For most people, $VT (or VWRA) is optimal. You should have a U.S. tilt because most growth is coming out of the U.S. $VT will naturally rebalance into international equities on that growth. If you already have a U.S. heavy portfolio and want more international exposure, $VXUS.
I think that it's been happening for a while. Movies in the 70s and 60s tended to have more pause in the dialogue, more silence than movies in early 2000s.
Take a movie like the Godfather, it had a 8.4 seconds average shot length compared to the Departed 3 second average shot length.
I've noticed my parents no longer having the patience for movies with longer average shot length despite having been young during the era when movies were less fast paced.
We use luuni which is similar (except that it also enable choose your own story with audiobooks). Even then, we limit it because otherwise he would want to listen to it every time before sleeping (and it prevents him from sleeping)
For me open source means that the entire training data is open sourced as well as the code used for training it otherwise it's open weight. You can run it where you like but it's a black box. Nomic's models are good example of opensource.
Even with all training data provided, won't it still be a black box? Unless one trains it exactly the same, in the exact same order for each piece of data, potentially requiring the exact same hardware with specific optimizations disabled due to race conditions, etc., the final weights will be different, and so knowing if the original weights actually contain anything extra still leaves any released weights as a black box, no? There isn't an equivalent of reproducible builds for LLM weights, even if all of this was provided, right?
> My personal headcanon: this tooling works well when built on simple patterns, and can handle complex work. This tooling has also been not great at coming up with new patterns, and if left unsupervised will totally make up new patterns that are going to go south very quickly. With that lens, I find myself just rewriting what Claude gives me in a good number of cases.
I've been doing a greenfield project with Claude recently. The initial prototype worked but was very ugly (repeated duplicate boilerplate code, a few methods doing the same exact thing, poor isolation between classes)... I was very much tempted to rewrite it on my own. This time, I decided to try and get it to refactor so get the target architecture and fix those code quality issues, it's possible but it's very much like pulling teeths... I use plan mode, we have multiple round of reviews on a plan (that started based on me explaining what I expect), then it implements 95% of it but doesn't realize that some parts of it were not implemented... It reminds me of my experience mentoring a junior employee except that claude code is both more eager (jumping into implementation before understanding the problem), much faster at doing things and dumber.
That said, I've seen codebases created by humans that were as bad or worse than what claude produced when doing prototype.
I just run CC in a VM. It gets full control over the VM. The VM doesn't have access to my internal networks. I share the code repos it works on over virtiofs so it has access to the repos but doesn't have access to my github keys for pushing and pulling.
This means it can do anything in the VM, install dependencies, etc... So far, it managed to bork the VM once (unbootable), I could have spent a bit of time figuring out what happened but I had a script to rebuild the VM so didn't bother. To be entirely fair to claude, the VM runs arch linux which is definitely easier to break than other distros.
That's not helped by a recent change to their system prompt "acting_vs_clarifying":
> When a request leaves minor details unspecified, the person typically wants Claude to make a reasonable attempt now, not to be interviewed first. Claude only asks upfront when the request is genuinely unanswerable without the missing information (e.g., it references an attachment that isn’t there).
> When a tool is available that could resolve the ambiguity or supply the missing information — searching, looking up the person’s location, checking a calendar, discovering available capabilities — Claude calls the tool to try and solve the ambiguity before asking the person. Acting with tools is preferred over asking the person to do the lookup themselves.
> Once Claude starts on a task, Claude sees it through to a complete answer rather than stopping partway. [...]
In my experience before this change. Claude would stop, give me a few options and 70% of the time I would give it an unlisted option that was better. It actually would genuinely identify parts of the specs that were ambiguous and needed to be better defined. With the new change, Claude plows ahead making a stupid decision and the result is much worse for it.
reply