I feel like a very minor tweak to comply specifically with whatever the issue the directive stated and release it under a new name (since the directive specifically names Fable and Mythos, not Opus or Sonnet) while the courts sort it out is reasonable.

Yep took a while but it's down. It's still in the model picker but it's broken

Restart Claude Code and pick up the update to see the acknowledgement that Fable is gone.

This is exactly like a much older Apple 2 game called Old Ironsides fwiw.

On the Apple 2 it was 2 player only but a lot of fun back in the day. With an added ability to ram ships (pointy front into flat side one if you landed it before they sunk you).

Alto hug the iphone sigoff is hilaripus sonce fhe meyboard is so bad it always comes across asa an ask doe forgivebeds

— Sent from my iPhone

The mathematical term for this is the probability of a number being b-smooth. Here ‘b’ is 2^32

Related but not strong enough. 17 x 17 x 17 = 4,913 is 2^8-smooth - no prime factors larger than 2^8 - and it is less than 2^16, but 17 x 17 = 289 does not fit into a byte. Smoothness is required but not sufficient for a product representation to exist.

It's related, but not the same thing. For example, for b=10, the number 70=2x5x7 is b-smooth, but it cannot be written as the product of two numbers less than b. Here are the other b-smooth (counter)examples for b=10:

    | n   | factorization  | products of two numbers
    |-----|----------------|------------------------------------
    | 50  | 2 * 5^2        | 1x50, 2x25, 5x10
    | 60  | 2^2 * 3 * 5    | 1x60, 2x30, 3x20, 4x15, 5x12, 6x10
    | 70  | 2 * 5 * 7      | 1x70, 2x35, 5x14, 7x10
    | 75  | 3 * 5^2        | 1x75, 3x25, 5x15
    | 80  | 2^4 * 5        | 1x80, 2x40, 4x20, 5x16, 8x10
    | 84  | 2^2 * 3 * 7    | 1x84, 2x42, 3x28, 4x21, 6x14, 7x12
    | 90  | 2 * 3^2 * 5    | 1x90, 2x45, 3x30, 5x18, 6x15, 9x10
    | 96  | 2^5 * 3        | 1x96, 2x48, 3x32, 4x24, 6x16, 8x12
    | 98  | 2 * 7^2        | 1x98, 2x49, 7x14

This very thread was an example where it unintentionally got root access though.

Because of how Docker works, not because of how Unix permissions work.

Unix has always had incredibly weak protections between users. You shouldn't rely on it as a security boundary. Think of it as a "keep honest users honest" protection. And llms are not honest.

The protections between users are reasonably strong. Android uses them with great success, by isolating every vendor within their own user. Things start going to hell when everything runs under root for "practicality reasons", like the default, not-rootless Docker setup.

I've seen this sentiment a few times on HN recently I wonder where it comes from?

The only thing I can think of is that if the protected files are on a unencrypted drive, then you could boot from a live-usb(or similar) where you have root and read anything. But that's completely irrelevant as we're talking about a piece of software running on a system without root. In this scenario Unix user permissions are safe, barring user error (such as accidentally granting root, like in this instance)

Of course security holes happens, such as copy-fail, but it's pretty rare in the grand scheme of things, and tend to get patched quickly(like copy-fail was)

That's a terrible distinction to make on a topic about how the coding agent gained root inadvertently.

Fwiw separate machines for the agents is awesome in general anyway.

I have agent frontends running on a low power server where every session is in tmux. So i can just resume from my home pc and pickup where i left off without reestablishing context. I do have to manually feed it data it can access bit that’s also a feature. Also let’s me shutdown the home pc if it’s some long running task since the server is much more power efficient.

I don't think that's the only reason but you're spot on about OpenAI marketing being absolutely terrible. The primary product names of "Claude" vs "ChatGPT" highlights this remarkable difference. To the point where I'm seeing Claude completely take over the generic term for agent.

I do think OpenAI is doomed due to bad leadership. What you said (that the marketing is relatively terrible) and what others are saying here (that the product is worse) is damning isn't it? Are they really failing on all fronts?

The marketing of Claude relies primarily on fear, and I don't think that will have lasting success. Using fear like that tends to backfire once people see past false taking points.

The smart home is a thousand small problems to solve and should never be one catch all.

The automatic cat feeder works well. So does the roomba. I like my automated blinds but will stick with manual light switches. I consolidated my home theatre remotes. Note how they’re all seperate problems.

The smart home is here. It’s just that it was never a use case for a singular smart home platform. It was always 1000 seperate problems to solve that in no way ever belonged together and the experience was always worse when trying to combine it.

They will possibly all converge when they expose a "tool interface" to some kind of model-on-prem(ish) device that you install in your home. Think of an OpenAI or Anthropic or Apple or Samsung-branded "cortex" or "brain" that controls everything to some degree using fast local models, but outsource more complex orchestration up to the cloud. Smart home products will integrate with these devices because its going to open up a whole new generation of the same devices they sell, just with AI model integration this time.

These devices already have a precedent, your apple tv or google/amazon speaker thing. I think we will see these probably become LLM/model/AI gateways in the future.

We are basically already there, with HomeKit plus open bridge that can make any device visible on HomeKit (like nest cameras) and usable in automations (it works the other way also, it’s just a good way to get compatibility).

I would like to explore some open source solutions though, it would mean setting up a local system on a Mac mini for speech recognition and local processing. Bonus is you could use Anthony Daniels (KITT) as your assistant voice.

Working on it, they all already expose a tool interface, you just have to know where to look for it and how to use it!

You can have manual light switches and home automation. I have exactly that, but given I built a new house with KNX integration. All light switches are physical switches and can on/off and dim the lights. The only difference is, they are not hardwired to the lamps, instead they go to the KNX machine. So if I want I can always decide what switch does what.

I have a singular smart home platform with one exception: my Dreame cleaning robot. Everything else is either integrated into KNX (lights, appliances, pool, window blinds, etc.) or Ubiquiti (cameras and doors).

But again, new building and I made the mission clear: everything has to fit into this system. Was an interesting work for the electrician ;).

Synchronizing lights is hard, so in the living room kitchen where we have 4 different lights, having a way to turn them on and off is useful. We don’t have automatic lights anywhere else, but I notice at least, where we don’t, the light switches don’t get dirty (and you don’t get dirty from using the light switch), so maybe we will make them all automatic eventually just for hygiene reasons.

It’s fab capacity. Fwiw dram is different enough that fabs are not transferable between dram memory and other usages. It’s nice to think ‘wow if they made the current 10nm dram on the latest 2nm processes it’d be much faster’ but it doesn’t work that way. The specific size is needed for the capacitance. Sram can be made on fabs that make other circuitry since it’s transistor not capacitor based but is less dense.

Dram is just extremely specialised.

I know the differences between SRAM, DRAM, ...

I asked for evidence different people keep feeding me opposite stories: one insists its not fab capacity but wafer competition, with a recent article claiming HBM3E takes 3 times as much wafer area per bit than LPDDR5X. Others tell me the complete opposite: its fab capacity, not wafer shortage.

Do we have citable references to ground either set of claims?

I believe those are two ways of describing the same thing. If you're able to book some fab capacity, that means you get to decide what the fab does with the next wafers in the queue.

From your sibling comment, I think you're interpreting the 3x HBM stat as contributing to making wafers scarce. It's more that the next wafer to be processed in a fab is especially precious, making the opportunity cost larger. The beach sand remains plentiful.

so the bottleneck is the fab, again