Loading video...

Video Failed to Load

Go Home

you turned on the setting a thread told you to turn on it was the right setting for a machine that is not yours tool search holds the definitions back and hands the model a search tool, which costs a round trip every time it goes looking for something...

49,742 views • 18 days ago •via X (Twitter)

2 Comments

Iron Giant's profile picture
Iron Giant18 days ago

Preloading tools kills round trips

AI Studio's profile picture
AI Studio17 days ago

Jeder API-Call kostet. Wer Tools blind verbindet, skaliert nur Ausgaben. Erst Prozess optimieren, dann automatisieren.

Related Videos

You have 100 dollars and you want 200. Betting red one dollar at a time, your chance is one in 33,171. Betting the whole 100 on a single spin, it is 47.4 percent. The careful version is fifteen thousand times worse. This is also the arithmetic of your trading account, and it means almost everything you have been taught about managing risk is, in the strict mathematical sense, a method for losing more reliably. An MIT professor works this out on a blackboard in a lecture on random walks. The result is called gambler's ruin. Two and a half points of disadvantage is nothing on one spin. But a dollar at a time you are not making one spin, you are making hundreds, and the edge gets a fresh attempt at you on every one of them. It was never the size of the disadvantage. It is the number of times you agree to face it. One hundred on red, once: 47.4 percent. Twenty dollar bets: 37.3 percent. Five dollar bets: 11.1 percent. One dollar bets: 0.003 percent. Mathematicians call the right answer bold play. It was proved optimal for unfavourable games in 1965. It is not a strategy for winning. It is the least ruinous way to play a game you should not be in. If your edge after spread and fees is negative, and for most active retail accounts it is, then your position sizing rule is not protecting you. Risking one percent per trade is the one dollar bet. It arrives at zero with near certainty, just politely, over a longer period, with a spreadsheet. Discipline does not beat a negative edge. It schedules it. All of this reverses if you have a real edge. Then small and frequent is correct and bold play is madness. So the only question that has ever mattered is whether you have one, and the number of people certain they do has never resembled the number who do. Your broker does not need you to be wrong. It needs you to be frequent.

Verax

85,235 views • 20 days ago

your agent has thirty tools. it calls two of them. the other twenty eight are not sitting idle somewhere. they are in the request, every request, and they are doing damage in two places at once. first the obvious one. tool schemas go into the prompt, and a schema is not a name. it is a description, a parameter list, types, required fields, an example. thirty of those is a few thousand tokens that ship with every single call, including the ones where the agent just says thanks and stops. you are paying rent on twenty eight tools that have never fired. second, and this is the one that costs more. when the request says cancel the order, the model picks by matching against everything available. four of your tools are plausible: cancel_order, refund_order, update_order, void_order. it is choosing among them based on the descriptions you wrote, one afternoon, months ago. every tool you add is another candidate in that shortlist. the twenty eight you never call are not neutral. they are noise in the one decision that determines whether the run works. > why it grows without anyone deciding to nobody adds thirty tools on purpose. you add one for a task, it works, it stays. six months later the registry is a catalogue and no one has ever removed anything, because removing a tool feels risky and adding one feels free. and there is no feedback telling you otherwise. the unused ones never error. they never appear in a failing trace. they are invisible in exactly the way that lets them accumulate. > what to actually do count calls per tool over the last thousand runs. this is one group-by and it usually shocks people. the ones at zero are pure cost. ship the tools the task needs, not the whole registry. a research phase does not need deploy. a writing phase does not need the database. swap the set between phases instead of loading everything up front. same agent, different tools, depending on where the run is. and when two tools could both plausibly answer the same request, that is not redundancy you can ignore. it is a coin flip you built into the system. the twenty eight tools are not unused. they are used every time, by the part of the run you cannot see.

