The PS3 is a relic from an era where consoles being connected to the internet was still a relatively new concept, and security was a lot more lax. Newer consoles like the Switch are far more locked down, everything is signed/encrypted/verified/etc so any tinkering of that sort is impossible without a kernel code execution exploit.

The only option for a banned Switch Lite is installing a modchip (there are people who will do it for you for a fee, well worth it imo).

I'm fairly sure it's one of the reasons both MS and Sony went with AMD hardware from 2013 onwards, they can make use of the security/virtualization features their server platform has.

> The whole thing will come crumbling down any minute

It is crumbling down as we speak. There's more software being pumped out than ever, but it's also buggier, more bloated, and just generally worse than ever.

A few days ago I had to revert to an older version of an open source project I use regularly, because the author turned full vibe coder and has pushed hundreds of AI generated commits in just a few weeks, at least one of which completely broke an important feature I relied on.

Whether or not you consider putting out software that technically meets the minimum requirements but is a buggy, broken mess to be a success depends entirely on your personal definition of success. Maybe you do, and you are entitled to your opinion. But once again I feel the need to remind people that we humans did not get where we are today by always doing the bare minimum. If everyone throughout history shared this mentality, we'd still be banging rocks in caves.

> also buggier, more bloated, and just generally worse than ever.

Citation needed. I have seen enormous improvements in bug fixes across our projects and many other companies (one HN headline says Google fixed more bugs in July than in previous 2 years). I would’ve expected even more given how easy it is to fix things now. LLMs can understand code better than anyone I’ve met, judging by their power to explain something and then optionally go ahead and fix stuff. People used to ask me about our project as I am the most senior developer and been working on our product for 12 years. But when I want to know something for sure I myself ask Claude. It is amazingly good.

> Citation needed.

that's not where the burden of proof lies buddy. you prove to us where AI has caused a spike in quality, functioning software

> Citation needed.

Citation is me and my own personal experiences with vibe coded software. If you have examples of stable, efficient, polished software created by AI, I'll gladly try them out.

Regardless, your comment is a perfect exhibit of the problem. You are seeing 100 AI generated PRs merged in a day and interpreting that as 100 improvements to the user experience, which probably sounds great when you tell it to your manager before asking for a promotion, but doesn't actually translate to reality and never has. Before AI, it was generally agreed upon that measuring quality of work by lines of code written, PRs merged, etc. made no sense, yet that wisdom seems to have been completely forgotten in favor of just watching the line go up.

How do you even know the improvements are "enormous" if you don't understand the code? Do you just occasionally glance at your terminal to see Claude going on about how it just found the smoking gun and made a critical fix to a load-bearing seam and go "whoa, that sounds important"? If those improvements and bug fixes really were so important, why were they not considered worth the effort to make before AI came along, or was your team simply incapable of making them before?

If you're the most senior developer working on the same codebase for 12 years, yet proudly state that an LLM understands it better than you do, I can't help but interpret that as an admission of incompetence, so letting AI do your work for you may really be an improvement, but it shouldn't be.

What was the project? I'd like to examine the before and after.

Adminer. The code was never great, but it worked, and I have not been able to find a suitable replacement that isn't slow and bloated.

The specific functionality that was broken was the plugin that allows picking from a fixed list of servers instead of entering the address every time.

Prompt engineering? Proof reading? That's so last month, who even does that anymore? What a nerd.

All this condescending drivel about how "anyone who still writes code by hand is a loser, but not me, I'm a prompt engineer because I'm smart and forward-thinking" is so painfully tone-deaf, as if this "prompt engineering" has any lasting value and isn't just a momentary stepping stone towards a techno-feudalist future where every tech company consists of a small group of very wealthy executives, typing what they want in plain words into a text box and having the AI do everything for them, with no need for anyone below them.

What are you trying to say here, exactly? Do you enjoy being bombarded by thinly veiled advertisements everywhere you go?

I'm trying to say that it's all advertising. What's interesting is the technical substance. Judge the post by the signal-to-noise ratio, not by whether the company had a marketing incentive to publish it.

Sonnet and Haiku were already in an awkward spot, likely by design.

Anthropic's big marketing push this year has been entirely focused on getting people to use Opus via a Claude Code subscription, to the point that Sonnet is almost viewed as the poor man's alternative, and from what I've seen, almost nobody uses it.

Actually, here's an interesting project for all the vibe coders looking for their next front page post: scrape a ton of commits from GitHub with Co-Authored-By: Claude and figure out what the percentage split between Opus/Fable/Sonnet is. I'm willing to bet it's less than 10% Sonnet.

>figure out what the percentage split between Opus/Fable/Sonnet is.

This may be misleading, since I suspect many are using a blend through sub-agents. I tend to bias for Fable to orchestrate and Opus for implementation via sub-agents.

When I'm paying for it, Sonnet. When work is paying, Opus 5, then Fable if Opus gets confused.

I've found that Claude nearly always claims to be Opus in the commit message, regardless of the actual model making the commit.

Opus 5 is not strong enough as the top-of-stack model, and feels idiotic after a week or two of heavy Fable usage, to the point where I'm paying for Usage Credits to keep using Fable rather than having to slum it with Opus.

> GPT‑5.6 Luna, our fastest and most affordable model, will cost 80% less

Looks like the Chinese models are really making a dent. Having 3 different price categories with the "most affordable" one still costing more than GLM 5.2 never made sense.

I thought the chinese models were cheaper per token, but about the same or more expensive on tasks because they used more tokens for reasoning. Cutting even further, seems like a really big leap.

This doesn't seem correct.

Estimated final electricity price for large industrial customers in energy-intensive industries:

USA 50 USD/MWh

China 68 USD/MWh

https://www.iea.org/reports/electricity-2026/prices

I don't know, non of the chinese models I use are served from China. And they are still cheap.

Right here? If you're trying to make a point, I don't see what it is, because every new post about this makes it more obvious that it was a planned marketing stunt.

I mean, an "interactive replay" of the incident, probably generated by the same product the stunt is trying to advertise? Seriously?

> Open-weights models that don’t have dangerous capabilities are a public good

This statement (and the entire post) couldn't possibly be more two-faced.

Open-weights models by definition have "dangerous capabilities" (according to Anthropic's own definitions of "dangerous", not mine), you can't bake in guardrails that can't be finetuned out.