Nuclear reactors are in a delicate balance, they are in constant feedback loops that means an unexpected power drop or an unexpected rise can cascade. The withdrawal of the others rods is not specifically in response to one being dropped in accidentally - it will be in response to the drop in the power output.
There's not a safety risk from doing this because the control systems are doing this to specifically stay within the stable power output.
There are some significant negative consequences from the power dropping excessively and unexpectedly. One of them is an excessive build-up of Xenon in the reactor which is a feedback loop that continues to reduce fission (known as Xenon poisoning) and is one of the underlying causes of the Chernobyl incident. Now, as far as I'm aware there are no Nuclear reactors running today that are _unsafe_ if they encounter Xenon poisoning - but it's not something you want to stumble into.
If there were a genuine safety concern related to a control rod drop then the reactor would scram and the _all_ the rods would drop and the reactor would need to be restarted.
For a personal project I’ve been piloting Spec driven development (SDD), (it’s contagious!), using Cursor and EARS statements. The strategy has been to use the frontier model to write the spec and a lessor model to write the tests and code and the frontier model to write critiquing prompts until it has nothing left to say. For my particular project there are two programs (or in human speak phases), where each program is broken up into milestones which are then comprised of a series of tasks. I experimented a lot with different models as the reviewer / spec model and the implementor model. Kimi 3 was super expensive as spec model and grok and OpenAI models always got something wrong egregiously. The Opus line of models have been the only ones to really grasp the project and I feel write great specs. Because I use cursor I settled on using groc for test routing and code implementation. I’m not sure if this is the most efficient method but I believe it’s building a large project solidly
I think this is the main one. The benchmarks from this are heavily cherry-picked, and they also widely publicised their performance for 4.5 while downplaying the fact the benchmarks were "accidentally" in their training set
The choices were clearly (far) less important than having the best model and a good product that was way ahead of the competition.
However, that's not the same as the technology choices not mattering at all. As others have mentioned the product is buggy, and it appears Anthropic are struggling to continue to release new features within the existing architecture.
That's also not to say that Anthropic made bad choices - there's always going to be a tension between building quickly to capture the market now vs moving slower and building something more maintainable in the long-term.
No, they haven't done that yet. It's just a proposal, but it's not likely to be formally stopped until 2035.
The reason we've stopped having leap seconds is because the drift between TAI and UT1 slowed down and has actually been very slowly drifting in the other direction.
I don't think we know this do we? we haven't been measuring accurately enough for long enough to be confident that it does in fact cancel out. In fact for the period of time where we've been applying leap seconds they were happening with significant frequency and always in the same direction. It's only been very recently that there's been the realistic suggestion it might drift in the other direction.
If anything people have been suggesting that if we do get rid of leap seconds that we can just wait until the offset is enormous instead (say an hour) because it would take a very long time to happen. But even still, that does actually affect everyday people (because people would surely notice when solar noon is an hour later/earlier). Although pragmatically the obvious solution there is to change timezone instead.
Pre-GPU times you'd be right, but these days a 4U server could have 8 GPUs pulling 350+ watts each. A washing machine sized unit could contain perhaps 4 of these 4U servers so the unit as a whole could be drawing upwards of 11kW.
The magic 50% ownership isn't relevant for that purpose. There are special provisions which means that the Foundation effectively exerts full control over the company because it appoints the entire board.
I'm thinking of switching to Zen which is a Firefox based clone of Arc
reply