions happen. You can just stick three kids in the same room for about 10 minutes and it will.
Not only do they play but they also learn to care for each other. Parental effort doesn't increase uniformly with each child – if you're lucky and have done a good job parenting them, children create a society and help with raising each other.
This is the take I pursue in my home, everyone is doing a see one, do one, teach one. There are still struggles around it but consistency makes the conversations shorter and more effective.
That probably is exactly what is being referred to: the combination of low quality contractors who have access to AI means even more slop to wade through.
If AI is a 10xer the question is what is it 10xing.
If this were at all true, now read it like the big wig or law maker holding the on/off lever who’s eyes see “Universal Health Coversge Could reduce $1T in available/taxable income”.
Did you notice the gorilla walk by? They sure didn’t.
Sadly they seem to not be releasing a sparse 35b A3b or anything inbetween "too large to host for mortals" and "fits into a consumer rtx". Probably not to eat away their profits on their API serving. 120b - 300b is a dead space right now, very few good releases in that size range. (I know there are, but the big labs aren't releasing stuff here)
3.8-27B is confirmed for Friday. They didn't release their whole 4B-400B range of models since 3.5. And 3.6 only got 27B and 35B MoE. So yeah, slowing down, but not completely out of the small model game.
Quite literally the government in China came out and said "It'd be better for us if we did more open models and collaborated with other countries also doing open models" and then Qwen changed their tune. It's literally thanks to China in this case, not competitors/peers in China. Their government is horrible for a lot of stuff, but in this case they do deserve praise for forcing the "right" (according to me) direction.
> Their government is horrible for a lot of stuff, but in this case they do deserve praise for forcing the "right" (according to me) direction.
It's not just according to you.
Without open weights, what happens if you get blacklisted from Anthropic and OpenAI? If AI becomes a standard tool for programming like a compiler, you've effectively been Blackballed from the field of programming. Full Stop. This is "Right to Read" coming home: https://www.gnu.org/philosophy/right-to-read.en.html
In addition, without open source competitors to your core tools, we KNOW what happens. Cadence and Synopsys and a megabuck per engineer per year ... that's what happens.
Realpolitik I guess. They want to destabilize the USA, and we want open weights we can run on our own machines. As long as those interests coincide, we are allied.
The best outcome for us is the one where they all keep competing and undermining each other until the end of time while providing us all with better models and cheaper hardware to run them with. The US corporations in particular should never be allowed to achieve their "you'll buy intelligence from us on a meter" rent seeking dream.
The US is destabilizing itself plenty on its own. I think this is just a question of common sense, and the party's long standing habit of pushing some competition but not too much competition, to avoid wasted effort.
when Mistral finally releases Le Chaton Fat, I will switch to that but until then, I will count my lucky starts that this exists. Cheers to Qwen3.8-2.4T release day
Our desire for better local models just happens to coincide with China's desire to destroy the western AI company business model by releasing local models. I doubt there's any philanthropy involved.
I find it really weird why people keep framing decisions like this in terms of morals and selflessness, e.g., "is/isn't philantropy". This is about relationships and mutual benefit.
They literally announced their motivations and world few a few weeks ago at the Shanghai AI conference. They want to ally with the global south. They see AI like the industrial revolution: the global south was left behind for a long time and, as a result has been exploited and has struggled to develop for a long time. They see open AI as a way to level the playing field to prevent such "new historical injustices" (in the sense of the Century of Humiliation and the Opium Wars). Concrete policies to back this rhetoric include technology transfer and training programs for the global south. They frame this latter not as philantropy but as generosity, in the sense that it generates goodwill and what goes around comes around. They believe that helping the global south and cultivating relationships will eventually help China.
Think about it. Your local businesses are not charities either. That doesn't make them bad, nor does it mean you derive no benefit. It still benefits you to cultivate good relationships with them.
China has been using that rhetoric of "helping" the global south ever since it emerged as a super power. In most cases, it has a lot less to do with generosity than with securing natural resources and international influence.
