HN rank: 1

HN score: 746

comments: 374

original url: https://www.anthropic.com/claude-haiku-5-5

评论信号：Pelicans riding bicycles for Haiku at the different thinking levels: https://tools.simonwillison.net/markdown-svg-renderer?url=ht...Low messes up the bicycle frame, but medium/high/xhigh/max all get the bicycle frame right.The max one took 5 minutes 9 seconds and cost 3.3826 cents. The cheapest one (low) cost 0.0936 cents and took 7 seconds.The most recent release of my llm-anthropic plugin queries the Anthropic model listing API directly, so I didn't have to upgrade the plugin to add support for this model: llm install llm-anthropic -U llm anthropic refresh llm -m claude-haiku-5.5 'prompt goes here'

EDIT: Here's the Haiku 4.5 pelican from a year ago for comparison, it was terrible: https://simonwillison.net/2025/Oct/15/claude-haiku-45/ reply: thinking_effort: max Reasoning trace: This is the classic pelican-on-bicycle SVG test.Opus 5.5 had similar response on max: This is a classic test requesthttps://tools.simonwillison.net/markdown-svg-renderer?url=ht...I think your test is already embedded into the models. You should search for new frontier tests to subject the models to. Maybe they should now try to unify the standard model and general relativity in physics....

评论信号：Pricing is...a bit weird. Input $0.10 / MTok for prompts up to 100,000 tokens $0.50 / MTok for prompts over 100,000 tokens

Output $0.50 / MTok for prompts up to 100,000 tokens $2.50 / MTok for prompts over 100,000 tokens

100k tokens is an absurdly low cutoff and it is only applicable to Haiku and not Sonnet or Opus. It's a low enough cutoff that it will be quickly exceeded if you are doing anything with Agents; for typical generation or Jev-like classifiers, it's a good value and as noted in this article, that is apparently the vast majority of Haiku use.In both cases, still much cheaper than Haiku 4.5's $1 input / $5 output and these prices better compete with GPT-6 Luna. ($0.10 input / $0.50 output, but with no token threshold [EDIT: the threshold for Luna is apparently 272k]) reply: Haiku 5.5 is noticeably smarter than GPT-6 Luna, so I can see their pricing strategy here.For a while Anthropic has lacked a cost effective “cheap” LLM for summarisation, compacting, RAG helpers, etc.These ‘ephemeral’ workloads are often under 100k tokens, or can be structured to be under 100k.In some coding benchmarks, Haiku 5.5 beats Sonnet 5! (Especially implementation;...

评论信号：> Second, this week, we’ll roll out a new monthly API credit to all Max and Team subscribers for use on the Claude Platform. Max 5x users will get $100 in credits per month, Max 20x users will get $200, and Team subscribers will receive up to $500, pooled across their usersThis is a very big benefit for me. I can now ship actual ai enhanced features behind my subscription without paying extra or fully relying on on-device models. I do worry that this is to soften the blow for user-unfriendly changes reply: This is them sneaking in taking the Claude Agent SDK (claude -p) off of subscription plans through the back door along with a model release. They previously wanted to do this in June, but backpedaled after huge backlash:https://support.claude.com/en/articles/15036540-use-the-clau...

HN rank: 2

HN score: 988

comments: 110

original url: https://news.mit.edu/2026/margaret-hamilton-computing-pioneer-dies-1007

评论信号：I was able to meet her, and others who worked at the MIT Instrumentation/Draper Lab, as a start-up I was with received funding from a VC firm founded by other Draper Lab members from the Apollo era. I was totally out of my league talking with them. This was thirty years ago and I remember her talking about formalized control systems. It was fascinating but went totally over my head. My startup was a fairly silly multimedia CD-ROM company and I was just happy to be in the room.

评论信号：Dang. She was a remarkable stand-out, in fields full of remarkable people.The pic here is often people's first intro to her https://news.mit.edu/2016/scene-at-mit-margaret-hamilton-apo... reply: “There was no choice but to be pioneers” is a great line.

评论信号：Related:Margaret Hamilton Led the NASA Software Team That Landed Astronauts on the Moon - https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=36720448 - July 2023 (32 comments)Margaret Hamilton oral history (2017) - https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=30668338 - March 2022 (7 comments)An interview with Margaret Hamilton - https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=20453737 - July 2019 (12 comments)Grace Hopper and Margaret Hamilton Awarded Presidential Medal of Freedom - https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=12991524 - Nov 2016 (70 comments)Profile of Margaret Hamilton, programmer of the Apollo software - https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=10379904 - Oct 2015 (58 comments)Margaret Hamilton, lead software engineer, Project Apollo - https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=8735912 - Dec 2014 (94 comments)

HN rank: 3

HN score: 49

comments: 9

original url: https://100r.ca/site/home.html

评论信号：They are living in their dream and doing incredible work.a recent interview: https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=x8yKp1qdWh8&pp=ygURZGV2aW5lIGx... reply: I remember a talk from them at Strange Loop, fascinating life living on a boat and trying to keep software running despite power and connectivity.

