Did you consider doing it as a computer use task? Probably I find those more compelling

It's what I did for my game benchmark https://d.erenrich.net/paperclip-bench/index.html

not really. I've downloaded balatro. I saw that it was moddable. I wrote a mod API to interact programmatically. I was just curious if, from text only game state representation, a LLM would be able to make some decent play. the benchmark was a late pivoting.

why not use a classification of food that actually aligns with what is bad? it seems like we don't actually know. Nova combines a bunch of different attributes some of which we don't actually think are causally linked to bad health.

Feel free to publish one?

People do this, and the good ones don't have anything to do with processed food, or if they do, it's entirely superfluous. The Mayo Clinic publishes on this topic and, as I recall, strongly recommends the Mediterranean diet - high in fiber and protein, nutritionally diverse, inclusive of fats and carbohydrates.

I know multiple people that are drinking litres of olive oil daily because of the Mediterranean diet. Because of this critical oversight, I am forced to conclude it's bogus. A real recommendation would address this.

I don't understand anything you're saying. A diet can not compel you to do anything, let alone drink liters of olive oil. I assume this is attempting to parody something about Nova but I frankly can't unpack whatever it's supposed to be.

nobody has a good definition of ultra-processed food

People keep saying that in this comment section like it’s a reason to stop talking about why some foods are addictive and lead to bad health outcomes. Who benefits when we do that?

does he need spacex/xai to prop up tesla or the other way around?

Tesla is still very profitable, as is SpaceX I assume. Twitter/X has been a $44 billion dollar failure, and xAI is a vanity project so Musk can go around saying he is a player in the AI space. Investors in both X and xAI need to be bailed out, hence this announcement.

Tesla has a P/E in the hundreds and a ~0.3% market cap to profit ratio. In what world is this "very" profitable?

In the world where it makes $8-10B in profit on $90-95 billion in revenue every year. Whatever price investors choose to trade the stock at is irrelevant to those numbers.

It's actually down to $3.8B in profit now, and will be losing money within a year at the rate its been losing profitability.

2% net return on assets is garbage

The $44B Twitter/X buyout was not a failure. For example Fidelity has its $19M investment in the buyout - now xAI common shares - marked at $62M (up over 3X) as of 12/31/25. It was certainly valued even higher on 1/31/26 after xAI had an oversubcribed fund raise in January. All before this merger announcement.

The fact that it had to be successively bailed out by xAI (which itself was funded by Tesla) and now SpaceX shareholders is exactly what makes the acquisition a failure.

He spent other people's money (or maybe even imaginary money) he couldn't have used for himself (since selling off major stakes in your company is a big nono)

A "bailout" is when a company rescued from bankruptcy. Common equity holders take large losses or are wiped out. This did not happen here.

We also know the Twitter buyout debt was sold at near par before the merger with xAI which is inconsistent with being near bankruptcy.

> xAI had an oversubcribed fund raise in January

My understanding is that it was not oversubscribed and would not have closed without Tesla’s investment.

It was originally for $15B. They raised $20B of which $2B was from Tesla.

Your sources might be shady (Elektrek?).

I think its an effort to position SpaceX as an AI company in order to justify some ridiculous valuation at IPO.

I think it's more so that the upcoming new public shareholders of SpaceX bail out his X/xAI misadventure.

Do you genuinely not think that "Elon" (xAI) is player in the AI space?

You don't have to think they have the best models of course, but they are clearly a very significant, and some might argue, leading player in the AI race.

> and some might argue, leading player in the AI race

What is this argument exactly? What are they leading?

It is a real model, real datacenters, and deployed heavily on their social media platform.

That's the full stack? Only other player that vertically setup is facebook, google and microsoft.

xAI’s models are really not pioneering at all. They weren’t the first to do MoE. Not the first to do open weighting, not the first to have memory or multi-modal vision.

So no, I wouldn’t say Elon is a major player in the AI space. People use his models because they are cheap and are willing to undress people’s photos.

saying they aren't pioneering is very different than saying they aren't a major player in the space. There're only like 5-7 players with a foundational model that they can serve at scale. xAI is one of them

I suspect SpaceX will acquire Tesla at some point. It’s the most profitable of these companies. So basically SpaceX employees and shareholders are covering up for the failing Tesla business and the already-failed xAI business.

