The one huge caveat for anyone that cannot use dynamic linking e.g. in an AppStore context, DuckDB isn’t a great choice. It’s very hard to statically link extensions.
This is where Arrow wins I think. Arrow CPP for example has very portable builds and the C interface is very usable for building bindings.
DuckDB is excellent, but it’s more a black box than a library.
Edit: after a conversation with a robot, it would seem that the DuckDB and ArrowCPP C APIs are complimentary, so it's very possible to have Arrow CPP and DuckDB to coexist in an app, each with its own strength. Arrow CPP doen't have a simple SQL story for example.
Ehr, the SWE bench examples are particularly horrible as those are just publicly available historical PRs. So if the models are trained on GitHub data, it will be included.
So almost by design that particular benchmark is tainted, and benchmarks recall rather than reasoning.
That’s a useful article, and as impressive as these demos are, and how smooth Maplibre is, I dearly wish people would spend more time on building map tech that is actually based on geoscience.
The heat map is a good example. What does it mean? Points per what? And I can’t bear to talk about the tyranny of Web Mercator.
Maps are so much more powerful when they mean something, and convey scientific facts or actionable evidence.
As far as I know there isn’t a permissively licensed, open source map renderer SDK that can work in a true GIS, e.g. supporting multiple projections.
OpenLayers is probably what you're looking for. It supports multiple projections. It's a wonderful library, but a bit more ceremony is required than MapLibre/box and leaflet.
Thanks, a quick glance makes me think Kepler is a layer on top of MapLibre GL. Good looking tools, but not professional GIS tools.
I’ll take a closer look. Really what I’m after is a native GIS renderer, like QGIS has, or ArcGIS that are part of a process to allow high fidelity map production.
Professional maps have legal and scientific meaning. With Kepler and MapLibre I see pretty pictures.
Arguably, it was Anthropic's decision to abide by their Government's orders. They could have not done so, but that would likely have consequences they weren't willing to face.
I choose to follow the law, but it’s an obligation not a decision. Framing it like this just misses the big picture entirely. A few words from a tech CEO is all it takes for this government to take extreme measures like this.
Viewing it as an obligation means you are weak. There are consequences to disobeying the law - a successful person will view them through the lens of cost-benefit analysis, not of dogma.
At the end of the day it's not really a decision at all, the government has a lot of men with guns, Anthropic has (presumably) low numbers to zero of men with guns.
You don't really have a choice if the government decides to play hardball
There are other things that can happen. For example, Anthropic could secretly transfer a copy of the model to a Chinese company in exchange for a large sum of yuan at a Chinese bank. Both parts of the transaction would be invisible to US authorities. I don't think this is a likely occurrence but if you think it's impossible then you need to think outside the box more.
The tech billionaires won't let such a ban stand. They may not GAF about random Latinos being deported from a field in Texas, but they won't simply give up people like Andrej Karpathy.
Jared Kushner will get a sweet package of private Anthropic shares and everything will be forgotten.
10x? More like 1000x. EU doesn't have a chance except providing training for those talent only to be then aquired by US tech behemoths paying them what they are actually worth
I suspect the big picture isn't just "governments restricting the availability of strong LLMs to the public", it's a group of tech lobbyists who have managed to push a narrative that's plausible enough to the majority, but serves their master's interests in stifling competition, whether that be from Anthropic or those who know how to use their tools effectively.
The fact that Anthropic are willing to dumb-down their own model responses to "Prevent foreign competitors from using the model to accelerate R & D and protect our leading position." [1] adds credence to this speculation. Anthropic are scared of their own model's power in the hands of competitors: it has nothing to do with security.
I wonder if this is the real problem: it was too good, and a lobby of companies feeling threatened by the competition decided to push the jailbreak narrative as a scapegoat.
In a sense they do care. Anthropic / OpenAI care that your projects are successful because that means more revenue for themselves. Therefore, their models are designed to care that your products work.
It seems to me the incentive, if anything, is to make the codebase so complex and “write-only” that developers become entirely dependent on LLMs to make any change whatever. They care that you keep burning tokens, not that those tokens accomplish anything for you.
UUIDs make client code so much simpler. Just create a UUID, use it client side to create your object graph and commit or not as appropriate. No need to retrieve an incremented integer.
Every DB, even MySQL can return the autoincrementing integer for you as part of the insert. Postgres, SQLite, and MariaDB (likely others, I’m just not familiar) can even return the rest of the data, should you need that.
IME, most of the arguments for why UUIDs make things better are due to developer ignorance of RDBMS features (or B+tree performance).
I’m aware of insert returning. That’s still more work than “mint a UUID”. Once the incremented id is returned it then has to be set on the model, in some cases like GRDB in Swift it requires the id to be optional which is just annoying.
I’m seeing a similar improvement with Opus 4.8, which is acting like an engineer that cares about correctness. The harder the problem the better it seems to do.
I think a golden age of software is just starting for indie software. It’s just going to take a while to see the first really good results.
I like the concept. Assuming you were the inspiration for this (very possible) how do you feel about the usability?
I spent an hour today trying to get it working the way I’d expect and it still does odd things, like after disabling automatic reordering based on usage the order is different when 3 finger swiping previews as opposed to actual windows. The visual order is as expected but the swipe order is not linear.
My criticism of MacOS Spaces is one I have of all Apple's window management efforts over the years: It's a great start and a foundation to build upon, but they never really followed through with iterative improvements informed by real-world usage.
In Spaces' case, the problem is a combination of an overly rigid model (only two full-height windows per space) and high friction to management (the process of moving full-height windows from one space to another requires multiple steps). Traditional free-form windows are a little better, but it's easy to lose track of them because the overview itself requires two steps to access (open Mission Control, hover the top bar to expand thumbnails). These could have been gradually improved over the past 14 years, but Apple has somewhat frustratingly left these core workspace features to wither on the vine.
This is where Arrow wins I think. Arrow CPP for example has very portable builds and the C interface is very usable for building bindings.
DuckDB is excellent, but it’s more a black box than a library.
Edit: after a conversation with a robot, it would seem that the DuckDB and ArrowCPP C APIs are complimentary, so it's very possible to have Arrow CPP and DuckDB to coexist in an app, each with its own strength. Arrow CPP doen't have a simple SQL story for example.
reply