For your math to make sense, Google would have to sell its stake this year
There may be more to it than buying compute but what you're saying does not make sense for Google. More likely Google wants a good relationship with SpaceX and possibly to buoy the stock, but it's a bad NPV trade
dangerous thing to believe IMO
The models will get better, you will notice, everyone will notice. They will get better at coding and everything else. You should plan around that.
CSS is badly designed and uses a confusing, separate DSL with arbitrary rules designed before the Internet was widely used, before web apps existed, before smartphones etc
It's trash and throwing it out is good. Not learning it is good. Tailwind is a solution to a real problem.
More importantly, AI is good at it already and it's unlikely humans will need to understand HTML/CSS at all within a year or two. There's no reason to spend time learning how the gears work, just put the cover back on
Having gone through the SOC2 process multiple times and having worked with and read SOC2 reports from many public companies, it's difficult for me to understand the outrage.
The specific fraud allegations are bad (lying about US based auditors) but it's completely normal and common for soc2 reports to be templates with no company specific information. It would be unusual for reports to include anything about the specific information found during an observation window as some have suggested.
SOC2 is basically fake and it isn't possible in practice to fail to be compliant. You really can apply the same template to all companies and automate the audit process.
No the title is correct and you are misreading or didn't read. It was found with Claude code, that's the quote. This isn't a model eval, it's an Anthropic employee talking about Claude code. So comparing to other models isn't a thing to reasonably expect.
How many people have you interviewed and hired? I have interviewed around 400 and hired around 20, and I've seen data compiled on over 100,000 interviews. I have never worried about a false negative, except DEI stuff pre-2021
> I am just not a fan of these types of interviews they tell absolutely nothing about the candidate.
Unfortunately this is wrong and I have seen tons of data at 5 companies showing this. These kinds of interviews really do correlate well with job performance
There is noise, but large companies in particular need a scalable process and this one works pretty well
Startups shouldn't do this though, but the reason is the opposite of what you're complaining about. It's too easy to accidentally waste your time on somebody who is good at leetcode
to clarify, this behavior was announced with the model release