You don't appear to be claiming copyright as you state that you don't know if they copied code.
Are you saying that your prior art invalidates a patent? If so, would you mind pointing out what patent?
Otherwise, it just seems that you're claiming that you had a similar idea to one that someone at Anthropic had. That's not really something they have any need to acknowledge.
Fair question. Let me be specific.
What I'm NOT claiming:
Copyright infringement — I can't prove they copied code
Patent violation — neither of us has a patent
What I AM claiming:
I published a specific architecture in October 2025
They shipped a similar architecture in 2026
I sent formal notice to document my prior art — in case they ever file a patent or claim to have invented this
They've ignored four communications
What I actually want:
Acknowledgment that my notice was received
That's it
You're right. they don't have to acknowledge me. But "don't have to" and "shouldn't" are different things.
If a small developer reaches out professionally about architectural overlap, and the company that preaches "transparency" and "trust" can't send a two-line reply in four months? That's a choice. And it says something about how they treat indie devs in their ecosystem.
Maybe I'm not owed a response. But I'm also not wrong for being frustrated by silence.
In my experience, legal and tax complexities are more than sufficient to restrict the countries that we have remote workers living in.
We work globally so practical things like timezones aren't really a factor; we have plenty of experience working around them. That even goes as far as things like personal security in locations that are particularly dangerous. In my line of work that usually means risk of kidnapping. It will be a factor we take into account but wouldn't usually be decisive.
Having said that, I have been involved in setting up multiple offices in new locations. But only where we're expecting to have a significant presence over the long term. Essentially, where we can amortise the costs of legal and tax expertise.
Source: reasonably senior executive at a very large, global financial organisation.
It could of course. It can do pretty much any pattern matching it likes. But I doubt very much it would because that pattern is way less common.
As the article points out, the XOR saves 3 bytes of instructions for a really, really common pattern (to zero a register, particularly the return register).
So there's very good reason to perform the XOR preferentially and hence good reason to optimise that very common idiom.
Other approaches eg add a new "zero <reg>" instruction are basically worse as they're not backward compatible and don't really improve anything other than making the assembly a tiny bit more human readable.
That'll definitely help. But you need a certain amount of forced re-distribution to reduce relative poverty significantly below 30% because it's defined as 60% of median.
Either that or find a way to significantly reduce the number of children that people in the bottom 30% are sprogging.
So, I am saying Capitalism is the cause, not the solution. Capitalism concentrates wealth and you need a redistribution system if you want that to not result in child poverty. It's not rocket science.
> why we define the Action as this object and why we should expect it to be minimised for the physical trajectory in the first place.
The most coherent explanation I've heard was from Feynnman [0]. As far as I understand it (and I may well not have understood it at all well), at the quantum level, all paths are taken by a particle but the contributions of the paths away from the stationary point tend to cancel each other. So, at a macroscopic level, the net effect appears to be be that the particle is following the path of least action.
> a proof of the equivalence to Newtonian mechanics
The Lagrangian method isn't really equivalent to Newton's method. Again, Feynman talks about this in [0]. It's that for a certain class of action, the Euler-Lagrange equations are equivalent to Newton's laws.
It's perfectly plausible to come up with actions that recover systems that represent Einsteinian relativity or quantum mechanics. This is the main reason (as I understand it) why it's considered a more powerful formalism.
The Saxon and Norse kings didn’t use numbers, and the numbers that the post-Norman invasion kings used only started with them (so Edward “Longshanks” was Edward I, despite several Saxon kings Edward).
But if the next king of the UK decides to use the name “Aethelstan”, he wouldn’t be a II. (However, they are supposed to count Scottish kings now, so he could be “Macbeth II”.)
Sure but, in fairness, the HN title is a bit misleading. The paper says that the bodies are emitting light in the visible part of the EM spectrum not that the light is visible. And the intensity isn't really high enough to see the light without instruments.
True, there's an ambiguity in "visible light" between "EM radiation within the visible frequency range" and "EM radiation within the visible frequency range which is of sufficient intensity that we can detect it with our eyes"
But this is independent of the misconception that the radiation observed in this experiment is thermal. Thermal radiation in the visible range at this temperature is much lower in intensity than the biological radiation observed here, but both kinds of radiation are well below the intensity that we can see with our eyes.
It means that the current system provides free child care if your household income is less that 4x the federal poverty level. The new scheme doesn't restrict by income.
You don't appear to be claiming copyright as you state that you don't know if they copied code.
Are you saying that your prior art invalidates a patent? If so, would you mind pointing out what patent?
Otherwise, it just seems that you're claiming that you had a similar idea to one that someone at Anthropic had. That's not really something they have any need to acknowledge.
reply