>>> Claude Code is $100+ or else be constantly throttled
>> Is your comparison against a similar size model? Or shouldn't you be comparing it against the cost of a hosted model matching the one you’re using locally?
> You should be comparing the value you get
But the GP commenter specifically compared the cost of solutions such as Claude Code against a 32 GB model.
If they are going to compare cost, they should compare to the cost of a hosted ~32 GB model.
Or if privacy trumps everything for them, then just say that and don't bother comparing costs of incredibly disparate solutions, as Claude Code costing $100+ a month was a red herring if they're happy with 32 GB model output - they could have compared to a far cheaper option that matched their local model's quality.
It would be like someone saying they were able to buy a bike to get to work, saving them $x million compared to buying a Bugatti. When really, if they're going to compare cost they should compare to a cheap car, or not bring up the cost of an expensive car at all if exercise trumps everything else for them.
Code is speech, and if you aren't allowed to run the code, what good is it being being available or free? Any "regulations" would start by restricting code, it's no different from saying writers need a lot of regulations because of dangerous or badly written text/books/publications has caused a lot of damage.
It’s very different. It’s doesn’t matter that source code (as “speech”) is useless without running it (though I don’t think that’s quite true) - the definition doesn’t care about how inconvenienced you are. The point of having free speech is to be able to freely express views. Running code isn’t expressing a view, it’s a machine that’s having an independent effect in the world. You may as well say that running industrial equipment is “speech”. It generalises so much it loses meaning.
Way, way worse than an utter waste of resources and ingenuity. Any musician using this is nothing in my eyes, unless it’s the weirdest, most subversive thing I’ve ever heard. Like maybe there are three or four actually creative uses for this, maybe, but all the rest of it will be a talentless void. Awful.
The landing page which is linked at the start of the second sentence of this page…? I don’t completely disagree with you, but this is mostly hypertext working as intended, is it not?
Yeah this meta commentary on HN is very confusing for me. The structure of the article is literally
- short paragraph saying "we launched neki"
- short paragraph saying why neki was needed
- paragraphs about what neki is (with a header)
That seems like a very reasonable structure for a blog post like this one. Not being able to get to the third paragraph of a blog post seems like a "you" problem, not a blog problem.
Why "sadly"? The person writing a link should provide enough detail for readers to figure out whether they should follow the link. I rolled my eyes the first time I saw this entry on HN because it just said "Neki" and the (generic) target domain name. A two-word description got added, and that makes it interesting instead.
It's sad because I think links are the best thing about the web, and it's increasingly clear to me that many internet users either misunderstand or actively avoid them.
Why do people post screenshots of an article on social media instead of linking to it?
Sometimes ignorance, but often because the web is such a hostile experience these days - paywalls and subscribe banners and cookie warnings and slow pages.
Celsius has plenty of resolution for this; in fact I would say Fahrenheit has too much. You can feel the change of one degree Celsius, you can’t really with Fahrenheit. To illustrate this, not only is your scale in tens, but I often only hear people quote the Fahrenheit temperature in tens. In Celsius we almost always give the whole number, because it makes a difference.
I would argue the same in most situations, but let’s be honest: what matters most to most employers is their employees falling in line. There is some sense to this: it is easier to manage a bunch of people doing things more-or-less the same way, but I do ultimately agree that professionals should be treated more like professionals.
This is divide-and-conquer rhetoric from someone who doesn’t want labour power. Workers would be much better off if we all stood together no matter how much we were paid or what our conditions were.
Edit: oh I see, your bio brags that you’re a scab, that explains it
Exactly. Unions don't have to exist solely because the company is evil and refusing to give workers a fair shake.
Unions are a compromise and frankly exist to provide a democratic path and open dialogue towards resolving issues before the workers are sufficiently pissed off that the only option left is a full on strike.
Some unions start with a strike but it's by no means a requirement.
after having had unions literally put me out of work as a blue collar employee - yes. i've had enough of them.
my family has also been in a long line of tradesworkers, and they have been continually screwed by their bargaining be it with the state trades, with nursing unions.
unions did nothing to save the hundreds of manufacturing jobs that were destroyed and taken away from upstate New York.
massena new york is now an absolute drug-ridden shithole but they still run around celebrating the handful of steelworkers that still somehow kept a job up here out of the hundreds and thousands across industries that got fucked.
so you know what? these white collar union LARP demands are just frustrating to stare at and look at and see how cushy they've had it while my brothers and sisters sit in rot.
