Nice but in general I wouldn't put my API key into some third party website, no matter if it claims to not store it. It's not something personal, you are a bit of a celeb here so I wouldn't think you'd save the keys, it's just good general data hygiene. Especially not if a leaked API key can rack up thousands of dollars in fees quickly.
1. The whole interface feels way too vibe coded with tons of unneeded stuff. Why does it have a console and snake game built in? Why does it have annoying sounds? Why is it full of AI slop writing? The latter is especially confusing because the first person listed under authors is a "Technical Writer". I guess the interface is the general stripe.dev page not exactly related to Kai but the post definitely is pure AI slop writing.
2. It seems to claim things that might not be substantiated like the following: "When Account Executives use Kai, they produce 2x the sales activity, create 17% more opportunities, generate 26% more revenue opportunities, and close 39% more deals when compared to the same sellers in weeks they don't use it." Correlation is not causation. If sales people have less activity (vacations or sick days etc) then they also wont use this tool much, it doesn't mean all the increase in sales is because of the tool.
3. the post talks a lot about how great this tool is but it describes nearly nothing of value to the outsider who can't access it. What were the valuable lessons learned? What's neat about it? There is not much meat imho.
It doesn't live up to my usual expectations from Stripe.
Hi, I'm Drew, Stripe's engineering blog editor. I wasn't editing back when this post was written, but #2 and #3 will help us shape future posts. Thanks for taking the time to give thoughtful feedback!
I asked Astra to describe the content of pages 214-215 of the source it cited in this article (J. Rives Childs's The History and Principles of German Military Ciphers). It said it can't and it can't find this book online either.
Is any other citations of the work available online? Like how we only know about certain historical books/ works by someone else critiquing it or quoting a small passage.
Mozilla lost the tech race and with it a lot of users. Firing a lot of their talented developers didn't help. Now Mozilla is giving up the only reason why they kept a core audience of privacy focused users by sending our browsing data to third party servers for inference just at the time when small local models are getting good enough for many/most use cases like summarization or translation. Chrome provides an API for local LLMs. Apple is trying to run as much interference locally as possible. Mozilla is worse than that. Claiming private browsing while sending data to third parties.
I don't care what their data retention policies are, I don't want my data to be sent to others full stop.
Private means it's mine, it's under my control. Handing it to third parties is not private.
I can wholeheartedly recommend Sean Carroll's Mindscape podcast if you want to listen to interesting topics related to Physics, Philosophy, Quantum Mechanics and Science in general: https://www.youtube.com/@seancarroll/videos
He has a talent for explaining complex topics in easy to understand terms and avoids the trap of outrage and controversy driven social media tricks like some others in the field.
That's simply not true. I've spent hundreds of hours listening to his AMAs and he's remarkably good at taking questions that might be confused or poorly worded and respectfully answering the best interpretation of what the person asked.
He does have an approach to certain questions to say that it's the wrong question to ask. For example, to "why does the universe exist?" he would say that the question presupposes that everything needs an explanation for why it exists, and the universe is not that kind of thing. This is actually super common in philosophy, but I could see it coming across as pompous to someone who had never heard an answer like that before. He's not saying that the question is stupid, he's saying that it literally doesn't have an answer.
That is really interesting. To me he does sound very pompous. I still like him, but he treats most questions like the person should be ashamed of having asked something so foolish.
Different interpretations of the same personality I suppose.
I don't have a great sample size but I've never thought he was being dismissive or implying something was a stupid question or someone should be ashamed of asking. However I do still think he sounds pompous, purely as a matter of the way he speaks. It's the pace, the cadence, and how he hangs on or stresses certain syllables and words. It's a recognizable style, not unique to him. Leonard Susskind has a similar one, though I'd say not as extreme. You get a more extreme form listening to various philosophers. (An example as parody here: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=leQ1bczMu7c) It usually doesn't bother me, as I can filter out the information from the presentation, but I still notice something. Reading is better than listening in part for not needing that layer of filtering.
It was really good through the pandemic and then he got a bit caught up in discussing politics, when I was just there for the quantum physics. (Was around the time after he picked up his new physics/philosophy position and moved towns)
He was very influential in pushing me to favour Many Worlds over Copenhagen, and his interviews with people like David Deutsch were gold. Might have to check out what he's doing these days.
I'll add that it's my favorite podcast to listen to while falling asleep - if you do that with podcasts. Sean uses high quality audio gear (and he ships/loans similar to his guests), so the audio is almost always top notch. He also must do what I would consider to be the bare minimum of editing to normalize volumes.
