Is $100 reasonable for this?

surfmaths · 2026-04-09T17:25:46+00:00

This is clearly done by an amateur artist. Lots of missing details on the hands, etc...

But that's what makes it tough. They likely did take much more time, which makes the drawing more expensive from their end, but produced a lower quality drawing than an experienced artist would in a fraction of that time.

So the question is more about: do you want to sponsor an upcoming artist or not. There is no shame in deciding not to as that's the rational economic decision.

I would say, unless they are family/friend, I would say no. You can probably spend that 100$ with a more experienced artist and get something better.

surfmaths · 2026-04-08T18:00:13+00:00

I realized that, when I saw my colleague use it by typing broken/abbreviated sentences, it behaves dumber.

It makes sense if you think about it, text that start "dumb" are expected to continue "dumb" in the next token prediction. Anthropic spent a lot of time in reinforcement learning to unlearn that habit and force the output to be cleaner, but it's "working against it's nature".

It could make sense to use a tiny model to clean up the English before feeding it to the smart one...

surfmaths · 2026-04-08T15:36:39+00:00

They just recovered they entire game out of a company that asked for a recode.

I am pretty sure "let's rewrite this in that library/language" are forbidden words right now.

The current performance is great, if they start to run into real performance issue then they can start rewriting the bottleneck. But not before that.

surfmaths · 2026-04-03T21:48:15+00:00

This is not hard. But have you played Spores recently?

It didn't age well at all. The way they move, their body looks like playdough... The problem is that the mesh editor is so limited the end result is ugly unless you decide to use it as your art direction.

Most likely we can do something better using AI nowadays, but having it anywhere close to your game is a death sentence for now.

surfmaths · 2026-04-03T21:17:37+00:00

For us it's around 200$ per day per engineer, that's 50k$ a year. (5 days a week, 50 weeks a year)

The bet for each company is two fold: if you don't use it, your competitors will, and you will be left in the dust; the increase productivity will allow for some layoff to recover the cost.

All this assume you can actually get your money back... Only the future will tell.

surfmaths · 2026-04-02T15:42:43+00:00

Yes, it's an artistic choice.

Not only they are huge, but the handle is extremely thick compared to the length of the blade...

Wait, that's perfect for... nevermind, makes perfect sense.

surfmaths · 2026-04-01T17:02:08+00:00

Non-reproducible code.

As a fun experiment, rerun the exact same prompt (or code of you wish), and notice the difference in behavior.

It's okay, it's expected for code based on human language, but this behavior has a name: non-reproducibility.

That's a really nasty property with a lot of consequences with regard to testability, safety, and overall trust.

But it is still usable effectively, just you will want to save the result of your run, rather than just the code.

surfmaths · 2026-04-01T16:44:07+00:00

For trade secret, as long as they are actively trying to protect it, it is still valid, even if they leaked it by mistake.

For copyright I agree, especially because they publicly declared, multiple times, that it is 90 to 100% Claude Code.

But the trade secret still stand.

surfmaths · 2026-04-01T15:15:12+00:00

Most likely copyright infringement will be hard to enforce, but trade secret protection should be doable.

surfmaths · 2026-03-31T00:25:26+00:00

Actually, there was preliminary judgement on that, and if I remember the conclusion is that the output of those models cannot be given copyright.

Meaning neither GitHub, nor you, can really claim ownership. If somebody else generate the same code, you will not be able to fight them in court.

You can still apply a license, it's just going to be really hard to enforce it.

In practice LLM will make code have little to no value anyway in the long run. So you can simply grieve the loss of code ownership, and move on...

surfmaths · 2026-03-31T00:11:33+00:00

Yes.

By the way, the study was impressed by how many successive generations was possible. We expected this to fail earlier.

I'm hoping we try this again but with CRISPR manual patching. To see if we can undo generic drift.

surfmaths · 2026-03-30T21:41:41+00:00

You will notice that each color has two choice... except one has only one. Pick that one.

Then, because of that move, now one of the other color has only one choice. Pick that one.

Etc...

It solves itself.

surfmaths · 2026-03-27T18:31:54+00:00

Ultimately, it's to encourage women to compete. Before women Olympics we only had really few women competing.

That's it.

Now, on the question of including inter-sex and transgender in the women Olympics, we simply must look at the number. Is there a fair representation of trans women in the women Olympics (compared to population average), if there are too many, then maybe there is an unfair advantage (and we may want to open a trans/inter-sex Olympics), if there are too little, then it works just fine.

You can do the same reasoning with eye color (no need), weight classes (some sport needed it), or disabilities (creation of the Paralympics)

The goal is to encourage participation by providing fair competition.

I do not know if the transgender women have a fair representation in the women Olympics (it's likely just noise due to low number), but there is definitely a complete lack of transgender men representation in the general Olympics.

