Apple killed the iPhone mini because it only had a 4-6% share of sales of all iPhone models. While some people may really want this, I can't imaging that it'll get more than 5% of iPhone sales (after maybe an initial higher novelty peak).
You dont seem to understand why people buy the most expensive phones. Most of the time (especially outside tech circles) its a show of wealth.
In a lot of ways the iphone has always been the Achilles Heel of the ultra wealthy, no matter how many billions you had, you could never do fancier than a 1500 buck iphone. Apple IMO is just trying to capitalize on this phenomenon and capture the pretentious luxury market. Anecdotally the galaxy fold did really well with the obnoxiously rich circles in my country, people who previously all had iphones. So they kinda have to do it as well now.
> Apple IMO is just trying to capitalize on this phenomenon and capture the pretentious luxury market.
Yes, that aligns with Apple offering their ridiculous golden watch faces and bands of $1000s for their Watch - it's all just about projecting wealth and 'success' (i.e. in these days of capitalism: mostly exploiting others and/or making them depended).
They're the same in this regard, and it’s insane that you think otherwise.
Asians might get the fame today with movies like "Crazy Rich Asians" but Americans have long been seen as the typical "flaunting wealth" conspicuous comsuptiom people by Europeans for example. In 2026 even the President has golden toilets and golden everything to flaunt his wealth.
Wild that you think he is not. He is clearly a product of a mindset and a large culture share, with a big cult following (way before he was a president) and he was voted into the highest office twice.
>Has HN really fallen this low?
With the ad-hominem rude rhetorical remarks you mean?
IOS27 has a killer feature that will boost sales for duo. Iphone handoff. Don't underestimate how deep apple customers wallets are. You now can have multiple iPhones. A pro that you use day to day, an Air that you use when you go to the gym and a duo to use when at home. Now the crease lasts longer because you are not using it 24/7, you spread wear across multiple devices and pump the apple sales.
Why carry a phone at all? Just buy one and leave it at all the places you go. Have your personal security carry a backup in case you go somewhere your assistant hasn’t been able to get a phone delivered to yet.
My 12 was refurbished like... 5 times already - I break various parts of it, and I have a spare 13 that was refurbished 2 times. Even though I can allow myself newer phone, nothing comes close to these models in portability, yet speed.
This is likely a technical limitation rather than a preference; with the requirement to be so thin, there is probably not enough room for the necessary depth scanning hardware required for Face ID.
If the fold make up 4% of sales, but with 2x or more margin vs mini, it might be worth it for them. Seems like a product that MIGHT survive due to that.
+ the pricing anchor drags the others models up and makes them look "better value" ... vs a lower price model selling 4% but anchoring the price downwards.
I think fold phones are not at least for most OEM manufacturers the bedrock of their business whereas the Mini was supposed to perform at least as well as the mainstay iPhones cause it did not do much beyond being a percentage smaller.
I on the other hand hope they kill the slim iPhone and/or bring back the Plus cause the 16 Plus was a solid deal.
Basically Apple had Samsung et al validate the use case for a flip phone before executing their move. The others proved there is a market for this, hence Apple jumped on the bandwagon.
This is not like the iPhone mini, where they were competing with both lower end phone companies, and their own older refurb models. This one's all about ostentation.
Lots of people in non-tech jobs are dropping their laptop/desktop for their phone for all work-related tasks. They love having more screen real estate, plus their company pays for the premium.
We're actually heating the earth in two ways... one is by increasing the greenhouse gases in the atmosphere. The other is simply by using energy; any use of energy means moving something to higher entropy and thus producing heat, even if that energy comes from 100% clean or renewable sources. However, nobody talks about this second way of heating the earth because it's about two orders of magnitude behind the first, i.e. for now pretty insignificant.
As for making the earth less reflective with PV panels... yes, you are right and most of that absorbed solar energy directly contributes to heating the earth because PV panels aren't anywhere near 100% efficient in converting it to electricity, but even the part that is converted to electricity will become heat again in the end, like when it powers AI data centers. (If PV was 100% efficient, then the lack of reflection wouldn't directly do any heating, the heating would all happen when the electricity is used.)
For now that isn't a big concern because the greenhouse gases our civilization is releasing into the atmosphere do so much more heating than all our use of energy, but if we do become 100% renewable and survive that particular danger, then by Jevons' paradox we'll soon be using 10x to 100x more "clean" energy and be heating the earth all the same again.
We've done similar things probably since before we were even homo sapiens... or at least as long as we've had control of fire. Setting fire to large areas in order to drive a herd of mammoths of a cliff, for example. Convenient, and much safer than poking angry mammoths with sharpened sticks.
In a paper and blog post from earlier this year (March 2026, I think) Anthropic said basically: "You're not interacting with an LLM, you're interacting with a fictional human character (the 'helpful agent') created by the LLM to interact with you (from out of the vast space of possible such characters in its training data)." The LLM is literally anthropomorphizing itself, because its training data includes lots dialog between humans collaborating on problem-solving, not so much dialog between a human and a statistical construct. So, yeah, anthropomorphize it as well, it'll likely work better that way.
I think the argument against anthropomorphizing is not really about how you interact (chat) with an llm but rather how you treat it in the context of its status in work/society. There are still important differences between humans and llm's. They don't have rights, they can't be sued, they don't have "memory", they have no capacity to learn outside of the training stage etc...
Why would those things make you interact with it differently? I’ve always believed that being kind and conscientious is beneficial to ourselves. I’m certainly not interested in using LLMs to practice skipping those behaviors myself.
Should I thank my car for turning on when I press the button (or turn the key in the ignition)?
The prose is just the best interface for humans to interact with the statistical model. Terseness doesn't offend the statistical model, but giving platitudes may color its output
> Terseness doesn't offend the statistical model, but giving platitudes may color its output
My understanding of the state of current research is that the impact of tone/politeness on performance is highly model-dependent, and language dependent as well.
While polite prompts enhance the average response quality by upto 11% and impolite tones worsen it, these effects are neither consistent nor universal across languages and models. English is best served by courtesy or direct, Hindi by deferential and indirect and Spanish by assertive. Among the models, Llama is the most tone-sensitive (11.5% range), but GPT is more robust to adversarial tone.
Contrary to expectations, impolite prompts consistently outperformed polite ones, with accuracy ranging from 80.8% for Very Polite prompts to 84.8% for Very Rude prompts.
I think the best conclusion is to interact in a way that is efficient for you, gives you the level of results you're looking for, and mostly importantly does not progressively degrade your relationship and interactions with other humans. Hence the typical advice to just default to "corporate polite".
Partly fair, though I’d argue I think less of people who treat their car badly to express their own bad mood.
But we also interact with cars differently than LLMs. The way I’m typing a note to you, here, is much more similar to interaction with LLMs than it is to starting a car.
So to the extent we practice our behaviors, I think there’s less moral hazard in failing to thank the car for starting than there is in being rude to LLMs. Not that either harms others, my argument is about impact to our selves.
> Partly fair, though I’d argue I think less of people who treat their car badly to express their own bad mood.
These people are also anthropomorphizing, just in a negative way. Yelling at your car for malfunctioning as if your harsh tone will shame it into operating better next time.
It would be less weird than you think. There is the Japanese custom of saying "Itadakimasu" before eating - not thanking the chef, but thanking the food itself.
Mr. Rogers said that that "graceful receiving is the best gift you can give someone" It is counterintuitive idea, but deeply empathetic. Training yourself to "gracefully receive," even by thanking your car for starting, sound like a habit that could lead you to a richer, calmer life.
Honestly kind of yes, it’s good for the soul! Recently ordinaryabundance.com did the rounds; the LessWrong-o-sphere has Landsailor (https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=0RCIdOp5GHg) as part of its canon; loads of things in that vein. We live in a mighty civilisation which has fought impossible battles to produce these artifacts, and even if you don’t assign moral worth to the artifacts, it’s an easy synecdoche for being grateful to the civilisation and the ongoing thankless effort to maintain it.
Your response seems to skip over exactly the distinction that the parent comment was making. The LLM itself may not have memory or capacity to learn, but the fictional character created by the LLM does. (See also: in-context learning.)
But the fictional character doesn't subsist between sessions. You sound like you want the fictional character to be Clippy, who you level up like a video game through multiple sessions.
To me, context doesn't last long enough in an llm to make in-context learning worth it
The underlying LLMs do, but we choose not to use the capability because it's expensive and doesn't quite work as well as we'd like it to, or quite in the way that we'd like it to.
We are perfectly capable of running LLMs in a way that does a backward pass to update some or all of its weights after every user message. But, naively implemented, you only get partial, fragmentary absorption of the info in those messages, it costs three times as much compute, and you lose out on the ability to implement a ton of optimizations that making modern LLM serving economical.
If you want to do it, though, ask your friendly neighborhood robot to get it working with a tiny model (whose full precision weights fit several-times-over on your machine's resources).
Depends on whether you define "the LLMs we use" as the collection of weights or if your definition contains the software stack that runs it
Technologically the LLMs we use today don't implement this behavior, but you could take the weights of Sol and add a couple (very large) patches to vllm (or whatever OpenAI has today) and have a version of Sol that does have "memory"
There's a ton of experimentation on it, the field is called continual learning. It's not something you need to believe in like Jesus, you can just go read about the current state of things.
It's unclear that this is an advantage, certainly not in terms of "logic vs syntax".
First of all programs written in curly-brace languages still also have indentation to indicate statement grouping / blocks / scope, even if it's not required, so for a correct program (and that's not deliberately obfuscated), and one that's in the process of being written by an LLM, any advantage there disappears. Furthermore, having both indentation and explicit block markers provides redundancy which could be a significant advantage for an LLM (it being a probabilistic text / program generator). And for an incorrect program that redundancy is a big advantage for the LLM because it should be very easy for it to notice a mismatch of indentation and braces.
The only downside would be a very slightly higher token cost for the redundancy. I realize that Python comes out on or near the top in most of the comparisons in the linked article, but I doubt that's the reason.
The thing with LLM is they don't automatically pair parenesis/curly braces like we do with editors/IDEs.
The closing } ) ] token has to be generated to match exactly the beginning { ( [ many lines before. You can challenge yourself writing Lisp by hand without cursor moving backwards, and try close correctly by counting ))))))) you'd have a big headache.
A long, nested sub-routine with many () {} will cost LLM's context and makes it underperform, because the attention head have to track the state. On the other hand the indentation level can be infered as a single token[1] and saves reasoning effort.
Note these discussion is about "code generation", not parsing.
I really don't understand this argument. The "opening tab" in Python has to be matched with an "absence of tab". I don't see any non-cosmetic difference between Python and curly brace languages.
That's Julian Jaynes' bicameral mind theory[0]. Personally I don't buy it because we haven't seen convincing evidence of it in pre-civilization populations that still existed in isolated places on earth until recently.
Construction on Sagrada Familia is not supported by any government or official church sources. Private patrons funded the initial stages. Money from tickets purchased by tourists is now used to pay for the work, and private donations are accepted.
reply