Of all models I like to write with Gemini the most. The language appears much more natural and elegant than what even Opus 5.5 or Astra do. Also, they give 5TB of cloud storage and discounts, it’s a steal for what you get.
Claude has particularly bad prose. Somewhat improved in 5.5, but it has historically clearly been the most annoying prose among major models because is had so many obvious tics that made it clear it was Claude rambling. Still extremely verbose.
They all ramble, they're all allergic to getting to the point. But, Gemini historically has pretty good prose. Even the self-hosted Gemma models have pretty nice, inoffensive prose. I wouldn't want to read a novel written by any of them, but I tend to ask Gemini questions in chat more often than Claude or GPT, because it has good prose and is good at using the web to research.
Agreed. It's much better at working with stuff (like documents and presentations) in other languages too. It feels like it's trained in multiple languages from the ground up rather than as an afterthought.
Qwen Flash Next has great writing! Unless it comes into any contact whatsoever with Claudeslop - then it immediately contracts the disease. It’s kind of irritating when you have it look at library code that’s been touched by Claude, because then the rest of your session is infected with it.
Same. I'm getting a surprising amount of use on the pro plan. Whereas every few hours before I'd have to take a break for an hour or two because my quota would be reached, that hasn't been happening lately.
Are you kidding/trolling? The P=NP problem is FAR more fundamental, and if proven true, would basically be a proof that e.g. public key crypto can be broken (NOT a description of how to though).
Basically, it would be a proof that all the REALLY hard (combinatorial) problems out there, have a much simpler solution, if we were able to find it.
EDIT:
NS is used daily in engineering and gas/fluid modeling. We sort of “know it works”. The smoothness proof is “just” formalizing what practitioners assume is true (very coarsely said, no intention to diminish the result!)
It’s a bit like the Collatz function IMO, empirical evidence isn’t proof, but we’ve got a huge amount of evidence for the behavior we’re trying to prove.
I believe P vs NP is a different beast entirely. We don’t even know which way the answer should go.
> and if proven true, would basically be a proof that e.g. public key crypto can be broken (NOT a description of how to though).
Well, only if the answer is that P=NP.
> I believe P vs NP is a different beast entirely. We don’t even know which way the answer should go.
Most people expect P < NP, and then crypto wouldn't be broken. P=NP would also break pseudo-random number generators, for pretty much the same reason as the rest of crypto.
However Don Knuth is one example of an expert who thinks P = NP is plausible.
Btw, we do know quite a lot about how a proof of P vs NP will _not_ look like. That is we are in the curious situation where we can prove that certain proof techniques won't work on this problem.
Weirdly enough, we already have the optimal algorithm, we just can't prove its runtime. Ie we have an algorithm that runs in polynomial time on all NP hard problems, if P=NP. (But the constant factors are crazy.)
I checked it out and total cost is too high compared to what you get in modern Mini PCs. Also, the 4800S is difficult to get and 4700S supports only SATA SSDs.
You hang out on weird hardware hacker forums and spot what people are working on. You can try buying the things multiple people are working on and getting good early results on. But most of it will end up being ewaste.
You mean the company that failed their 2023 security review? [0]
> Individually, any one of the failings described above might be understandable. Taken together, they point to a failure of Microsoft’s organizational controls and governance, and of its corporate culture around security.
Microsoft’s products and services are ubiquitous. It is one of the most important technology companies in the world, if not the most important. This position brings with it utmost and global responsibilities. It requires a security-focused corporate culture of accountability, which starts with the CEO, to ensure that financial or other go-to-market factors do not undermine cybersecurity and the protection of Microsoft’s customers.
> Unfortunately, throughout this review, the Board identified a series of operational and strategic decisions that collectively point to a corporate culture in Microsoft that deprioritized both enterprise security investments and rigorous risk management. These decisions resulted in significant costs and harm for Microsoft customers around the world.
> The Board is convinced that Microsoft should address its security culture.
No one should be foolish enough to trust Microsoft with anything regarding security. They showed time and time again over the past 40 years that they don't care.
Have you bought a PC in the last 10 years? Then it came with Microsoft's secure boot keys on it. Sometimes it's not even possible to remove or disable them. Sometimes you actually need a Microsoft-signed bootloader shim to boot anything that isn't Microsoft.
I haven't bought a Windows PC in the last 10 years, yes. I think the last Windows PC I bought was a used ThinkPad from 2011 that I upgraded and used until 2022.
not an insider but surely recently trained models have test against six months old memes, much like how llms suddenly started learning how many r's there are in strawberry after that blew up
Pretty cool! You could also boot into an ephemeral minimal initrd that displays a selection menu instead of doing it in iPXE. That would grab the new kernel and initrd from the network and kexecs it without reboot.
No. PXE boots routinely load the kernel and initramfs directly into RAM with no local disk involved. The initramfs then mounts the real root FS over the network.
Then anaconda or whatover os installer picks up and installs the OS in a PXE install sequence when there is a local disk.
reply