评论信号：ive been following these folks for, i think maybe a decade. very cool.

评论信号：yes! the designers of orca, a very cool esolang for music composition

HN rank: 4

HN score: 103

comments: 44

original url: https://www.science.org/content/article/how-did-rosalind-franklin-miss-helix-her-iconic-dna-image-she-didn-t

评论信号：If I read Franklin's notes this establishes that she did in fact conceive of a double helix and base complementarity in the center (I can't see if she also recognized it was antiparallel).That's the first actual evidence I've seen (I am a DNA nerd and have been trying to understand what her contribution to the intellectual discovery of DNA's double-helix antiparalel).I would need to go back to Judson's book (Eighth Day of Creation) and see if he actually missed this. reply: I happen to be reading Judson right now. Quoting from it here:> It is easy to feel great sympathy with Franklin. The fact remains that she never made the inductive leap... before she learned about the model proposed by Watson and Crick, she and Gosling began to draft a paper to state their conclusions so far about the B structure. That draft also survived among Franklin’s papers. It was vigorous, clear, and limited. Klug and I went over it one afternoon in his office. “You see, she was lacking one final step,” Klug said. “Well, two steps. What she missed was the presence of the dyad—the symmetry of the molecule. Which Francis had seen immediately from her information about the space group....

评论信号：I think this is a better article on the topic:https://www.nature.com/articles/d41586-023-01313-5It seems like there are several different parts to the discovery of the "structure of DNA" and different people contributed.1. DNA is helical2. DNA is a double helix3. The ACGT copying mechanismPart 1 was Franklin and Wilkins. Part 3 was Watson and Crick. Part 2 is the part under debate, to what degree was the double helix clear from just Franklin's imaging?But really, how much does it matter? It seems like the four of them each contributed a lot. The Nobel prize only went to the other three, in large part because Franklin died before it was given out. reply: > But really, how much does it matter? It seems like the four of them each contributed a lot. The Nobel prize only went to the other three, in large part because Franklin died before it was given out.A Nobel can only be split among 3. Agree with the rest of your post.

评论信号：Clickbait headline which misframes the controversy, to nobody's benefit.Helical DNA was the strongest candidate by 51, in part because earlier and cruder X-ray diffraction images had existed for some time (10+ years) and were suggestive of this structure. All of the scientists in question, and many others, collaborated on that possibility at that time, and long before 'Photo 51'. It was not a surprise, but rather the focus of their work.Franklin was making the famous improved images with the explicit intent of revealing or disproving the helical structure. She and her lab produced the most definitive evidence for helical B-DNA (Photo 51) in early 52, but during 52 the conclusion was still a matter of debate (and humor) amongst them - in particular Franklin was not convinced that A-DNA was helical. From Wiki:> In July 1952, as a practical joke on Wilkins (who frequently expressed his view that both forms of DNA were helical), Franklin and Gosling produced a funeral notice regretting the 'death' of helical A-DNAThis left the molecular structure and number of strands as open questions. Triple helix models had been attempted by Pauling, Watson and Crick at that time....

HN rank: 5

HN score: 70

comments: 6

original url: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cleo_(mathematician)

评论信号：The page states:In late 2023, a Reddit user known as "evilscientist311" conducted a comprehensive analysis of Cleo's activity patterns and interactions with other Stack Exchange accounts.However, I and others were on the scent at least as far back as April, 2023. See for example: https://x.com/TheDavidSJ/status/1650957407902658571

评论信号：I think there are some interesting parallels between what the Cleo account did, and what the large AI companies are doing now with some of the proofs for previously unsolved theorems.There may be some value in the answers, but for some the value is in the understanding of how to get from the problem to the solution.I wouldn't call myself a mathematician, but I encountered a few problems in my CS classes where I could work through the proof by hand, see that an algorithm works, and even mathematically prove it, but yet still didn't feel like I understood why it worked, or how the algorithm was invented/derived. But for many, the fact that it did work was enough.

评论信号：Were any of the 39 answers to a question that was not likely to be from a sock puppet?Doesn’t necessarily make the solutions less impressive, but it’s kind of a relevant detail that is left out in the Wikipedia summary. reply: Well, it does make the solutions less impressive, right? Because it's much easier to compute the inverse of an integral than an integral. What's impressive here is more in composing problems that have nice answers and can't be solved by computer algebra systems, then the sock puppet trick to conceal that you ha the answer all along.