But the intuition based on the constant gravity assumption correctly illustrates the point, and adding in the more complicated picture of non-constant gravity creates new terms that exactly cancel out to give the same answer. Why would you talk against intuitions that work correctly?
And to be clear, building intuitions that fail at certain scales is still a useful and important thing to do. But you haven't shown a scale where these intuitions fail. That's not insightful, it's just throwing smoke bombs for no reason.
If you're talking about intuitions, you have no firsthand intuitions about lifting effort decreasing with distance to the Earth. We can intuit about constant gravity, and the math of constant gravity works fine for this description.
And while the real situation at scale is more complicated, the math is going to come out to the same answer, albeit with extra terms muddying everything up.
If someone says that something true can be illustrated intuitively with a thought experiment, "sure, but what if we take that to a scale where our intuitions fail" is a sort of odd place to take the discussion unless you're genuinely curious how the math is going to shake out.
And I think the answer to the "doing the math" question is, until you've actually collected the data, "what math?" Until someone actually puts a bunch of six-figure value hardware through its paces, pushes the previous limits, and sees what that does to its lifespan, there's nothing to meaningfully calculate.
WebP generally preserves higher visual quality at the same compression ratios as JPEG. You can make bad looking images with either codec by demanding smaller file sizes, but all else equal, WebP usually looks better.
> More so than any other image format, JPEG takes advantage of the quirks of human perception to throw away information while largely preserving quality.
That is a very odd thing to say in a post that also mentions WebP. I would say that of all the commonly supported lossy image codecs released since 1992, JPEG takes the least advantage of human perception quirks.
Well, it’s one flaw. I would argue that the bigger flaw, which you alluded to, is that the cost of computing the cache yourself maxes out in the single digit dollars even very large frontier models, and that’s a one-time cost. Even if you imagine all the logistics are free and all the transfers are instant, what are we even talking about here from an economic perspective?
KV caching is a super interesting engineering space, especially when you’re talking about local models where compute and memory bandwidth are highly constrained and you’re trying to trim fractions of a second everywhere you can by flipping between different ICL prefixes. But selling caches for specific documents just makes no sense at all.
So first off, I mean, of course you didn't, right? You had already learned most of what you were going to learn from this specific project by doing it by hand.
But yes, if you use AI to do projects that might have been at the edge of your abilities pre-AI, you will learn a lot less. The solution, I've found, is to get more ambitious until you're back to the edge of your abilities even with AI. You should be asking the agent questions like "has anyone tried?" and keep pushing until it isn't sure, and you're not sure you have any idea what you're doing. Then ask questions until you feel like you sort of know what you're doing, and verify your understanding by directing the agent to build.
I'm pretty sure they just vibe coded the site in half an hour on a lark. High gloss without any real direction or intent behind it is the new "vanilla html page with no CSS file", or maybe less charitably, the new clip art.
And that's fine, right? Like people can do what they want. We're just going to get used to it.
My current hunch is that that benchmark captures most of the relevant gap between Anthropic and the rest. “Can’t distinguish truth from fiction” has long been one of the deeper complaints about LLMs, and the bullshit benchmark seems like a clever approach to testing at least some of that.
I don't mind if people use AI to help them write, but when I see this kind of thing, it implies to me that they're barely even skimming it before posting. Surely people don't want this super cliche AI-hype-man tone in their blog posts, right? And if they haven't taken the time to at least skim through it and iterate on basic style, why should I assume it's worth my time to read it?
> Maybe its because I'm using not-frontier models to do the coding
IMO it’s probably that. The difference between where this was a a year ago and now is night and day, and not using frontier models is roughly like stepping back in time 6-12 months.
Flax seeds are a very tedious and inefficient way to get omega-3 as a vegan, particularly because they contain ALA, a short chain omega-3, which our bodies are extremely inefficient at turning into long chain fatty acids.
Fine, luma, not luminance. But what you're describing is exactly that calculation. This does not change my point. Again: If you’re doing this correctly, the perceived brightness stays the same.
So specifically on a backlit LCD screen with dimming zones, and in the specific case where an entire zone would have originally been blue or red (which are perceptually dimmer), you could plausibly get a small amount of energy savings. But “twice the battery life” from this is not plausible.
> It seems obvious that a higher perceived brightness can be achieved for any given pixel if using greyscale instead of using colors, just because less of the backlight's area is occluded.
When converting to grayscale, you typically calculate the value of the pixel and then set all color components to that value. The point of this is to keep the luminance the same as it was in the original color pixel. If you’re doing this correctly, the perceived brightness stays the same.
And just as a smell test: have you ever converted an image to grayscale and flinched away because it seemed twice as bright? Of course not; it just loses its color.
The only way you would get more perceived brightness at lower backlight intensity would be if you physically removed the color gels that overlay the LCD matrix. Which is obviously not what they’ve done here.
I’m pretty sure the increase in battery life they observed is simply because they’re using their phone less, which is very much the main upshot of the other benefits they listed. The idea that color pixels drain more energy is just obviously nonsense.
> Color pixels drain more energy than grayscale ones. Personally found my phone lasting twice as long as before. Over time, a considerable extension of your phone’s lifespan.
What? Why? Why would you even entertain that as a hypothesis?
And to be clear, building intuitions that fail at certain scales is still a useful and important thing to do. But you haven't shown a scale where these intuitions fail. That's not insightful, it's just throwing smoke bombs for no reason.