Those tokens aren’t guaranteed (esp. with RE and security tasks - rooted my own TV last week, Claude crapped out on “cyber safety” grounds; but also no guarantees about the model served - providers can pull a switcheroo on weights or quantization at any moment, and new options may not work for you), and you’re throwing money at entities that aren’t aligned with your interests instead of entities who are interested in actually empowering you.
A $10/mo subscription to OpenCode Go would have done the job for you.
They have models like Kimi K3, Grok 4.6 , GLM-5.3, Mimo 2.6 Pro (launched today, already available) which are happy to follow your orders without accusing you of being a terrorist.
> Rule Number One: You may not use a single word an LLM suggests to you.
I think there's a use case where this rule can be ignored. Sometimes I ask LLM to help me pick a single word or short phrase in some language, that has specific meaning, and connotations. Or doesn't carry some connotations or associations. Especially when I have an idiom from some language in mind, but I'm writing in some other language and my brain struggles to find a good replacement.
LLMs are super handy as fancy vibe-based dictionary search engines. They're all about words that go with other words, so when I'm struggling for a good term, I see no harm in asking and picking an option that I feel closest to what I want to express. My choice, my voice, just a very fancy thesaurus machine.
What's the point of complaining about use of jargonisms in a specialist-leaning spaces?
Anyone with a resemblance of a functioning brain (that is, any "normie" included) can understand "ability to install and run custom aftermarket operating system, or modify pre-installed one", assuming they know what an "operating system" is. And if they don't know what it is, that can - and should (!) - be explained too.
This ability matters to people who don't know any much about any computer programming, because it affects their ability to use the devices they own. They may not know how it all works, but they do express regrets when something doesn't work the way they expect or want it to work. And we all know and hate enshittification here, don't we? Personally, I'm tired of saying "no, because Apple/Google decided only they can control this, and neither you or me can change this on this device" to "can this work so-and-so" questions.
And "open bootloader" is a jargon shorthand for that. Crude, because it should be actually more like "bootloader that can be configured to validate software integrity with user-provided key material", but most people familiar with the space and lingo get the right idea anyway, and shorthand needs to be short. And this is Hacker News, not a Wendy's, so jargon is more than expected.
If someone (a "normie") reads something and don't understand it, we should all be encouraging them to ask questions and try to give them accessible answers. Not shield them from this knowledge, not fetishize mindless consumerism, not behave like snobs, and especially not dismiss something important only because it's not commonly understood.
For marketing materials that target "normie" audiences, it should be just phrased in "normie"-accessible way (look how Valve does that with their hardware), but when we're compiling a HN wishlist from HN comments, complaining about jargon is silly.
In fact, jargon is only "low resonance" until it isn't; plenty of key social and political issues resolve around jargon terms normies have no more fucking clue about now than before, but it doesn't stop them from discussing it like they were experts - all it takes is bunch of pundits on the news to say the jargon words out loud with straight face, be it "open bootloader" or "MRNA vaccines" or "COVID-19 pandemic" or "fracking" or "monosodium glutamate", and suddenly everyone is an expert.
It's just a matter of the topic having a popularity spike.
My point was just that nerds are indeed bad at communicating their knowledge to the "normie" world. Because they forget what is daily lingo for them - is just black magic to them.
Everyone - save for people with developmental difficulties or ahedonia - has a specialty, something they know that the majority of other folks don’t. Every such domain of knowledge (useful or otherwise) has its shorthands and jargonisms.
Some domains of knowledge lag behind their technological adoption. Which is natural and fine, except that society at large got infected with this silly idea of normalizing mindless consumption with a shallow (if any) underlying mental model. In other words, the nerds are actively told to shut up and keep their mumbo
jumbo talk to themselves and spare people from knowing how things work under the hood.
So it’s not just that those silly nerds bad at communicating. That too, but it’s meeting with the unwillingness to learn is what makes it truly bad. It’s in the very idea of a “normie” - an anti-knowledge, ignorance-normalizing, curiosity-dampening attitude - that’s to blame. Not that nerds use nerdy words on nerdy websites and that usage spreads to less nerdy areas - that’s part is just life as usual.
BTW, those “loud idiots” are the actual normal people learning and making mistakes (including the mistake of overconfidence - especially easy to make when something feels important) and having opinions. Modern mass communications changed the world’s landscape, so instead of a few peers in their kitchen they’re broadcasting their knowledge (including the errors in it) to orders of magnitude more people and that sometimes gains traction - but that’s a separate issue, very far from nerds and their words.
It’s an interesting book for sure, but I had (minor, but still) issues even with the introductory premises. Just a few notes I made from the very first chapter:
- Jaynes used the term “reminiscence” in a way very different from Ballard and claimed no animal is capable of reminiscence. That was a very odd claim overall.
- Then he claimed that if we ever create a language that can express everything, metaphors won’t be possible. Which is, I think, almost obviously false, because many metaphors are constructed artistically, despite having exact terms.
- And he talks about spatialization as a primitive aspect of consciousness, but he seems to talk about relations/connectedness at best.
And so on - I misplaced my notes somewhere and only recovered a few random bits. Still, interesting reading, fun (albeit really questionable) core idea, but those papercuts were kinda off-putting for me.
My point was that computers are as secure as human(s) who programmed them were careful and competent. Computer security is ultimately human knowledge and reasoning competence (plus time/money tradeoffs, if made willingly)
Isn’t the whole hope is that Google (and other app vendors) doesn’t even get a say at what’s possible through Siri.
All it takes is to expose application’s UI to the model, and let the model send actions. If a human can do it tapping on the screen, the machine should be able to do the same thing.
> In the physical world, it seems like when an tool/device/instrument causes harm (or is used to cause harm), we assign blame to either the user of the tool or its creator.
Firearms are a notorious example where some people get, well, weird.
I like the overall direction, but how to tax it without screwing over hobbyist archivists aka data hoarders? That is, how to assess the value of some datastore, somehow distinguishing between personal preference profiles, random LLM software slop and, say, vintage anime collections?
We didn’t have laws but every TV at the dawn of the era came with full schematics and documentation.
That said, I’m not arguing that we don’t need laws today - we do, or at least I have no other idea how to do a course correction from where we are. Preferably wide-range ones that alter the whole consumer-producer relationships.
But the key thing is not the laws, it’s the attitude (individual and corporate) towards others. Can’t legislate that, I’m afraid.
There's probably something to do with volume and mfg capacity. The TV companies were doing everything they could and still not meeting the demand for TVs, so they might as well make them repairable. Signals quality. But now we have much more ability to make TVs than demand for TVs, and making them not repairable stimulates demand.
I'd say: Shortages after the world wars, combined with the teething problems of new technology made customers acutely aware and capable of repairability. That lesson is now forgotten.
It also wasn't universally true. E.g. the story of Mad Munz creating TVs that worked only for 90% of the customers (who had good enough reception and needed less signal cleanup). His idea was to capture 90% of the market with a cheaper product, while shafting 10% of the consumers and shamelessly send them to other vendors when they reported their troubles and he already had their money.
I thought this only applies to LLM inference providers, but not raw GPU rentals.
reply