So many podcasts are unlistenable to me for bedtime, because of mismatched volume levels of host/guest or poor quality audio for the guest (through zoom or whatever). He also tends to speak in a smooth tone, with obvious inflection for emphasis (i.e. not monotone), but not irritatingly chipper or fake sounding like some other physics podcasters.
one of my biggest pet peeves is podcasts/youtube videos that would be perfect to listen to while resting, if not for some loud and obnoxious intro/outro music. Or a too-loud background muzak track. If I want muzak I'll go to the supermarket or stand in an elevator.
Seconded. I truly consider that podcast a gem of our culture. I know of no comparable resource for generally curious people willing to try and think deeply about things.
In all honesty I think this is an unfair characterization. I've listened to his podcast for a fair number of years and I think you're exaggerating quite a bit.
Mostly the episodes are specific topics with a guest who's area of research/specialty is the topic and which stay pretty well on-topic.
Most of the AMA episodes are in the area's where Carroll specialize: physics and philosophy of science. It -occasionally- veers off into politics or basketball, but it's nowhere close to 51% politics and basketball. I think the most recent AMA did have more basketball than usual, and admittedly more than I like. And I am not a fan of his politics nor do I consider his political positions especially thoughtful or insightful. But those diversions are more occasional distractions than some majority of the AMA content. And in a 3+ hour Q&A format its not surprising that he's asked about those areas where his regular listeners know that he has a particular interest or position.
Came here to say exactly this. Mindscape is great, with lots of interesting guests and topics. And new episodes come fairly frequently, 1-2 a month i think
He actually publishes a new episode every Monday! Once a month he publishes a special AMA episode which covers a lot of listener (Patreon subscribers) questions and usually is 3-4 hours long! I'm always looking forward to these especially :)
Thank you! I will never click on a you tube link without a solid prior recommendation. I really appreciate "complex topics in easy to understand terms" and look forward to checking this out.
I know consumers hate the situation with ram and storage prices right now, as do I. But at least on the bright side all this AI investment has unlocked a lot of progress in a space that didn't see huge advancements in a good while. All these 10-20% improvements gen-on-gen have resulted in upgrade cycles of well over 5 years for many use cases in order to really feel like it's worth it. RAM capacities especially have felt near stagnant for a decade.
The benchmark is very rudimentary. It does not test different levels/settings apart from its own -b 256/512 (does it affect decompression?), it doesn't measure compression time and memory usage. It does not specify parallel vs single-threaded (it mentions parallel on the one decoding number but what about the others?).
The lrzip test is interesting but it omits for example zstd and doesn't even have (de-)compression timings.
A lot more numbers are needed to present a fair and informative comparison.
I don't want this to be a swipe against bzip3, I only want to point out the presented benchmarks could be a lot better.
Debit cards can do chargebacks just as credit cards can do. That's a feature of Visa and Mastercard (and others). If your bank refuses, complain to the card network. Oh and consider changing banks, that's really unacceptable in 2026 and shows an anti customer stance.
This is completely normal. You can't just issue a chargeback because you feel like you want your money back after the fact. They want to know what went wrong. It could be fraud but it could be also misleading checkout experience and other reasons. The merchant is charged often a fee for a chargeback on the order of $15 and it might result in penalties.
So, if you feel like you've been charged unfairly (e.g. product not what was expected), in error, fraudulently etc. then chargeback is the route and you should provide a reason. It's a mechanism to protect consumers. If on the other hand you just want your money back without good reason then chargebacks are not the right tool. The consumer also has an obligation to pay if there was no fault on the merchant side.
Honestly, sounds like everything is as it should be?
In both US and EU, chargebacks are a general consumer protection tool, implemented by card networks to make you less afraid of using them with potentially-untrustworthy merchants, even when not legally required.
They can be used for any kind of legitimate grievance, outright fraud being just one of them. If you book a hotel and the room is not up to the standards on their website, take pictures, take screenshots and chargeback.
They are not, however, a way to cancel a subscription you decide you no longer want (incidentally, neither is cancelling your card). Ask your lawyer, but this is actually illegal and considered fraud in many places. If you make a dumb choice, you have to live with the consequences or follow the contractual route.
However if you try to cancel the subscription the normal way, and it doesn't work, or there is no normal way, then you escalate to a chargeback and that's valid grounds.
> If you book a hotel and the room is not up to the standards on their website, take pictures, take screenshots and chargeback.
This is unhinged. Then I can chargeback at McDonald’s because the burger doesn’t look the same as the picture. I still ate it and you probably still stayed in the room.
Well yes, that's how it works for credit cards too. Chargebacks aren't a thing you can just do on a whim, they are a mechanism for the bank to punish fraudulent merchants. Attempting to get one against a merchant who is not defrauding you is a criminal offence. The bar for fraud is lower than you might think though. Any unauthorized charge, incorrect charge, barrier to cancelling a recurring charge, all counts.
Official pricing can be seen here: https://ai.google.dev/gemini-api/docs/pricing#gemini-3.8-fla...