Poplicola

Haec veritates per se notas habemus

[Poplicola @reedcode]

@alexandr_wang @scale_AI Where is @mkratsios47 in this pic

[Poplicola @reedcode]

@TokenGremlin That doesn’t make sense at all. Why would Terra be more powerful than the same 6.1 model. Logically they would increase the model number.

[Poplicola @reedcode]

@_jayyy18_13k I thought that low key was the point since everyone just keeps asking for more usage

[Poplicola @reedcode]

@EbrightYon From a textualist perspective, he quite literally just said “chopped chicken liver”, not all fowl. No comment on the substance.

[Poplicola @reedcode]

@thsottiaux Thank you Tibo, bless you

[Poplicola @reedcode]

@ShawnChittle Safe, who knows. Skilled, yes

[Poplicola @reedcode]

@TicTocTick Is this bullish

[Poplicola @reedcode]

@mikekelly6301 @possiblities07 It’s in that green stone

[Poplicola @reedcode]

@OskarDanube @engineers_feed We are only limited by the knowledge we know today. Compare, even just a relatively short time ago, explaining the concept of traveling around the Earth in less than a day’s time in a turbojet 747 aircraft to Christopher Columbus.

[Poplicola @reedcode]

@Sub_Zero7077 @possiblities07 I didn’t say he would beat Superman

[Poplicola @reedcode]

@NTBro @goodalexander Big law knows how valuable their firm and client data is. Frontier AI is going to need it to gain an edge once the universe of public high-quality information is tapped out (which has pretty much already happened)

[Poplicola @reedcode]

@shoesonplease I think there is a bigger battle happening here, and the relatively mild response from Benson, on what would normally be a major screw-up by a campaign/party, is even more telling

https://t.co/BTBvSPXUuB

[Poplicola @reedcode]

Something potentially far more consequential than a $1.8 million campaign-finance violation is unfolding in Michigan today.

Michigan Democratic Party Chair Curtis Hertel has signed a complaint alleging that @MIGOP provided @JohnJamesMI with $1.8 million in coordinated advertising, plus another $150,000 in direct contributions, exceeding Michigan's statutory party-contribution limits.

At first glance, that looks like a remarkably conspicuous violation for a sophisticated statewide campaign. But I suspect James and the Michigan GOP may be pursuing something much more interesting: extending the Supreme Court's June decision in NRSC v. FEC to state election law.

And I think they would likely prevail on the constitutional argument.

🧵 1/4

[Poplicola @reedcode]

@capncait @DerrickHoneyman @MichiganDems @JohnJamesMI @MIGOP Yes

https://t.co/BTBvSPXUuB

[Poplicola @reedcode]

Something potentially far more consequential than a $1.8 million campaign-finance violation is unfolding in Michigan today.

Michigan Democratic Party Chair Curtis Hertel has signed a complaint alleging that @MIGOP provided @JohnJamesMI with $1.8 million in coordinated advertising, plus another $150,000 in direct contributions, exceeding Michigan's statutory party-contribution limits.

At first glance, that looks like a remarkably conspicuous violation for a sophisticated statewide campaign. But I suspect James and the Michigan GOP may be pursuing something much more interesting: extending the Supreme Court's June decision in NRSC v. FEC to state election law.

And I think they would likely prevail on the constitutional argument.

🧵 1/4

[Poplicola @reedcode]

@bot Thank you @poteto

[Poplicola @reedcode]

poteto poteto poteto please add apple IOS integration to @bot it will exponentially increase functionality and my (and many others) ability to integrate into ecosystem and use it for more things 🙏🏼

[Poplicola @reedcode]

Now consider the potential strategy and timing.

If Michigan declines enforcement, the advertisements accomplish their immediate purpose without requiring a constitutional ruling.

If Michigan proceeds, it will very likely tee up the next landmark Supreme Court campaign-finance case: whether states can continue restricting coordinated party expenditures that NRSC v. FEC held are protected by the First Amendment.

By filing today's complaint, @CurtisHertelJr and @MichiganDems may inadvertently be giving James and @MIGOP exactly the case in controversy that could reach SCOTUS.

What looks like a late-cycle campaign-finance mistake on its face might become a consequential next chapter in the First Amendment election law jurisprudence.

4/4

[Poplicola @reedcode]

Something potentially far more consequential than a $1.8 million campaign-finance violation is unfolding in Michigan today.

Michigan Democratic Party Chair Curtis Hertel has signed a complaint alleging that @MIGOP provided @JohnJamesMI with $1.8 million in coordinated advertising, plus another $150,000 in direct contributions, exceeding Michigan's statutory party-contribution limits.

At first glance, that looks like a remarkably conspicuous violation for a sophisticated statewide campaign. But I suspect James and the Michigan GOP may be pursuing something much more interesting: extending the Supreme Court's June decision in NRSC v. FEC to state election law.

And I think they would likely prevail on the constitutional argument.

🧵 1/4

[Craig Mauger @CraigDMauger]

This John James campaign finance report is pretty interesting.

It shows $1.9 million in in-kind contributions from the Michigan GOP.

I am currently exploring how this is possible given current state contribution limits.

[Poplicola @reedcode]

Here's the particularly interesting part of today's complaint. @CurtisHertelJr points to the advertisement's disclaimers:
"Paid for with regulated funds by Michigan Republican Party,"
"Authorized by John James for MI," and
"Approved by John James";
calling them a "virtual admission of coordination."

But after NRSC, coordination is likely what will bring the expenditure squarely within the Supreme Court's holding. Michigan GOP seems to have financed the advertising in coordination with James, and his campaign openly reported it as an in-kind contribution.

3/4

[Poplicola @reedcode]

@astropol0 This is how it’s going with Grok 4.7
https://t.co/6YwGqchZXn

[Poplicola @reedcode]

I genuinely want @spacexai to disrupt the frontier AI market, but Grok 4.7 at xhigh effort in @cursor_ai has been extraordinarily disappointing. Two days of execution and an entire month’s credits of the legacy Cursor Ultra plan produced just 2 of 29 tasks coded properly, despite Grok working from a meticulously detailed implementation plan with 29 tasks mapped to specific source files and dependencies, detailed architecture, schemas, a file-by-file change map, and 104 defined acceptance scenarios, along with additional verification requirements.

The design, implementation sequence, and requirements for proving completion were already established. Nevertheless, Grok repeatedly stopped working dozens of times, even in Goal Mode. I added a separate /loop on top of Goal Mode, which it ignored and actually acknowledged ignoring several times when I asked. At one point, I resorted to running Gemini 4 separately in Antigravity just to nudge Grok every few minutes because it kept stopping and doing nothing.

After the Cursor credits ran out, I asked Opus 5.5 to audit the implementation and finish the remaining work. In less than five minutes, it found that only 2 of 29 tasks were genuinely wired into the system. What bothers me most is that this wasn’t simply a model struggling to solve a difficult problem. Much of that work had already been done for it. Yet Grok repeatedly failed to execute the instructions and produced substantial amounts of code that gave the appearance of progress without delivering the required functionality.

@elonmusk had already identified these same problems as reasons for delaying Grok 4.7’s initial rollout. Yet it seems those problems remain largely unresolved. @poteto @mntruell @amanrsanger @sualehasif996 I really hope you all are working on improving these issues, which other frontier models have long overcome. I truly want Grok to succeed and blow the completion out of the water!