As one example: Different access patterns. If you're using the app and have a subscription you get cheap tokens in the hopes you need more at which point you pay API prices which are much more expenseive.
I agree with that. However, there’s much dialogue around subsidized tokens for business use too, that people paying for the tokens are also vastly underpaying vs the “real” cost. I certainly don’t know the answer to that. Maybe the Chinese companies are also doing it. Maybe nobody is doing it.
Looking at reserved capacity cost for PTUs on azure, which I think they’d probably not subsidize but can’t be sure, I’m inclined to not agree with the vast undercharging for tokens hypothesis.
Wait, there's 13 providers for Kimi K3 in OpenRouter. I'm having a hard time believing every single one of them provides them without any profit.
And this one is easy to calculate: take your monthly API spend to K3, then rent a stack of 8xB300 for a month and see how much it costs. I would say you're about to save 10-15k dollars per month if you have enough traffic compared to pay per token pricing.
It's not very complex math, and the hardware of course is cheaper if you bought it last year and if you have extra GPUs waiting in your warehouse (depending on if you can produce enough energy cheaply).
Dressing with intention does not require any particular willpower, just some desire, intention, a bit of time, and a taste that may develop over time.
Avoiding doomscrolling is not that hard. The first few days are usually hard when we want to break a habit that's hanging around like a terrible smell, but after that, it is smooth sailing.
One can play victim not forever but for a long time: we have seen that in particular between 2010 and 2015, with people claiming to be abused by the most absurd things.
But those abusers remain absurd, and the alleged victims--of food, social media, celebrities stealing their attention like a bully steals candy from a nerd-- pathetic.
These are all empty claim, including a grand social theory. I'm not even sure what you're talking about for 2010-2015. You really need to be drowning in yourself to believe it all and then, on top of it, to judge other people.
People don't share your priorities or beliefs. Maybe that's why they act differently.
> Avoiding doomscrolling is not that hard.
If you mean addiction to social media, that's empirically not true. You can see how many people are addicted, and the research about it. Typing a few bytes into HN doesn't change or establish any facts.
It is simple logic that dressing with intention is not hard. But let's define 'hard' with an example: running a marathon under 3 hours is hard for the general population; that is, it is an activity that, despite desire, planning, and effort, is beyond reach for many.
Dressing appropriately, such as not going out in PJs or with a mangled, overused, stained T-shirt or in flip-flops (apart from the particular cases I need to include, otherwise I am marginalizing people who don't have the resources to buy a 3 dollar shirt or refuse to clean due to some disorders included in the DSM-5) is not hard.
Avoiding doomscrolling is certainly not hard; one, given sufficient desire and a recognition of their inability to stop looking at other people's lives, could just delete IG, snap, X, or whatever.
Finally, people can do what they want, like going out semi-naked and without showering for 3 weeks, farting in public, which has become an unfortunate common circumstance, doomscrolling until their eyes are a bright red, or eating until they explode because sugar is "addictive".
But I like encouraging people not to live their lives like defenseless victims of circumstances.
Almost all of them - you have no evidence, just your subjective beliefs stated as facts. There is a great, wide world outside your head.
> It is simple logic that dressing with intention is not hard.
I don't see logic in it. For many people, such as those on the spectrum and those emotionally exhausted by other demands, it is hard. We have emotional limits.
> appropriately
You are defining appropriately. You are free to follow your own ideas, and others are free to follow theirs. Many think your 'appropriate dress' is a waste of time and money, and an attempt distract from merit - putting lipstick on a pig. If someone does good or bad, works well or not, many think dress is irrelevant.
> Avoiding doomscrolling is certainly not hard
See my prior comment, which has an objective factual basis.
> farting in public, which has become an unfortunate common circumstance
huh? That's a pretty wild claim.
> I like encouraging people not to live their lives like defenseless victims of circumstances.
They are not doing that; they are living their own lives their own way, for the most part.
There was also a discussion somewhere where they switched off the OSS subtitling software they were using onto a commercial product that doesn't implement many of the features (mostly typesetting features) of the previous software.
I get it and it does make sense. Humans always consider the unfamiliar dangerous by default, but I believe it's deeper and simpler than the arguments you present.
This is not a strictly human trait. Anthropologists are pretty sure we received this trait from our primate ancestors. It evolved out of family groups/tribalism.
Also, a large part of our brains are safety mechanisms. Many features are directed at keeping us alive which is why so many of our what if scenarios are about the worst happening.
In very tribal environments anyone not in your in-group is considered unsafe even if they look exactly like you (i.e. a tribe from 10 km away).
But the thing that has made humans the most successful species on Earth is our ability to override this behavior to cooperate at larger and larger scales.
I really do appreciate the transparency and ownership that comes with these. We all fuck up, but a lot of companies would rather hide their mistakes than own up to them. Cloudflare's approach makes me trust them more.
This is such a good point. People tend to focus on money as the main form of privilege, but that internalized sense of “I belong here” might matter even more. It’s not just confidence—it’s a kind of default assumption that you’ll be taken seriously, that you’ll have options, that failure won’t wreck your life.
I’ve seen it in startups too. Some founders take bold risks because they know, consciously or not, that if it doesn’t work out, they’ll be fine. Others carry the weight of “I can’t afford to screw this up,” and that changes how they operate. Even if they’re equally capable, the emotional cost of risk is just higher when you don’t have that built-in safety net.
And from the outside, those differences are invisible. Both people might succeed, but one was playing on easy mode and didn’t know it. The other had to brute-force their way through every step. That gap is real, and we don’t talk about it enough.
Can't you just as easily make the opposite argument?
Founders that have a safety net have less drive and motivation to give it their all, because they have a safety net. They simply just don't have the same pressure to not fail, because if they do - no biggie.
The founder with no safety net, no real backup, needs to give it his all, because he's doomed if his idea doesn't work out.
I’m not sure you really can, at least not in the way it’s often portrayed. Founders usually need a high level of skill or a clearly transferable capability in something already valuable. That phrase gets repeated a lot, but the more I think about it, the more it feels like an oversimplification. Maybe there’s a version of it that works, but it’s probably more about reframing or uncovering hidden leverage than starting from zero.
Money, education, powerful parents, safety nets, a good upbringing: these things are levers that multiply the work you put into things. I think a lot of people put the maximum effort into their work and lives, but these levers mean that existing privilege will usually result in amplified results for the same input level of effort.
The dispute is significant because controlling the islets dictates fishing rights and surrounding maritime borders (EEZ) in resource-rich waters.
reply