Looks like a demonstration that using `long double` math requires dipping into x87 instructions, specifically the `fldt` instruction: "floating point load ten bytes".
This is the first time since GPT 4.1 that I think I can upgrade our main agent model. Any noticeable amount of reasoning has been too slow for us, since the model is having a real-time conversation with the user. "minimal" reasoning GPT-5 performs terribly, it's significantly dumber than GPT 4.1 in a long, multi-turn conversation with tools.
This time, I just dropped it in and at first glance it seems to work well. I'll probably upgrade over the weekend if I see a boost in performance somewhere after tuning the prompts.
- The "Turkey taught Putin" narrative is kind of BS. The leader of Turkey imprisoned the pilot who shot down the Russian jet, essentially saying he acted on his own. Afterwards, Turkey bought Russian military equipment. This reaction is the opposite of sovereignty.
- Speculation: Russia is looking to provoke Europe into responding. The thinking is to get Europe to focus on their own air defense, over assisting Ukraine. This is why the general, and correct, response in Europe is to keep calm and keep sending air defense equipment to Ukraine instead of freaking out. There of course are some lines where it is not possible to shrug it off, like recently in Poland, where the situation was so unsafe that we had to react with weapons. The most important element of Europe's security is that the Ukraine war does not end in a victory for Russia.
That would be nice for Europe, but Putin openly stated that the goal is not to conquer whole Ukraine alone, but to restore the borders of the USSR in all its glory.
But, as I said, it looks like the early (earliest?) observations were actually of a school plane. Probably some concerned citizen filmed it, and the authorities didn't immediately realize what it was since figuring out the exact place of a light in the sky in a cell phone video isn't that easy.
Could it still be the Russians? Yes, I guess. But if the first observation turns out to have NOT been the Russians, to me that's a bit like how the first crop circles turned out to be a confirmed prank - yeah, technically later ones could still be aliens but given how it started doesn't that seem implausible?
Not to make a comparison otherwise, of course believing in nefarious Russians is a lot more reasonable than believing in mischievous aliens. But I'm trying to make an argument about a causal explanations and a kind of data-generating process, ... not doing too great a job at it I guess.
The arrest in Oslo were a married couple from Signapore in their 60s. The man was fined and 8000 NOK for admitting to flying the drone and might get deported. They were flying in central Oslo, and it seems unrelated to the drones in Denmark.
There were also unconfirmed sightings of drones around the airport in Oslo. The director of police states that "It is still unclear what was observed. There are conflicting interpretations of the observations that were made".
