I think they meant that as an analogy to how developed/sophisticated it was (ie they're saying that it's still early days for reasoning models and to expect rapid improvement), not that the underlying model size is similar.

That's a PR friendly way of saying that it failed to reach PMF.

Thanks for fixing this. The 'A' thing in particular multiple times caused me to try to edit comments thinking that I'd omitted a space.

>many of the top films by rating are anime

Not sure 4 of the top 100 being anime counts as unexpectedly many.

Not clear to me how to interpret the chart.

FWIW I downvoted this mainly because I thought you were much too quick to dismiss the existing literature on this topic in favour of your personal theories, which is a bit of a bad habit around here.

It is times like this that it is

missing end of sentence

This seems mostly fine for anyone who doesn't engage in political advocacy or activism, but a mild-moderate form of defection against society if you do - because if dragons are real, society should probably do something about that, even if you personally can't.

edit: I guess dragon-agnosticism is tolerable if you avoid advocating for (and ideally voting for) policies that would be disastrous if dragons do in fact exist.

You describe Sam as going "mask off" with his editorial, but it feels more like mask on to me - I'd guess he went with the nationalist angle because he thinks it will sell, not because it's his personal highest priority.