Good observation. There are so many versions of the future that just become an LLM arms race.

I like your analogy; but of course, there comes a point where reducing weight in an automobile does have downsides: it might be more noisy because of reduced sound deadening, less safe because of removal of crash structures, less waterproof because of removed seals, and so on.

The point being, in both cases, the virtue lies in finding the optimal balance: maximising the benefits of frugality without going too far and falling down the other side of the curve.

Agreed, especially for something like this that might get used a handful of times (I’m assuming most people don’t have myriad cables or want to check them regularly?)

The problem of course is that on my 14” screen the area to the right of the notch is already close to full and I don’t even have that many things there…

Qwen3.6 is brand new. But also, search engines are so plastered with AI slop that is written by tools and companies that have no interest in you using local models. Ollama makes it 1 command to run local small models, but with the newest ones there can be kinks to work out first.

/R/localllama is okay for some information but beyond that there is so much noise and very little signal. I think it's intentional.

Thanks. I’ve been experimenting with local models for over a year now, on and off, so this isn’t just limited to the latest Qwen. Anyway, I have no problem running them, but there’s a huge difference between running something via a chat interface and running it a la Claude Code so that it can interact with the local environment and create/edit files. This is the aspect that’s difficult, in my experience.

It’s all about tooling, if the ai can fetch data it can do something rad with it. Use something like an ai harness to have an mcp server and other tooling to improve the harness and the tools I made this for my own learning: GitHub.com/ralabarge/beigebox

I don’t know whether there’s a US vs. Europe difference on this, but I failed to get my (European) bank to do this a while back when Tesla continued to take money for a subscription after I’d given the car back. (I had to kill that credit card and write the small amount off in the end.)

While chargeback laws are a bit more restrictive in some EU countries, you should always have the option to ask your bank to block future charges, without changing your card.

A couple of years ago i found out netflix account was stolen, email address changed but card continued to be associated with the account. I couldn't login. Called Amex explained the situation and asked to block future payments. They refused on the basis that I agreed (originally) for netflix to take the subscription fee monthly so I had to contact netflix to solve to do this. Amex. The age where consumers have power over who takes money from them is gone

Totally. It’s usually a lack of time, lack of energy, general ‘life getting in the way’, that leads me to drift away from a side-project.

These factors can always be reversed. And (whisper it) a bit of vibe-coding can also help unstick a project that ground to a halt because the next step was dull implementation rather than exciting creation.

Why in the world would you get downvoted for this?

Indeed; a "European" router serving mostly US models is (deliberately?) missing the point.

How come?

You can use it with just European models if you want.

If you think a routing service based in one country should only use the models from that country, I think you may be the one who is missing the entire point of a routing service in the first place.

It’s the other way around. People are concerned about the various implications of the US and China owning all of the best models, and Europe not really being at the races (Mistral noted). Switching to a European router achieves very little against the current backdrop.

> The struggle is the high level regulatory bodies (with the exception of aberrations such as the current admin's approach to appointment) generally select for individuals with a low risk tolerance.

This may be true, but I don't think it's the major driver of conservatism. Two thoughts/observations:

1) Bodies like the FDA face a strongly skewed set of incentives. If they take a risk on something and people get hurt, they face huge public criticism. If they take a risk on something and it's all fine, very few people care or notice. As such, they are strongly driven to not make a public mistake - which drives ever more conservatism.

2) FDA can actually be innovative compared to other health authorities. Breakthrough therapy designation, Project Optimus, Project Frontrunner, and others - show this. However, they've got a strong 'not invented here' mindset - they flatly refuse well-meaning individual innovations from pharma companies, if they're not compatible with FDA's guidelines. And they're heavily bureaucratic, meaning the innovations that do appear are usually following years of process (which probably links back to #1).

> Which illnesses have been cured? Diabetes, cancer?

Type I diabetes - no, but this is a condition in which the body attacks the part of itself that makes insulin. So by the time it happens, it's too late. Sadly, we're generally bad at understanding and preventing autoimmune diseases, but this needs more basic research, not drugs.

Type II diabetes - essentially a lifestyle condition. May be functionally cured in some/many cases with strict lifestyle interventions. Ironically, GLP-1s may help move some people towards a functional cure.

Cancer - yes, where possible. The open secret is that the best way to fight cancer is to not get it in the first place, or failing that to catch it very early, but these are issues of lifestyle and public health policy - both of which we're currently very bad at optimising, as a species.

> All the financial upside for pharmaceuticals is in prolonged treatments.

Except for the examples to the contrary.

> To be clearer, Pharma is chasing a nice long treatment plan, that will require expensive drugs till the end. Pharma does not heal - this is not good for business.

This is a trope regurgitated by people who don't know any better. It would imply that pharma are deliberately avoiding research directions that would generate cures, or (even worse) discovering cures and putting them in a dark secret safe somewhere.

The reality is that drug development is serendipitous and really hard, and any company seeing even a sniff of a drug that works will throw everything behind making that drug a success. During the early stages of investigation of a promising new agent, the animal data can't predict much, and certainly can't predict whether something is "curative" - this would only be seen during human trials, after which hiding that benefit would be close to impossible. It's just not how it works.

There are plenty of examples of actual (rather than functional) cures being developed and marketed:

1) Previously-untreated DLBCL (a type of blood cancer) can be cured. CHOP chemotherapy cured ~35-40% of cases. The addition of rituximab boosted that to 60-65%. There then followed a long string of failed phase III studies (probably billions spent, cumulatively) trying to beat rituximab + CHOP, and finally in recent years there has been some success. So: multiple attempts across multiple pharma companies, trying to improve on an already impressive cure rate... not much evidence of an anti-cure conspiracy.

2) Hepatitis C - cures were discovered and marketed from ~2014 onwards; now ~95% of cases can be cured with a treatment lasting only a couple of months. So: multiple treatments, from multiple pharma companies, which offer a hugely effective cure for a pretty unpleasant disease.