HN2new | past | comments | ask | show | jobs | submit | karmakaze's commentslogin

I asked (an AI) what's on the index:

> The index effectively shifts weight toward "secular safety" and cyclical sectors that are less directly impacted by AI spending cycles. Major holdings in the SPXXAI index include leaders from the following sectors:

  Financials: Berkshire Hathaway (BRK.B), JPMorgan Chase (JPM), and Visa (V).
  Healthcare: Eli Lilly (LLY), UnitedHealth Group (UNH), and Johnson & Johnson (JNJ).
  Consumer Staples: Walmart (WMT), Procter & Gamble (PG), and Costco (COST).
  Energy & Materials: Exxon Mobil (XOM), Chevron (CVX), and Linde (LIN).
  Utilities & Real Estate: Companies like NextEra Energy (NEE) and American Tower (AMT).
Very boring stuff.

Actually this is the best advice I've heard to not being boring yourself. If you are earnestly interested in the other person's interests, wants, dreams, what have you, they will find you interesting.

This post is slightly different about not being bland/non-weird, which is another thing--be yourself out loud.

I know I do edit what I say to new people that I meet, because they probably actually aren't interested in my several deep but narrow interests--I can tell by my Youtube feed. I am unapologetically weird and totally fine with progressive disclosure. I suppose if we have common interests but they act similarly it would be a missed opportunity--I should give more signals, the equivalent of wearing my fave band T-shirt, like mentioning things regularly in casual small talk.

If anything I've edited my own life down for simplicity and focus: family, friends, some aspects of work, and a handful of lasting interests. If you don't care what other people think, a lot of things just become unimportant.


I don't think I'd want to pay that much since my personal use is limited and not serious/important. Employer pays for work usage.

I'm curious why do you keep many subscriptions around? Asking because I do too though don't have a good reason to keep anything other than Anthropic/Claude.


I think right now I have Claude, ChatGPT, MidJourney, and Perplexity. I guess that's not quite $100 now but I used to do Gemini, too.

Personally:

Perplexity has replaced Google searches for me – basically looking things up

ChatGPT/Claude is what I use for generating code (I'm not a programmer but I like scripting tasks at work)

Claude I think is better at writing than ChatGPT

MidJourney is $10 and I like it best for image generation which I do for work and like to keep it around.


When I can't run Sequoia on my personal Macs anymore, I'll be done with macOS.

I'll keep using the latest for the work provided laptop. For my next job, being able to use Linux will be a definite plus.

For most other software so, Linux is the 'better Windows' in many cases. I'll keep another with stripped-down Windows 10 around for other software for as long as it gets updates.


I didn't catch the rename news at the time.

Wonder why they didn't pick a better name--probably constrained to start with a 'V' for continuity. I think "Laqer" would have been better as a high quality transparent layer vs something used to cover fiberboard. The latter also makes sense though, to improve the performance of a crappy implementation.


It's all photons baby, sometimes virtual.

Removeable glass magnetic platters were called disk packs and definitely disc shaped (but sometimes cylindrical if it had many platters).

I don't know if you'd consider this ordinary, but a single Mac Studio M5 Ultra 512GB (or even 256GB) V/RAM seems pretty sweet.

I love the spec, but it is like 5x or 10x a Macbook Air I mean really ordinary, Personal Computer in broad sense - not dedicated LLM kit.

There might be some good info in there, but the format/structure is very sloppy.


It feels like someone asked an AI to read a year of output from a ruby link roundup newsletter and then had it write a report: many facts, minimal synthesis, and little-to-no useful opinion/summary.


I sometimes throw an AI at summarizing/extracting, but this one doesn't even merit that effort.


It didn't look like something AI would write to me. I ran it through various AI checkers and they all reported "not AI generated" or "very likely".

Frankly, I wish it had been, it would've been more readable with some bullet points.


I'm not particularly impressed that it can turn C into an SSA IR or assembly etc. The optimizations, however sophisticated is where anything impressive would be. Then again, we have lots of examples in the training set I would expect. C compilers are probably the most popular of all compilers. What would be more impressive is for it to have made a compiler for a well defined language that isn't very close to a popular language.

What I am impressed by is that the task it completed had many steps and the agent didn't get lost or caught in a loop in the many sessions and time it spent doing it.


> What would be more impressive is for it to have made a compiler for a well defined language that isn't very close to a popular language.

That doesn't seem difficult as long as you can translate it into a well-known IR. The Dragon Book for some reason spends all its time talking about frontend parsing, which does give you the impression it's impossible.

I agree writing compilers isn't especially difficult, but it is a lot of work and people are scared of it.

The hard part is UI - error handling and things like that.


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

Search: