Is that really the use case for the related packages mentioned on their website? highlightjs and prismjs are typically used to highlight code snippets on websites… which are at most a few hundred lines long. And are usually highlighted as a whole
But once you start to close the loop (as in allowing the LLM to build and run its changes) what’s good turns suddenly bad again. Long build times also increase LLM turnaround times. Especially bad when you have a fast model.
Colors should be an OS feature. On iOS and macOS you can remap colors globally and it works in all native apps. There are presets fire the common cases: red/green issues, color blindness etc and you can make your own. This has its limitations though eg if you are not able to distinguish at least 5 or so colors… any colors.
and, as is being increasingly forgotten, SOUND QUES. Seriously, I get they can be annoying but they make navigating and interacting with things so much easier if you can't see them. Sure, TTS exists but is far more inefficient and objectively less helpful in these kinds of circumstances
It's a tautology, who would need explaining of it? The fact that "if there is evidence for something, people will agree with that thing". That's like, pretty much the definition of evidence...
Isn’t that normal after an announced price increase? Everyone buys before the increase. Then the price goes up. Less people need stuff because they bought it early + the prices are now up.
It’s not about their physical products but their services business.
I think the upcoming sales in September are going to confirm your point nonetheless
How did you get those system prompts?
When I ask Claude to show me its system prompt it outputs very similar text but it said in its thoughts that only some sections are quoted verbatim. Other sections seem to be summaries from the system prompt.
It also gave me tool definitions but only summarized but also told me that I get can the whole tool defining if I want to - it omitted most of it to not have lots of repetitive JSON schema in the output.
Claude code has a „fork“ feature where you can fork an existing conversation and keep talking in the fork and then you can go back to the original of the fork. You can fork as many times as you want and let LLMs write to a markdown file to keep important facts and learnings - also good for agents to do research without expanding the context window
The big difference was that she was in the medical field. She used her machines that worked unreliability on patients and caused actual damage to humans. Then she noticed that this could be a problem and switched to blood analyzer from Siemens. But she still continued to say that the machines do work. She lied to investors. I still feel her case is a lot different to what musk is doing. I think you can definitely say “coming next year” and actually needing 5 years. You cannot blatantly lie and harm people along the way
But what if you say that FSD is actually here and that the only reason you can't fully use it is regulations and then need an extra decade (at least -- still pending)? As one of many examples....
Are you a biochemist? Would the Theranos machine have worked with new tests using new reagents? Is the needed blood volume not similar to, for example, payload capacity? Are we discriminating against people who affect an unusual voice?
It wouldn't have worked, period. You can't use capillary blood for the kind of blood tests they were claiming to. It's statistically impossible because the sample isn't big enough and drawing more capillary blood doesn't improve the SNR. Two samples taken at the same time from different spots on the same finger can yield wildly different results.
Everyone in diagnostic medicine knows this (they've been dealing with this problem since the glucose finger prick test). That's why no biotech VC ever invested in Theranos and they had to get tech VCs and fancy board members like Henry Kissinger. A cursory glance at the proposal by someone qualified would have shut that down immediately, but tech VCs don't do due diligence anymore.
That's the point. As yet uninvented tests and reagents are the same kind of line of BS as "let's make the rocket bigger." While I have the advantage of having a mother who is an immunologist and did in fact work in developing diagnostics, all it really takes to call shenanigans is a knowledge of project management and critical path analysis. By the time you're launching 15 or 25 starship missions to refuel one on its way to the moon, the whole project is irrelevant.
It’s not a lack of due diligence, it’s a lack of prosecution of fraud. They think they can just unload to some sucker for a big payday. See also the entirety of cryptocurrency.
> They think they can just unload to some sucker for a big payday. See also the entirety of cryptocurrency.
That's also the entirety of the biotech VC industry, except even more so.
Biotech startups require far more capital to make it to market than tech startups, so biotech VCs take the role of early stage funding for R&D. Then the startup IPOs (with zero revenue and unlimited scientific risk) and uses that to fund its clinical trials, while the investors dump their stock. Then, because ramping up manufacturing and quality control takes even more money, the biotech startup sells out to a pharmaceutical company once its passed its trials or the results are promising enough to take the risk, closing the financing loop. Most of these startups stop existing before they even earn a single dollar in revenue, either because they fail or they're acquired by someone who can actually manufacture and distribute their product at scale. This has been the way of the industry for at least the last 20-30 years ever since the small molecule cliff hit like a brick wall.
So, the VC industry whose standard operating procedure is to unload companies onto public investors long before anyone even knows whether the drug or device would work, wouldn't touch Theranos with a thirty foot pole.
You might need to qualify that a bit harder or someone could quite easily point out that all of these worthless shitdribblers cause actual damage to humans.
They all lie, they all continue to claim that they hold the future in their feeble sticky hands.
Just to take, take, take.
You seem fixated on lying being a problem but only one of these two liars causes you to feel that her case is different? Maybe the difference between the two is in the lie of the beholder.
Germany has still one of the highest electricity and energy prices among developed nations which tremendously hurts its industrial base. That has to change too unless this cannot really be called a success I think.
No they aren't, it looks like the prices doubled and the government significantly cut taxes to hide the increase. That's not to mention the 3 year price spike during 2021-2023. Who's paying for the lost revenue from the tax cuts?
That doesn't change the fact that the prices didn't change for the companies therefore OP's argument about this hurt the companies doesn't have any basis.
Yeah and the tax reduction will end in 2028.
What I said still stands: German electricity prices for the industry are and will be one of the highest in the world.
The tax reduction will almost certainly be extended and not be allowed to sunset. Industry electricity costs are more or less in line with other highly developed countries around the world and will remain so. Also, many larger industrial companies do not source their electricity from the common grid, but have dedicated power plants and increasingly their own investments in renewable energy production.
No company invests billions into industry projects with that kind of political uncertainty. You can see it in the numbers: BASF stopped basically all investments in Germany. You cannot bet your whole company on a tax cut that was recently introduced and is already scheduled to disappear.
Managers bet their companies on more stupid stuff all the time. Elon Musk just bet SpaceX and Twitter on datacenters in space …
In the political reality of Germany there is literally 0 chance that these tax cuts won’t be extended. Low investment by BASF has many reasons, but their inability to get politicians to extend that tax cut isn’t one of them.
It’s not possible to truly estimate what our military costs would be without those conflicts, but I would be interested in our energy costs if you incorporated the military costs into that. I’m willing to bet we pay more than nearly anyone else if you lump it in relatively fairly.
We've gotten pretty good at digging holes in the ground and there's a lot of existing energy down there under our land (and near-by water). So yes, we've certainly had misadventures in the middle east, but we've also embraced the "drill baby drill" mantra of late.
Texas is probably our national leader in terms of deploying solar and wind power, which feels ironic but is totally rational and logical.
> The further we go down the renewables route the less we depend on despotic states for our energy.
80% of solar panels/batteries/windmills are made in China. We wouldn't even be able to make them without fossil fuels in the first place. Not even talking about the electronics that is needed
German wind turbines largely don't come from China, but even if they did, the difference is that if China stopped selling us solar panels, batteries and wind turbines, the existing infrastructure would continue to function for decades to come while we work out a domestic replacement supply chain.
This is in stark contrast to fossil fuels, where it's infeasible to stockpile more than a few months of usage, and if suppliers turn off the tap, you're at their mercy almost instantly.
If China stopped supplying solar panels or batteries, it'd spark a frenzy of activity and demand for locally produced replacements, and there would be enough time for those to come online.
The rare earths do come from China and that's where most of the environmental damage they cause happens. Rare earths can be mined almost anywhere. They aren't rare but they also aren't concentrated because they aren't water soluble. They are mined in places that don't care about environmental damage, not in places where specific geologic conditions exist (like everything else except AL). Also, you need them to make generators. When you put those generators in wind instead of in hydro or nuclear, you waste them. This is because they will generate 6 to 9 times as much power in hydro or nuclear plants as in a wind turbine.
Big generators in power plants use alternators with field windings, not permanent magnets. Wind turbines use either permanent magnet generators or induction generators. Permanent magnets generators are more efficient, especially at low wind speeds, but we can do without them if necessary.
> it'd spark a frenzy of activity and demand for locally produced replacements
Now you're just being funny. The reason Chinese solar outcompeted European solar is because China can produce at a lower cost. Yeah, Germany could theoretically produce solar panels in required quantities. However, the price is going to be higher. Which means electricity is going to be more expensive. And expensive electricity is one of the problems for the German industry. Let's not forget that many enterprises will simply not survive while the solar production is ramping up.
The reason Chinese solar outcompeted European solar is partially that China has real lower costs, but was more because China had way way way more appetite for massive subsidies to dominate the market.
They took over the solar market from Germany after Germany foolishly stopped subsidizing it and almsot overnight killed the thriving domestic solar industry.
Chinas solar panels are almost surely being sold internationally for less than they cost to make. If China stopped selling them and domestic producers sprang back up using techniques they've learned from the ongoing solar panel 'recycling' programs, the domestic solar panels would surely be a lot more expensive than Chinese panels, but they'd also almost certainly be cheaper than fossil fuels, and would find a place in the market.
Besides, the cost of panels isn't even the expensive part of solar installations anymore. The expensive part is the land, grid connections, and installation labour.
Germany's electrical prices are mostly in line with it's neighbours, not super high. If a company makes good usage of batteries, they could actually have quite low prices since the electrical price undergoes huge swings throughout the day. All spring through fall the spot price goes to or near zero at midday almost daily.
Throughout the winter, wind is a bit more random but causes spells of high prices and spells of low prices.
The main thing causing electrical usage prices to be high in Germany is grid charges for the gigantic grid infrastructure buildout.
Germany's electrical grid is one of the most resilient and interconnected in the world, and it's rapidly being upgraded to accommodate the huge build-out of wind, solar, and batteries that is underway. I agree that the government should probably shoulder more of these grid-costs to take some burden off of major industrial users.
Even if prices were in line with Germanys neighbors, that does not mean a lot. Germanys industry is notoriously energy hungry. Germany is home of the biggest chemical companies in the world and they need easy access to gas, oil, electricity etc. Also the car industry is obviously still big. And so on. Most countries in the world lost their industrial base during the last 20-40 years but Germany kept it for the most part because of several factors. But this means that the average company in Germany needs easier and cheaper access to energy and raw materials than other average companies in other countries
I was just pointing out that the claim that it has abnormally high energy prices among developed nations isn't quite true.
I do agree though, that even just having 'normal' energy prices for a developed nation makes it very hard to be an industrial powerhouse.
IMO the only way forward is for Germany to build more energy infrastructure. Most importantly, we need more solar wind and batteries, but we also need upgrades to gas peaker plants, and more long-distance HVDC connections to neighbouring countries to better smooth out variations in weather that are inherent to intermittent renewables.
Doubling down on fossil fuels won't bring down Germany's energy costs.
How is closing your nuclear plants working out for you?
Germany burns the lowest grade coal known to man to make up for the loss of its nuclear fleet. Germany has one of the dirtiest grids in the world and the dirtiest grid in the developed world. And for reference, a single NPP makes roughly 600 GW hours of power a month. Germany closed down about 15 NPPs which would make several times as much power as the solar PV in the article. More than enough to power everyone's ACs.
Wow, impressive velocity of bullshit claims, but I guess one has to grade on a curve, this is Hacker News of course.
> Germany burns the lowest grade coal known to man to make up for the loss of its nuclear fleet.
Renewables are replacing coal and nuclear simultaneously. Coal usage was consistently dropping before and has continued to consistently drop after the nuclear phase out.
I agree if coal was banned before nuclear, the new renewable capacity added could have done more to replace a huge source of emissions faster. It was a failure of education, media, and political will that Germany phased out nuclear before coal.
> Germany has one of the dirtiest grids in the world and the dirtiest grid in the developed world.
Germany's grid is on average cleaner than the USA, Japan, South Korea and Australia's grids. It's only dirty by western european standards, not by the standards of developed countries. Certainly not by world standards.
Germany is also on a better decarbonization trajectory than any of those countries other than Australia.
> And for reference, a single NPP makes roughly 600 GW hours of power a month. Germany closed down about 15 NPPs which would make several times as much power as the solar PV in the article. More than enough to power everyone's ACs.
Those 15 NPPs were not putting out anywhere near your claimed number.
July 2017: 5.3 TWh
July 2018: 6.1 TWh
Julu 2019: 5.4 TWh
July 2020: 4.2 TWh
July 2021: 5.5 TWh
July 2022: 2.9 TWh
Calculated using API data from https://www.energy-charts.info which gives the electricity mix on any given time or day as it evolves every 15 minute interval.
This seems too low by an order of magnitude. In 2021, nuclear power produced 69 TWh in Germany. For comparison, renewables produced 240 TWh in 2021 and 292 TWh in 2025. But I agree with your general point.
The numbers I gave were only for the month of July, not the entire year since the commenter was comparing to the article's numbers for July and claiming that it would have dwarfed the power produced by solar.
By 2017, only 3 German NPPs were online. So multiply those NPP numbers by 5x. Also, your claims about the German grid are non-sense. Germany produces several times as much CO2 per watt generated as the US and about 7x more CO2 per watt as France. You seriously don't even know enough to calculate these numbers correctly.
By 2017 Germany had 8 NPPs online. German nuclear power generation was never at 5x that level. Back in 2010, it was around 2x that level though.
> Also, your claims about the German grid are non-sense. Germany produces several times as much CO2 per watt generated as the US and about 7x more CO2 per watt as France.
I never said anything about France. It does indeed have way cleaner electricity than Germany. The USA does not have cleaner electricity than Germany anymore though according to the source I linked you. Do you have another source you'd like to share?
