When reading through the projects list of JS restrictions for "stricter" mode, I was expecting to see that it would limit many different JS concepts. But in fact none of the things which are impossible in this subset are things I would do in the course of normal programming anyway. I think all of the JS code I've written over the past few years would work out of the box here.

I was surprised by this one that only showed up lower in the document:

- Date: only Date.now() is supported. [0]

I certainly understand not shipping the js date library especially in an embedded environment both for code-size, and practicality reasons (it's not a great date library), but that would be an issue in many projects (even if you don't use it, libraries yo use almost certainly do.

https://github.com/bellard/mquickjs/blob/main/README.md#:~:t...

> String functions: codePointAt, replaceAll, trimStart, trimEnd.

As I read it, these are supported es5 extensions, not missing as part of stricter mode.

Anything except a 3bit quant of GLM 4.6 will exceed those 128 GB of RAM you mentioned, so of course it's slow for you. If you want good speeds, you'll at least need to store the entire thing in memory.

Maybe I'm totally misinterpreting, but the chart I'm looking at says "Net Win Rate of SAM Audio vs. SoTA Separation (text prompted)", so perhaps a lower number means that the alternative model is better?

Now that I go back and read it again I agree with you. Presumably "win rate" means what percent of the time did the SAM model (Meta's new one) beat the other tool over some set of examples.

This provides plenty of value conceptually, but I wish they were able to push the syntax into a more intuitive place. My biggest gripe with Relay is how forced the syntax feels, and this seems better but still confusing. Take for example this component declaration:

export const PostCard = ({ post: postRef }: { post: ViewRef<'Post'> }) => { ... }

That feels terrible to me! I don't have any suggestion from my side, but I feel like there's got to be a less awkward way.

You don't have to rename the variable. You can also do this:

```

export function PostCard(props: { post: ViewRef<'Post'> }) {

  const post = useView(PostView, props.post);

}

```

If you add a few aliases (that can be easily generated), it becomes this:

```

export function PostCard(props: { post: PostViewRef }) {

  const post = useView(PostView, props.post);

}

```

There are many bits in fate worthy of criticism. Naming and typing React props really isn't one of those.

At least complain about something specific to the project and not generic TypeScript syntax.

It would be REALLY cool to see this same technique applied to a much more recent OSS model distillation. For example, Mistral 3 14B would be a great target. How efficient can we get inference there?

Really impressive. I was surprised when listening to their demos how poorly their closed source competitors handled common abbreviations like "Wed. June 23rd". I had assumed that every commercial vendor had handled cases like that more elegantly, in line with how a voice actor would read them.

I don't know what the book describes, but I'd like to hear more specifics. Until then, I'm going to assume that it's sensationalist hogwash.

> The same knowledge that helps us treat neurological disorders could be used to disrupt cognition, induce compliance, or even in the future turn people into unwitting agents.

Disrupting cognition is easy. But as far as I'm aware, we don't have any drugs to "induce compliance" and we're miles away from being able to turn people into "unwitting agents" purely on the basis of neuroscience.

Combine a chemically impaired memory and the current media landscape to get neat little dystopia.

We already could have unknowingly produced and consumed such neuro modulators simply by selecting for consumer return. Frightening thought, because it fits the current reality timeline.

Looking around. I don't know what feels worse; a drug that induced compliance or world is in general this stupid.

OpenAI likes to time their announcements alongside major competitor announcements to suck up some of the hype. (See for instance the announcement of GPT-4o a single day before Google's IO conference)

They were probably sitting on this for a while. That makes me think this is a fairly incremental update for Codex.

GPT 5.1 / Codex already beats Gemini 3 on SWE Bench Verified and Terminal Bench and this pushes the gap further. Seems like a decent improvement.

There’s been community commentary that many of the GPT models are a tad overfitted WRT benchmarks. Benchmarks are not representative of end user experiences. That’s not to say the benchmarks aren’t useful at all, but are only useful as a subjective indicator.

Would it be fair to compare a generic model with a model finetuned for coding?

That’s how the game is played. We should be grateful for all the competition that is driving these improvements, not whinging about the realities of what companies have to do to contest each other’s position.

It's funny, this release comes right after the Gemini 3 release that coincided with day 1 of Microsoft's Ignite conference.

Anthropic released the Opus 4.1 (basically, a new Opus 4 checkpoint) right around the big GPT-5 release date too, if I remember correctly. At this point, anything goes to stay relevant.

Gemini is eating their lunch, and OpenAI knows it.

it's really getting old

Before the outrage comments pour in, take a look at the conditions he has to meet (per the New York Times):

> ...this 12-step package asks Mr. Musk, the company’s chief executive, to vastly expand Tesla’s stock market valuation — to $8.5 trillion from around $1.4 trillion — while hitting a variety of other goals. Those include selling one million robots with humanlike qualities and 10 million paid subscriptions to the company’s self-driving software.

The headline $1 trillion figure only comes into play if he hits a very lofty goal: 6x the company's valuation and sell a bunch of expensive robots.

I don't think this is nearly as crazy as people are making it seem. It's a huge reward for a goal that seems unlikely to be achievable in a short time frame.

I don't have a problem with this per-say (I mean it offends my sensibilities and fuck musk) But the biggest problem I have is if Musk can just meme stock the company into a 8.5 trillion dollar valuation.

Sure on the one hand you can say, well it's a private company, and if the shareholders get wealthy who cares?

But like, our economic rewards should be tied to value to society, and I'm being pretty generous in defining value to society in capitalistic terms here. If you sell 100 million cars, then obviously society values those cars and if you want to get ridiculous sums of money so be it, so if he really does robotaxi and FSD and sells a million robots, then fuck it.

(On the other hand, no I'm not ok with this, because money isn't just a reward, it's power, he's not buying yacht's he's buying goverments, but that's a story for another day)

If trying to pivot into selling expensive robots kills the company then it is crazy.

I think the thing is that tesla is tanking, but apple has more diversity and a modicum of success / growth.

It isn't a bad deal for shareholders.

In the grand scheme of things though it is very much a "let them eat cake" moment in the history of neoliberalism. It is just such a total absurdity. I even read the words "equitable pay package"

The same week NYC elects Mamdani. As if these are two unrelated events.

I have been a free market person my whole life but when you start approving pay packages to jump Marcus Crassus in historical wealth, maybe it is a sign something is severely broken?

The neoliberal shareholder class will never fix this because they are unable to see anything is broken. "The market is always right".

The problem is people vote in a democracy.

The counter arguments will be so trivial to make too. How are these Tesla goals hit without public roads again? What is the AMZN share price without the use of public roads?

I completely forget in all this that the current federal government is so dysfunctional that it not even running.

It is hard to imagine a future in America that is not socialism with American characteristics.

I have suspected for a long time that the root of the problem is how we distribute new money.

New money means basically printed money. We have an inflationary system, and I’m on the fence about whether that’s a good thing versus the other different problems you get with deflationary money. But that’s beside the point.

The fair way to distribute new money would be to drop it from helicopters, more or less. Instead we give it to banks. New money enters circulation at the top.

That does a couple things. First it inflates assets, which is one cause for why housing went nuts. Second, it transforms the economy from a competition to sell the best product to customers into a competition to be first in line for inflationary money distribution.

That’s what we have now. You are not the customer. There are no customers. The stock is the product and the Fed is ultimately, after a chain starting with big banks, the buyer.

Companies make more money selling their stock than selling their product. Selling a product is only valuable insofar as it makes the stock look better to buyers who have not yet realized productivity is no longer the goal, who have not yet reached /r/wallstreetbets levels of enlightenment about the new nature of the system.

Over time the trend is for the whole system to drop the pretense of productivity. At the street level investment fully degenerates into gambling and is finally replaced, as is happening now, with actual gambling. At the elite level people like investors and founders start to realize that creating value has degenerated into a show to attract investment capital (new money), and so they should just drop the pretense. In fact it makes sense to drop the entire pretense of operating a productive economy. The political class can also drop the pretense of running a productive society and just declare themselves kings and hold decadent parties, as we're seeing now.

So we end up with kings ruling over a casino. Which is why we have a wannabe king who is a former casino boss.

(Deflationary money can lead to serfdom too but via a different failure cascade that starts with a collapse in investment since holding money is less risky.)

If, instead, we implemented QE by dropping money from helicopters, the whole economy would be capitalized and would start spending money purchasing things people want. Businesses would remain oriented toward selling things to customers and to one another, with stock sales being secondary fund raising activities as they should be. Investment would continue to be a better bet than gambling.

Despite having little understanding of the law in the U.K., I can confidently say that strangling someone without their consent want already illegal. There's no need to criminalize the consensual version of it.