Heavens forfend that those who work in an industry that preens and postures about innovation and reinventing every facet of life to be better try to build a better union. Oh, so taxis, software tools, the very act of courtship, loans, the concept of socialization can be innovated upon, but not labor unions? How unfortunate.
I'm curious: Why do you arguments against unions not equally apply to employers? Why do you blame the unions and not the companies responsible for it in the first place? Especially when you proudly admit you're partially responsible?
Since then, he also called for a pogrom against Romani people, in language that explicitly mirrored that which the Nazis used when calling for ethnic cleansing against the same group of people.
So you think it's entirely moral to label only white British people as "native Brits"? To speak warmly of Stephen Yaxley-Lennon's ("Tommy Robinson") marches? Unless you are also comfortably on the far right, I'm at a loss.
Wanting to forcibly eject all brown people isn't enough to call someone radically racist? That's not a middle-of-the-road, agree-to-disagree kind of stance.
No, I am sympathetic to his critics if that's what he is saying. I just don't see that in the article. But on the other hand, since this is an example of cultural replacement where the new folks happen to be disproportionately brown, this may just be a case of those who are passionate about the idea of racial equality getting a little incensed, which is understandable (laudable, even), but cultural replacement/disruption is a real and valid source of misery/desperation.
Your reading comprehension and political awareness needs a lot of work.
> cultural replacement/disruption is a real and valid source of misery/desperation
Not like this it isn’t. To the extent that there’s a valid complaint, it’s the fault of those who’ve been in power over the last few decades. To turn the blame on minorities is a classic rightist move, and it’s always cowardly, nasty, and wrong.
Since you’re happytoexplain, please explain to me what cultural replacement/disruption looks like in western countries. I can see it happening in countries like China with the Uighurs, in Bangladesh with the Rohingya, but I can’t see any actual “culture” erasure happening in Britain or Australia or the United States. I see plenty of cultural enrichment, but no erasure.
No need to be sarcastic and mock my username or my culture. I'm not asserting that you're an asshole or something because you don't agree that there is cultural disruption and/or replacement in London or parts of the US. The entire concept is subjective and highly experiential, despite (or because of?) the drama and trauma intrinsic to it. I will say though that elevating the definition to essentially require genocide minimizes reality.
Your username is self chosen. If you elect to be offended by people using it that’s on you. And like you, I’m not “asserting that you’re an asshole”. I’m also not “elevating the definition”. True cultural erasure involves the active banning and repression of cultural symbols (be they of language, dress, beliefs). If you have a different definition let’s hear it. Otherwise don’t put words in my mouth or project the chip on your own shoulder.
But this isn't happening. To cite someone with closer experience (who also does admit that the "migration issue in Britain is complicated and multi-layered") [0]:
> To all of that he adds a dash of Islamophobia, citing “Pakistani rape gangs” as one of the reasons for the unrest, repeating a weaponised trope borne from a long since discredited report from the Quilliam Foundation, an organisation with ties to both the the US Tea Party, and Tommy Robinson himself. A trope that exists despite the fact that the overwhelming majority of convicted child sex offenders are white men, with Asian men in fact under-represented.
People who want to be racist will find or invent any evidence necessary to dig themselves in deeper. There is no basis or validity to it. If there were, there would be no need to be so coy and indirect about it.
He explicitly says that nonwhite people feel alien and like they don't belong. He "heartwarming"ly embraces Tommy Robinson's white replacement marches advocating for forced "remigration" as a breath of fresh air against what he calls suicidal empathy. Must I show my work when adding 2 plus 2 or can we agree that the answer is 4?
>Must I show my work when adding 2 plus 2 or can we agree that the answer is 4?
This is arrogant in a damaging way. You should prefer to answer the asked question, since that would be an effective piece of information in this case (i.e. it's not a bait question, so it's not harmful to engage with).
The answers are present in the post we're discussing quite plainly without any reading between the lines necessary. I think the simplicity of the analogy is fitting. If not bait, there are few charitable explanations.
Commenter is, like me, mystified that reading comprehension can be that poor. Even without the linked post’s commentary, a plain reading of DHH’s original post should be enough to see exactly where he is politically. So to have to spell it out for you and others feels like we’re being taken for a ride.
> When wolves get out of control, you shoot them. When gypsies take over public spaces, you deport them. This isn't hard, it isn't cruel. It's the basic logic of self-preservation.
Dehumanization of an entire ethnic group by comparing them to animals. Use of violent rhetoric to forcibly ethnically cleanse a region.
There's a word for people who employ this rhetoric. Can you guess?
reply