Let’s not forget, xAI is the parent of Twitter/X (the social network). So now, taxpayers are paying to keep Twitter/X alive. After all, it is taxpayer money going to the contracts the government gives SpaceX for launches. Nice way to subsidize what is effectively a one sided campaign machine for the GOP and far right.

> I suspect SpaceX will acquire Tesla at some point.

I think that is also likely, unless Tesla can stage a major turnaround, it is going to be beaten by Chinese competitors nearly everywhere that they are allowed (which is everywhere but the USA.)

This was my immediate thought as well. A great time to ask yourself — why am I literally paying for any of this? At best I literally don't use any of these services, at worst they are actively used against me.

I get what you're saying, but that taxpayer money is paying for the launch services at a very competitive rate (possibly the cheapest of all available options), not a subsidy scheme.

> I suspect SpaceX will acquire Tesla at some point.

Tesla will have to lose its meme status first, otherwise they would be paying real money to make the acquisition close. The other acquisitions are using VC valuations which Musk has a big hand in. Matt Levine did a whole thing on it when xAI acquired X.

I guess the difference is Tesla is a public company, so requires more paperwork. SpaceX isn't public yet, but will be soon, meaning it will have a cash infusion.

analysts are kinda irrelevant when a stock isn't connected to fundamentals anyways

such tools cost 10-20/mo usually?

i'm a big fan of IA and wayback machine. i donate. but i do wish it were faster. i understand that would cost a lot more though.

i wonder if maybe donors above a certain level could get priority on archiving pages or something.

The reason is personal preference. Same reason people buy sports cars. I also wish their preferences were different

Reply to the sibling comment about little to no negative externalities:

Sports cars sure do have negative externalities. I live next to a custom car mod shop in the boonies. People hoon around here like there's no one else alive. They put my life and the lives of my family at risk on the regular. That is most definitely a negative externality.

Sports cars largely don't have any of the negative externalities of trucks.

Their fuel consumption is about the same, what externalities are you referring to?

Sure, if you're talking about high-power cars (M2, Corvette, etc). A Miata or Civic Type R will get far better fuel consumption.

And there's also wear on the road, noise, and damage to property and people when accidents happen (physics is a bitch).

Sure, if you’re talking about high-power trucks (F350, Ram 3500). A Ford Maverick hybrid will get far better fuel consumption.

I think more sports cars are burning out, revving loudly (or getting modified to take out their mufflers), and the damage from going a lot faster creates more damage.

It might depend on where you live. Nine times out of then when a vehicle with an obnoxiously loud and high revved gear vehicle drives by it's a truck. Probably more like 95% of the time.

Around here, it's usually beater Accords or other random generic sedans. With fake LEds, slammed to the ground, and lots of dents.

No, you just don’t dislike them enough to find them.

HN has hated Trucks and American cars, except when Tesla came out, for as long as I’ve been here. Same with Reddit.

It's pretty funny how much truck rage there is here.

It’s crazy to me. If you hate automobiles, trucks still make the most sense- if you’re just carrying people and a grocery or two you should probably be on a bike or ebike.

That is quite a European take there. Most places in the US do not have safe pedestrian infrastructure mandating "share the road" policies with bicycles which puts you into direct contact with motor vehicle traffic, and suburban spread means you're probably not close enough to walk to your grocer.

Bikes and cars can easily coexist on streets, and if the street is too big/busy I bet there's a parallel side road that is much better. If you are too lazy to walk to your nearest grocer, ride a bike.

It is true that some sacrifices and brief periods of discomfort must be made if you care for the environment, this is nothing new and generally accepted.

Why wouldn't they have already been looking for a way to make their food more palatable? There was already a lot of money on the line

I think if there were certain foods which, for some reason, aren't as affected by Ozempic-type drugs' (GLP-1 agonists?) appetite suppression effect - and I'm not an expert, but I totally wouldn't be surprised if there was - then I think the food industry would be very interested in finding them.

Because this is the language of the trump administration. Everything needs to be momentus. The good must always be beating an unknown and all powerful enemy