Hacker Newsnew | past | comments | ask | show | jobs | submit | ggsp's commentslogin

It does

The only way to keep using CC for me has been to stick to 4.6 1M


Oh I didn't know you could type /model claude-opus-4-6 and still use it.

Thanks!


Yes, and /model claude-opus-4-6[1m] gets you the larger context window. Happy to help :)


Thanks for the hint, but is a large context window actually that useful? I tend to get garbage too often with a normal big context window.


IME, based on an in-house bench it's still good to about 20% on the 1M for 4.6 and 4.7 with a code base >50k loc. The trick I used before switching providers was to have it write a handoff when it hit ~18% of context and reset.

There are also many people running 4.5 with specific parameters that claim to be having luck.


The best way is to code in a way that doesnt break via model instruction nuances changing. 4.7 is superior


Agree with your sentiment, I think synthetologist (σύνθετος/synthetos + λογία/logia) flows better.

The plural of anthropos is anthropoi, not anthropodes.


Yeah, I realize that's more correct. I also realized when someone else downthread bastardized it into synthropologist that the podes part has entirely to do with feet and nothing to do with beings, necessarily. Anthro- -podes is more what I had in mind, not as a pluralization of anthropos.

So unless the AI has feet you wouldn't study Synthetipology.


You're probably thinking of anthropoids? That's anthrop[os]-oid. Like in humanoid or centroid or factoid. Or dorkazoid.


But since when is there a synthetos? Since right now, I guess. Shrug But you know it's from the same root as thesis, and synthesis (or a more proper ancient Greek spelling) is the noun and doesn't end in -os.

σύνθεσις (súnthesis, “a putting together; composition”), says Wiktionary.

Oh wait there is a σύνθετος, but it's an adjective for "composite". Hmm, OK. Modern Greek, looks like.


Fair warning: I’m quite ignorant in terms of economics, so this is a naïve way of looking at it.

The question that always pops up for me when it comes to UBI applied to the current capitalist system: even if you did actually come up with the money somehow (which is a pretty huge if as you say), once everyone has X “base money” per month, doesn’t that mean the cost of living (specifically renting) will rise to match this new “base”?


The cost of living would certainly rise somewhat but the point is that UBI is redistributive: the same absolute amount to everyone raises low incomes by a larger percentage than high incomes. Long term effects are hard to predict but in the short term it would mean the poor doing slightly better while the middle class is slightly worse off. The non-working (owning) class would be mostly unaffected as assets are insulated from inflation.

Another factor to consider is that putting more money in the hands of people in need of <thing> means producing <thing> becomes more profitable and thus more investment and resources are directed towards <thing>. If we assume the economy works the way the proponents of capitalism say it does, this should eventually drive the cost of living back down.

But personally I think the biggest benefit of UBI would be the reduction in number of people who are desperate enough to accept work – both legal and illegal – that is unfairly compensated, inhumane and/or immoral. The existence of that class of people is the driving force behind many societal problems. Exorbitant amounts of resources are wasted treating the symptoms of those problems instead of fixing the root cause.


Look up “spatial agency bias” and “glance curve”


> extrapolanorsking

<3


Why these wouldn’t be cached is beyond me. Cool idea though!


TFA states "Capybara and Mythos appear to refer to the same underlying model"


My guess is that's because boarding a plane is a little bit like being an extra for a film, it's a hurry up and wait situation. If they printed the exact time boarding starts and people showed up then (and later), no flight would ever board on time. Better for the airline to print an earlier time and have people wait longer, so they can board as quickly as possible. Every minute behind schedule costs the airline money.


AA displays the boarding time in the app instead of the departure time once the flight gets close enough (like same day)

>If they printed the exact time boarding starts and people showed up then (and later), no flight would ever board on time

I don't understand the logic. If everyone is there at the stated boarding time and the airline has correctly allocated enough time for boarding, aren't they winning?


200 people can't board at the same second. Reality is you want orderly boarding over the course of ~ 10-15mins depending on passenger makeup. Crew also need to account for passenger with additional needs, catering recharge, etc


The point is "everyone is there at the stated boarding time" never actually happens IRL, so you give an earlier time.


Yes, and the actual time is probably too close to the official take off time.

But this is why Flighty probably doesn't show it, it's irrelevant.


Have you asked people how much they'd be willing to pay?


Guidelines | FAQ | Lists | API | Security | Legal | Apply to YC | Contact

Search: