That doesn't seem to be a use case that I would use - now assuming someone is still speaking, you look at your watch (just bad form to me) you will very likely miss what is being talked about while reading what you previously missed. At least my one channel brain would.

I have to agree with you there. I did some good work with Claude then Fable came out - impressed with that as well. Then they dropped access to it and upon returning was never the same - even the Opus models for some reason. Then one day I burned through my limit in about 10 minutes and had to get a project completed. I subscribed to Codex and it has been fantastic - finished my project and continued on to others. I just dropped my Claude max plan down to the pro and subscribed to the $200 plan on Codex.

my problem with claude currently is the language its using is dense and feels like its not even meant for humans. this guy is calling everything a spine, a seam, a gate, load bearing, any ui element is "chrome", it's actually absurd.

yeah there is that too. if everything else I stated wasn’t wrong I could put up with that. Codex on the other hand is great. Concise, technical, effective and non chatty. And that my friend is a load bearing comment.

I don’t get Claude, and that’s almost exactly what I did - I dropped to Claude Pro $20 + Codex Pro $100, and then unsubscribed from Claude and ramped up Codex. The Claude Pro is consumed within an hour on a simple task. I wish only Codex worked a bit faster than on the Fast mode.

I used to rely on Fable for research when it was first out, today it doesn’t seem to be much better than Opus, and it uses up the quota exceptionally fast - 1h Fable in a single short session, and there’s little left for Opus to hit the 5h limit in a second session. With Opus I get about 3-5h of relaxed use with a couple subagents to save the context, but there’s usually quite some disagreement between the subagents and orchestrator - Claude does some model routing with default agents and picks Haiku and Sonnet for subtasks - only later to disagree with them and redo the work - and burn extra tokens. With Claude, it’s really either Opus or Fable if you want some quality.

That said, their marketing is exceptionally effective. Virtually all nontech folks consider only Claude.

It is wild to read stuff like this when it is OpenAI that is being blamed for rug-pulling users and secretly reducing limits. It's such a big mess that Codex's product lead has been frantically posting updates on Twitter about it.

Of course. If you don’t use something it atrophies not only in non use but in losing interest in keeping up with the state of the art in said tech.

What we gain though is for people don’t possess that knowledge in the first place, now have this superpower. I know several individuals who have vast experience in specific disciplines and they are now able to solve real problems where there were previously struggling and having to make existing solutions work.

In the context of software engineering it allows people that have great institutional knowledge bypass the software market and construct stuff on their own - or at least prototype something and turn it over to an SE if the situation dictates.

I’ve been using CC for several months now and have noticed an increasing quality of output - Fable 5 I think was 85% there. At 95% SE’s are going to be increasingly looking for work to do.

To the title though, I’ve noticed while my desire to actually write code is decreasing CC is forcing me to improve my high level thought processes in the context of overarching goals in a project through discussion with CC. The software often introduces things that had escaped me or just think more outside the box.

My concerns are that this technology will be restricted at some point and the people making the restrictions will have a lot of control - and we know how that works out. But I believe they are inevitable, first obvious example being Fable 5. Are guardrails needed - yeah sure. Common sense says that I don’t want someone able to concoct an easily transmittable Ebola virus that has a 90 day incubation period in their kitchen but I do want an entrepreneur to be able to build a competitor to MS Office, or a cure for Ebola, for example.

> What we gain though is for people don’t possess that knowledge in the first place, now have this superpower.

Indeed. The great innovation of AI is giving people with wealth access to vast amounts of knowledge, while limiting the amount of wealth that people with knowledge can access.

It's completely bass-ackwards.

All the benefits you're describing apply to the present moment; people with knowledge, self-discipline and expertise can leverage LLMs to great effect.

How many people like this will exist in a decade? Two?

Wouldn’t it be like any other tool? When I started programming it was writing code in a text editor, masm to compile and a dso to debug. That progressed to higher level languages and libraries where gradually the amount of end product I could produce in a week would take a year (or 10) in assembly. What CC can do is similar. So to your question: My skillsets evolve and instead of using some developer tools directly I become an expert on utilizing LLMs.

Meanwhile the people with mountains of money can leverage them to enough effect to make even bigger mountains of money, by hiring less-than-skilled people who will do way more with it than they could without it.

yeah agreed they will definitely be doing that.

Alternatively I hope to see this giving opportunities to innovative individuals that can build something with just an idea and twenty bucks.

>>they’ve earned my trust

Boy I hope Broadcom didn’t hear that…

Going to give it a try! Would love to see an option for an engineering stamp for brace walls, hold downs, etc.

Let me know how it goes!

Engineering would be awesome! We want to get to training the model on structural constraints. We will start with basic foundation drawing, but will get deeper as we have the bandwidth to do it.

How could you think those two, massacring your own people and buying plane tickets home for people illegally here are on the same scale at all. We are not ideal here at all but we don’t do that and I think if it were tried there would be an uprising against whoever was calling that unimaginable shot.

You might be omitting the foreigners that are not in the United States that are being treated rather badly by the United States. I suspect that's what GP was referring to.

How about the US massacring more civilians around the world than any empire since Ghengis Khan?

Nazis? Soviets? CCP? Spanish Empire? How are you doing the math?

You only need the Native Americans, the US share of transatlantic slave trade, Bangladesh, Indonesia, and Iraq for the US to be well clear of the Nazis.

This doesn’t even touch the Guatemalan genocide, US backing of the Rwandan genocide perpetrators, the white terror, Pinochet, the Khmer Rouge, Afghanistan, or Israel.

I'd like to see the numbers please, how that gets close to 50 million dead by the CCP, and I can't fathom how do you attribute the Khmer Rouge genocide committed by a communist party to the USA or others on the list

If I did not know better, I would assume you did not know about the government murdering its own citizens and/or buying plane tickets for citizens to countries that have never been their homes.

Did I miss the uprising?

How about bombing a school?

Related: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/2026_Minab_school_attack

There are plenty of people who are here legally being shackled in chains and deported too.

Also, nice try propagandizing chained deportation as “free plane tickets”

I couldn't read the article but at least agree with the title. Taxes should be 1:1 linked with spending. The xx trillion dollar deficit is IMHO unfixable without substantial, painful changes.

It's not fixable with taxes alone though; the government also has to spend less than it brings in by cutting programs and budgets

This isn't correct when you look at the numbers. You can try it yourself at https://us.abalancingact.com/federal-budget-simulator.

The thing is, in isolation, balancing the budget looks pretty easy. It's only because you have to deal with particular interest groups and a populace who has come to believe that any tax increase means they're getting shafted. I was able to balance that budget with the following changes:

1. Top one percent effective tax rate goes from 24 to 30 percent.

2. Higher income goes from 12.26 to 14.26.

3. Upper middle income goes from 7.7 to 8.7.

4. Middle income goes from 4.8 to 5.8.

5. Lower middle income goes from .1 to 1.1

6. Lower income goes from -4.1 to -3.1

7. Social payroll taxable maximum goes to 90% of taxable income.

Those changes alone, with absolutely no spending changes, balance the budget. Now, I'm not proposing that those changes are politically viable, and you can certainly fiddle with my distribution if you think something else would be fairer (I think it's fair because the rich have done much better than everyone else over the past 40 years so I think they can afford to pay more, but I also think that everyone should have to contribute something more or else you get the current problematic belief that the issue can be solved just by taxing somebody else), but I would strongly disagree if you wanted to argue that those changes would result in any substantial change in standard of living for anyone.

I think, numerically, the problem can pretty easily be solved just by taxation alone (though I think it would make sense to add some spending cuts), just not politically.

Site looked interesting, so I was just like "what would it look like to have a top tax rate like we did in the 1950s-1980s (Before Reagan dropped it)?" [1] And the hilarious thing is the propaganda it spews without any backing of data:

>At a certain point, increases in tax rates will not raise more revenue. Once someone's tax rate becomes sufficiently high, they might work less or try harder to evade taxes. Based on existing evidence, this simulation assumes that increasing this group’s tax rate beyond your current level is unlikely to raise more revenue.

And then it pretends like the maximum amount of income you can get out of the richest 1% is $203B.

This is rich people's propaganda that we've bought into by pretending that Rich people don't need this country. But that's a lie. If it were true, they would just move, instead of fighting tooth and nail for tax cuts in every single election.

Also the breakdown of spending categories and the way they're represented are pretty clearly politically motivated, and the Numbers look a little suspicious to me. They don't even align with the CBO numbers.

Another really obvious thing missing is a "Capital Gains Tax"

Which is currently pegged to like 20%, and how CEOs get all of their income. So If Capital Gains was taxed as income, I think that would at least start to make the Income tax realistic.

[1] https://web.stanford.edu/class/polisci120a/immigration/Feder...

> Those changes alone, with absolutely no spending changes, balance the budget.

I tried out the calculator and put in all your changes, and the budget wasn't balanced, there was still a 1.4T deficit (as opposed to the current 1.9T deficit). The app only claims the budget is "sustainable" now because it assumes GDP keeps growing at the same rate (which might not be true), and if so we'll hit a 3%-of-GDP "deficit target" in 25 years. Also adjusting a negative tax rate kind of seems like it is, in fact, reducing spending (i.e. the federal government reduces the amount of tax credits it gives out). This also assumes the federal government will not introduce new programs, new spending, etc. So really all you did was reduce the deficit by .5T along with a hope and a prayer that the economy will continue to grow at the same rate for the next 25 years (while at the same time the federal government does not increase spending). I personally think it's bad to have a deficit at all and that we should work towards zero deficit and eventually surplus (yes, I know there are all sort of growth hacks and such you can do with debt, but historically politicians have succumbed to slippery slope deficit increases and so for that reason alone I think holding politicians to a zero deficit standard is best -- do it for a few generations and now there's a precedent that protects us from getting into the situation we are currently in). To me a "balanced budget" is that your spending is <= your income.

Anyway, interesting calculator app. I do see the value in raising taxes for sure, but it's not easy politically to raise taxes and it's also not easy politically to cut spending (whichever group likes the thing you cut will scream), so ultimately it might have to be a hybrid solution where democrats increase taxes without increasing spending when they are in power and republicans cut spending without decreasing taxes when they are in power. When I say that out loud though it seems like a pipe dream, sigh...

This is the lie. Our economy generates 27 trillion gdp.

We can afford everything. We choose not to.

It's more likely both are true. We can afford to do more for the people, but at the same time we are over-spending. Streamlining some of these functions would be nice. One area we are vastly over-spending is highway and roadway construction, for example. Even if we can afford it, we shouldn't pay for it. There are other more politically hot topics here and both general sides of the debate have merit, but we should try to not be dogmatic about it and instead think in systems terms and long-term outcomes. When I see a city or state spending $400,000/each on units for housing homeless people, well, that's obviously a misuse of funds. That's not sustainable. We shouldn't do it even if we can afford it. When we spend $50 billion in a week of the Iran war (which I support but just as an example), well, that $50 billion could have paid off a lot of mortgages - so maybe we should or could do that instead.

Just to note. McKenzie Scott has given half of her divorce settlement away and still has more than when she started.

No one needs to be a billionaire. It’s inhumane.

I don't like or valorize billionaires, I guess (I mostly don't care about them), but I don't understand what's "inhumane" here. There aren't very many billionaires. Billion dollar companies are far more salient to ordinary people than billionaires are. And, obviously, you can't fund universal health care by liquidating the billionaires!

I've never really understood why people are so het up about billionaires. The distinction between them and decimillionaires seems mostly like comic book lifestyle stuff; like, OK, they fly their pets private for visitation with their ex-spouses or whatever, I guess that's offensive aesthetically?

Far, far more damaging to ordinary people is the Faustian bargain struck between the upper middle class and the (much smaller) upper class, which redistributes vast sums of many away from working class people into the bank accounts of suburban homeowners.

(Because fundamental attribution error guarantees threads like this will devolve into abstract left vs. right valence arguments, a policy stake in the ground: I broadly favor significantly higher and more progressive taxes, starting with a reconsideration of the degree to which we favor cap gains.)

I really applaud the work McKenzie Scott is doing. A lot of billionaires play the "aw shucks if only someone would tax me" - nothing is stopping them from just donating to the government if they really thought that. We have a housing problem, why not play Sim City in real life and build houses for people or something? Personally I think it would be a blast.

Similarly though, there's nothing stopping you personally from taking $50, $100, whatever and walking over to a shelter or food bank and donating. You don't need to wait for the government to stand up a program. Lead by example like McKenzie Scott is. We donate money to local organizations - again, no barriers here.

I don't care if someone is a billionaire, though of course we should tax them "appropriately". But if you're really mad about billionaires and you want these programs, you should be giving away your own money too and there's nothing stopping you. Waiting until you get just the right program or tax the right person is a bad strategy if you really care about some of these issues.

Yeah, it's always funny to see how MMT is a perfectly acceptable way to create tax cuts and enable corporate welfare but if you suddenly want universal medicare or childcare suddenly we care about budgets or MMT is suddenly impractical.

This should actually allow for a balanced budget and still affording everything. The problem is, the USA has the best government money can buy and it wasn’t bought by the people.

Not if you believe the (obviously wrong) laffer curve zealots

Eh, the way the US does a lot of things have significant cost problems.

Public spending on healthcare is around 8-9% of GDP once you add things up.

So you have already paid for a public healthcare system in many ways.

There are really 4 possible positions on deficit spending:

- it does not matter at all, as long as inflation is under control (MMT)

- it's fine, as long as the long run average is ~zero (a cyclic argument)

- it's fine, as long as the long run average is a small stable % of GDP

- we have to balance the budget every year, no matter what

I don't think any serious person holds the last position.

> it's fine, as long as the long run average is a small stable % of GDP

I think this is theoretically viable only if debt % is lower than growth rate. Recently US debt % of GDP has been higher than growth rate.

Most US states are not global superpowers with hundreds of millions of citizens.

The scale is completely different. Economics do not simply scale up and down, the math changes drastically when the numbers get bigger.

>The scale is completely different.

Yes, the scale is different. This means that the debt problem can go on for far longer without being apparent. It can even be put off until the current slate of politicians are out of office, until they're dead of old age and beyond accountability. Scale can hide things, by making them so big your field of vision doesn't allow you to see it all at once.

>I don't think any serious person holds the last position.

And yet, that's the only position that (were it followed) would see us free from ruinous debt. What are we paying in interest every year again?

>> rather than putting an employee to respond to things on Sunday.

Maybe just maybe they didn’t put him here, rather he just a normal guy who reads HN, who is passionate about his role, and is here on his own time.

Maybe... maybe... maybe... none of this builds trust when there is something that does build trust; putting revenue on the line and opening yourself to legal liability. Otherwise everything is empty and meaningless, its just PR, and nothing more.

Our Best Buy is great. Usually pretty good stock and good variety. People there seem to be pretty nice as well. Bought a laptop there a few weeks ago. The one I wanted was in stock, they had a good price and gave me a fair trade in for my old one. Wife loves the place too as she can try on all their phone cases before she buys. It’s great to have a local option so that is one of the reasons I also choose to support them.

Best Buy price matches Amazon, I get what I want same day, no need to pay a monthly fee for "free" shipping. I used to browse Amazon for reviews (hoping at least some weren't fake) then buy in the real world in person, but now that Amazon is replacing access to reviews with AI summaries (there's a login barrier to see more than the first few) there's no need to go there at all.

I have a similar experience at my local Best Buy stores. I buy most of my electronics from there because I can't trust Amazon to give me a product that isn't counterfeit or defective to some degree. In general I largely prefer to buy things in person these days than have it shipped. No more Prime.

Yes, it's the same reason that I recommend people just buy stuff from Costco if they have the item.

A buyer at Best Buy or Costco explicitly made a decision to stock the item at the store/warehouse, where shelf space is not free. If that item has a lot of returns or complaints, the store will stop selling the product. It takes up space where a better product could be, and returns waste the time of employees.

Amazon doesn't have these controls. Listing an item on Amazon is cheap and Amazon has no incentive to prune their marketplace of junk. The only controls on Amazon are user reviews which can be gamed.

Just be careful with BB when buying some products, like external hard drives. There are many stories on r/datahoarder from people buying HDDs only to plug them in and find the previous buyer has swapped out the drive, resealed it and returned it.

I stopped patronizing Best Buy when their store phone numbers started going to a corporate call center that couldn't tell me if something I was looking for was in stock at the store.

They do show stock on their website. For other things such as price matching their chat service has worked well for me and seems to be backed by real people. I can't remember the last time I tried to call in.

I've had a similar experience with the Best Buy in my area. They also seem to be really good about keeping things in stock that people actually buy (seems like a basic concept, but you would be surprised).

Also they're typically right on par with Amazon's pricing and no need to wait for it to ship, just a quick trip there and back (although they usually get me buying something I didn't go there for) >:(

>> although they usually get me buying something I didn't go there for

Me too but I enjoy browsing through the store so it’s (sometimes not so much) cheap entertainment.

I find it hard to believe this is the real timeline when Best Buy is better than Amazon and New Egg. But I prefer Best Buy to both those now.

NewEgg is still great if you specific "Fulfilled by newegg" or whatever magic checkbox stands for "No actually this is a product we have bought and have in our warehouse from a real company and you are paying us to sell that physical item to you from our warehouse"

Of course, that eliminates 90% of their "inventory", but I only ever wanted to buy computer products from them anyway.

You have to be careful with that on Best Buy as well.

What would make me question the timeline more is if we still had a B&M Circuit City in town!

The rural Best Buys kind of are terrible. “Middle America” and “Empty Nester” targeted locations really don’t give you anything other than medicore middle-of-the-line product selections. What I’d kill for one of the “Urban Trendsetter” format locations…

Yes absolutely. My local Best Buy is a depressing hollow shell. The drone section is vacant, the PC part area is now vacant (no GPUs, no RAM, no SSDs). I have visited glorious Microcenter in Dallas, which is a long way from here, and a magnitude different (better) experience.

I’ve been pretty happy with Reolink. No subscription required and uses local storage. Notifications are done through smtp which works pretty well. Mobile app is pretty solid as well.