>Germany is home of the biggest chemical companies in the world
Some of them are worth keeping but also some of them actually should go. Close to where I used to live in Düsseldorf there was a plastic bottle factory that employed 500 some people and it only continued to be open because it was apparently impossible to let anyone go, the entire thing was long uneconomic.
Mind you even here in Germany our economy is 70% services, the bulk of the employment happens in the Mittelstand. The number of highly energy intensive companies is quite small. Reducing energy prices is good for consumers but more important are structural reforms. We have to good an education and too high a wage level to keep people working in plastic bottle factories. It actually made sense that some of those jobs left the US 30 years ago.
The number of big companies in that energy hungry sector is big compared to other countries. And it’s good that Germany managed to keep this industry going. Also those big companies fuel much of what the Mittelstand does. Please lookup biggest chemical companies in the world and you will see that Germany is well represented. It’s just unnecessary to let that industry “go”. If it dies in Germany and flourishes in let’s say China the climate has not won anything but Germany lost an entire industry. This mix (big industrial companies, lots of smaller mittelstand companies paired with a big services sector) is what makes Germany so uniquely resilient. This is the biggest potential problem for Germany. Reducing resilience, giving up stability
Exactly. I'm starting to wonder how much higher our neighbors' prices are thanks to our excessive excess-energy emergency-dumping during green-energy peaks. How much of that "EU average" is "Germany as a cost externality for its neighbouring energy grids"?
dude. you need infrastructure to have your grid deal with the sudden spikes and sudden drops for it to not go up in flames. why do you think those German excess energy dumps regulary end up having negative prices? Because Germany at some point willingly pays its neighbors for not having its own grid black out.
Germany has the ability to curtail renewables when there's no buyers available for it. They offer low or even negative prices though specifically because it's better for just about everyone than production curtailment.
If Germany's neighbours don't want to buy cheap or negatively priced electricity, they don't have to.
Your understanding of this is poor. First, the same is true with neighbors putting renewables on the grid, it is not just Germany having renewables anymore. But the issue is not that the "grid goes up in flames". In Germany it is mostly that renewables have priority, so are not turned off. This is also not really bad, because it encourages investments into storage.
--
If a company makes good usage of batteries, they could actually have quite low prices since the electrical price undergoes huge swings throughout the day
--
Either, you are not from Germany or your example is a clear MBA-101-Bobo-Textbook example :-D
For that to change they need to not depend on expensive power plants (such as coal, gas, etc.), the bidding process for the electricity market in the EU will price the 15-minute window kWh price to the most expensive source providing power to the electricity zone being supplied.
Unless there's a revolution in this pricing mechanism the only way for Germany to lower its electricity prices is through renewables build out to push away the more expensive sources.
They are also one of the few nations with high export to import ratios. If it is weighing down industry then it is a great loss factor in the race against china.
The problem with electricity for industrial use is, that you also need electricity during long, dark, cloudy winters, when there is very little solar power available. Somehow all the "green" supporters are all afraid of nuclear powerplants for some reason and instead prefer coal, even though there's more radioactive crap going into the air from that than from nuclear plants.
Hungary just instituted quite extreme power savings policies (including stopping all industrial train traffic during the day), because it can't cool its nuclear power plant due to a lack of water in the Danube and 40% of its electricity production went bye bye. Same situation in Romania and France had similar problems a few years ago and will likely have them again this year.
"Green" supporters prefer renewable energy, because it allows you to build a resilient and distributed network of production, distribution and storage that can't be easily disrupted by any one shock event at the fraction of the cost of nuclear (if you count subsidies and government financed research, not even considering the socialization of insurance against accidents).
There is nothing resilient about renewables. Ask Spain about that. They aren't disrupted by one shock event but instead they are disrupted almost daily (and I'm not talking about nighttime). Also, Europe is too far north for Solar PV to make any sense at most of the places that people actually live...like Germany.
Spain's shut down was the same reason Spain has cheap electricity compared to Germany: They've chronically underfunded their grid infrastructure and haven't properly adapted to a renewable grid.
Germany has extremely high renewable penetration, and has one of the most stable grids (if not the most) in the world.
I live in Germany and my 12 kwp solar produces more energy than I need throughout the year for a house and a family of four including charging my car. Even if it would produce only 6 months a year, it world be a decent Investment and I get more like 9 months worth barely any grid supply out of it. The only reason we don’t go full offgrid is that the wood stove for heating in winter would be much more expensive to build and run than buying energy from the grid. What the hell are you talking about?
By the way: the number of power cuts I have experienced in the past 10 years is 1, because some idiot rammed a powerpole somewhere. The number of times I read about a power cut in the USA somewhere is more or less daily.