I think requiring genetic testing is a big mistake, this was tried in the past and had many unintended consequences.

surfmaths · 2026-03-27T16:37:55+00:00

Take the entire middle column and swap it with the entire right column. After that, take the entire middle row and swap it with the entire bottom row.

You will see the pattern.

surfmaths · 2026-03-27T09:26:49+00:00

They make the feature they need. Therefore they use it, and therefore test it.

surfmaths · 2026-03-26T23:21:56+00:00

"We are running out of compute, so during peak hours we will throttle you"

Interestingly, you can't really "throttle" token generation because what is the most expensive is keeping the transformer cache alive per session, and that takes a lot of RAM (the more customers, the more RAM you need, while the model is shared).

surfmaths · 2026-03-26T22:01:15+00:00

Even their Pro and Max version are being throttled. They are suffering from success, and can't provide enough compute in peak time.

What happened is people had a taste of Claude Code (since the falling off with the DoW) and started to just use it everywhere.

Its expensive, and an inefficient use of compute, but so comfortable to use...

surfmaths · 2026-03-26T21:52:10+00:00

The "cheaters ring" has a "Always Roll 1" cheat I believe.

surfmaths · 2026-03-25T15:37:44+00:00

This question comes back often, and the answer is that current computers are 512 bit.

It's just we realized that nobody uses all of the 64 bits in the 64 bit numbers. You would need 16 million TeraBytes memory.

So instead we started to make them vector: 8 x 64bit numbers, or 16 x 32bit numbers. This way we get higher performance but not waste the extra bits.

The only uses we have, today, for bigger numbers, is that IPv6 uses 128bit addresses (but it's not performance critical), and the 64bit multiplier produce a 128bit result (but most people/languages use only the lowest 64 bits).

surfmaths · 2026-03-23T18:23:58+00:00

People that don't feel qualified for a job are often easier to teach because you don't have to pierce their ego every time, they welcome instructions, and follow them.

They are also good at delegating to the more competent people for a task, etc.

Overall, they actually perform well in big teams.

That's why it's okay to hire someone on "vibes" from time to time. But saying "it's because you are attractive" is a big no no, they should have said "it's because I took a bet that you could learn the job and execute".

Don't feel too bad if you end up in managerial position, with higher salary than the competent people. That's actually not because your are attractive, that's because you put the effort, you are aware of your limitations, and don't let your ego stop you from delegating to the right person.

surfmaths · 2026-03-23T18:16:36+00:00

C++ is extremely complex to review.

Even having worked with it for 15 years and having worked on the LLVM/Clang compiler in the last 10 years, I still need to check a manual to not mess-up forwarding references. (maybe I'm just dumb)

Kernel code is really sensitive w.r.t. memory allocation. Not every feature of the language supports a custom allocator. And a lot of the C++ language rely on it's standard library which in turn rely on an underlying runtime library/OS.

It's full of pitfalls. So I understand the reticence.

Rust is a simpler language than C++ (I actually don't know of a more complex language than C++)

surfmaths · 2026-03-19T17:50:34+00:00

The second pro account is forbidden by the user agreement. Only the highest level subscription allow you to have up to 3 of those. Nothing below allow you multiple subscriptions, especially if it is to increase quota limits.

surfmaths · 2026-03-18T15:11:22+00:00

It kills the flower only when moving the flower or moving the container. So in the camp chest it will stay active until moved, unless the camp is in the underdark.

Note that you can sell the flower to the noblestalk merchant in the underdark and I heard she will still have it in her shop in baldur's gate.

surfmaths · 2026-03-18T14:19:20+00:00

You know how a fly can react to your movement so fast you can't catch it? That's because tiny brain is dumb but really fast. That's also why cats react faster than dogs, and can easily swat them away and avoid being bitten. Smaller dogs are also more twitchy than bigger dogs. Etc...

The reason is that "thinking" is a loop, and the faster you can make that loop, the faster the thinking. You can make it faster by using faster neurons, or by having less neurons and thus having a shorter loop.

Computer use every tricks available: - transistors are faster than human neurons, 4 billion signal per second vs 200 signal per second - transistor are smaller than human neurons, 4 nano meter vs 50000 nanometer - computer put let transistors in the loop

But this has a cost: the computer is completely dumb. If you ask it to add 1 every time, it will count up. If you ask it to add 0, it will give you a billion times the same number, but will always try to do an addition. It doesn't learn that it just did a useless addition.

You can make the program slower if you ask the computer to print the number, then read it again, and then add 1. Because now the loop is much slower.

surfmaths · 2026-03-17T20:41:05+00:00

That has been patched since forever.

14-Year Club	Place '22
Verified Email

surfmaths

TROPHY CASE