Generosity and securing natural resources and international influence don't have to be mutually exclusive. If you interview Africans, then they say that while cooperation with China has problems, they sure are glad they at least have more choices now, and on the whole China's existence is beneficial. The alternative — only western choices and no China — sure hasn't served them well in the past half century.
No matter what you believe is their "true" intentions, offering 5000 training and tech transfer positions to the global south is a very concrete and unambiguous move. As are forgiving African loans and unilaterally offering zero trade tariffs.
If what China has been doing is considered generous, then so should the tens of billions in foreign aid that the West has sent to the South over the years.
I'm not saying that China's investment in the South hasn't had positive effects. But "generosity" is rarely a relevant lens when analyzing international relations.
> then so should the tens of billions in foreign aid that the West has sent to the South over the years.
Well, yes? Why does it have to be either-or?
> But "generosity" is rarely a relevant lens when analyzing international relations.
Automatically assuming nefarious intentions behind all moves is also rarely a relevant lens.
And as I said, and I'm not sure why you keep ignoring it, but I define "generosity" in the sense of mutual benefit. Being nice to your neighbors and helping them, benefits you due to generated goodwill. I'm explicitly not defining generosity in the sense of selfless philanthropy where you get nothing back. The idea that doing good things for others eventually results in good things coming your way, and thus that one should do good things for others even it's selfishly motivated (and also that there's nothing wrong with this), is not a crazy idea.
In a lot of cultures (Chinese included), gifts are not simply gifts. There is the social expectation that the gift is reciprocated. Western cynicists may call this "manipulation" or "influence". The Chinese see this as the start of a relationship of a cycle of mutual gift giving.
Which coincidentally helps average people far more than the already rich investors in a few western mega corps.
If it weren’t for these big Chinese model releases the western companies wouldn’t release anything at all. The field would be advancing at a snail’s pace.
And what do you think happens after the govt said that? Going to companies and force them to open models? That's only how westerners' misconception of China works. If you study Chinese EV industrial policy history you'll know they're not based on coercion of private parties but on incentives (and that, ironically, private EV companies succeeded despite incentives, not because).
The real policy mechanisms around open AI models are also incentives. Various cities have programs to pay companies for releasing open models. They subsidize compute through vouchers. They reward universities and students for open source collaboration.
This isn't some black box. The policies are written down, anybody can read their AI+ policy papers.
Alibaba went back to releasing open models way before the Xi speech from a few weeks ago. The cause is pressure from researchers, who believe in openness, as well as the competition who keeps releasing open models. This is Chinese "involution" at work. And the subsidies also help, of course.
The obvious goal is to destabilize the western economy and prove that US tech is a worthless bubble - but I agree, OSS AI is great for everybody and what OpenAI was supposed to be
There’s an alternate universe in which OpenAI stays open, licenses according to revenue, Chinese models don’t gain traction in the US because domestic models take all the capacity…whatever, $1T IPO beats the right answer ever time
> Chinese models don’t gain traction in the US because domestic models take all the capacity…whatever, $1T IPO beats the right answer ever time
The trouble here is how more infrastructure helps OpenAI and Anthropic continue billing at 10/100x Chinese model rates.
Either their models have to be better (to justify the higher prices and margin) or their inference has to be lower cost (which isn't going to happen until they move away from Nvidia).
Black market operators can resell stolen account tokens at a lower price than authentic premier tokens from frontier labs and can host their own infra too. I'm not super convinced frontier model serving without downstream model development on a vertical specific software / knowledge worker "factory" model can work
I wish there were more games like this. It’s such a simple premise but so satisfyingly difficult after each level. And it even has a bit of randomish failure which makes for even more challenge.
If you buy the adorable monochrome console called the "Playdate" https://play.date it comes with a bunch of games included, including a cute elevator game where you help penguins to different floors while controlling the elevators yourself using the crank:
https://play.date/games/flipper-lifter/
That's the guy who created Infiniminer, which was essentially 3D multiplayer Motherlode (a game everyone was playing at school lunch and I never figured out why) and inspired Minecraft.
<guy with messy hair>Aliens</guy with messy hair>