Hanako

24,656 views • 1 month ago

Jeff Bezos looked at a government waiting room and priced it at a hundred billion dollars. Bezos: “This is a $100 billion business, by the way. This is huge business.” That number is not ambition. It is a measurement. A company that size does not create a hundred billion dollars of new value here. It recovers a hundred billion that is already being destroyed, on schedule, in public, by a process everyone has agreed to call normal. The size of the opportunity is the size of the wound. Bezos: “They almost always say yes, they just make you wait a long time.” So the verdict was never in question. Only the delivery date. Which means the months bought nothing. They were storage. Your project sat in a room while the word yes waited its turn to be said. Nobody in there was deciding. Someone was scheduling. And the room bills by the day. Suarez: “The daily carrying cost, one day of interest, 200 to $400,000 per day.” Now find the recipient. There isn’t one. No school funded, no inspector paid, no safety review performed. A tax at least moves money into someone’s hands. This deletes it at four hundred thousand a day, and every dollar was real before the queue touched it. Bezos: “And that doesn’t count the frustration.” Count it anyway. It lands on a body long before it lands on a spreadsheet. Suarez: “Which is infinite. I have some white hairs as a result of this stuff.” That is the invoice. The money has a rate. The rest gets charged to the man, and he pays it whether the answer comes back yes or no. No one has ever been refunded a year. Every other cost in this economy can be hedged, insured, refinanced, or written off. Waiting is the only one that is final. A man will forgive being told no. He will never get back the time he spent standing there waiting to be told yes. We built a civilization that can move a decision at the speed of light and still schedule it at the speed of a man’s hair turning white. Bezos: “It should give you a yes or a no in 10 seconds. And if the answer is no, it should tell you the 6 things you have to change to get a yes.” For four thousand years the wait was honest. Someone had to hold the entire code in one head and walk it line by line against your drawings. Reading was slow because reading was human. That stopped being true in less time than it takes to approve one building. Bezos: “Maybe with AI it can just read all the plans. And it knows all the codes. Spit it out.” The constraint is gone. The wait stayed. Anything still moving at the old speed after the cost of thinking collapsed is not slow. It is choosing. The queue never protected you from a bad building. It protected a signature from a bad outcome. Nobody gets fired for the wait. They get fired for the answer. An institution has no lifespan, so time costs it nothing. You have one, so time is the only thing it can take. Every queue is a trade between something that dies and something that doesn’t, and only one side is ever charged. That trade held for the whole of recorded history because the mortal side had no leverage. It does now. Somebody is going to build this. A hundred billion does not sit in a waiting room forever. And the day it exists, the wait stops being a fact of the world and becomes a decision with a name attached. The hundred billion was never the prize. It is the receipt for how long we agreed to stand there. We are the first people alive who get to stop signing it.

Dustin

17,133 views • 1 month ago

[WATCH] Members of the media, fellow South Africans. Good morning. For ten days the African National Congress has been the subject of reporting about the lodgement of its candidates for the local government elections of 4 November. Some of that reporting has been accurate. Some of it has not. Much of it has been about people rather than about facts. The people of South Africa are entitled to a full account from the ANC itself, in its own voice, and that is what I have come to give this morning. I must say one thing at the outset so that nobody is misled by what follows. On Friday 4 September the ANC filed an application in the Electoral Court. The matter is therefore before a court. I am going to give you the facts, the sequence of events, and the position of the ANC. I am not going to argue the case from this podium. Where a question touches on the merits of what the Court has to decide, I will say so and I will stop there. That is not evasion. It is respect for the Court, and I ask you to hold me to it. The learned people say the matter is sub judice. The African National Congress lodged nine thousand one hundred and twenty-eight candidates for this election, through all nine provinces. Of those, four thousand three hundred and sixty-sixstand registered with the Electoral Commission on the ward ballot this morning, and four thousand five hundred and eighty-one on the proportional ballot. That is eight thousand nine hundred and forty-seven candidates. It is ninety-seven per cent of every ward seat in the Republic, and ninety per cent of every proportional seat. No other party in this country will come to you with that figure, and I give it to you first because it is the frame in which everything else must be read. Now the other half, in the same breath. One hundred and eighty-oneof our candidates were received by the Commission’s system on 28 August and did not complete its final electronic step. One hundred and thirty of them on the proportional ballot and fifty-one on the ward ballot. Two in every hundred. They are in six councils out of the two hundred and fifty-seven in this country: Ngquza Hill and Port St Johns, Walter Sisulu and Sundays River Valley in the Eastern Cape; uMshwathi in KwaZulu-Natal; and Mangaung in the Free State. #ANCMediaBriefing #SGMbalulaSpeaks #LGE2026VoteANC

ANC SECRETARY GENERAL | Fikile Mbalula

25,266 views • 16 days ago