That "deep dive" is an apples-to-oranges comparison. MCP is also a "HTTP API" that you so criticize.
You also somehow consistently think LLM making tool calls against an OpenAPI spec would result in hallucination, while tool calls are somehow magically exempt from such.
All of this writing sounds like you picked a conclusion and then tried to justify it.
There's no reason an "Agentic OpenAPI" marked as such in a header wouldn't be just as good as MCP and it would save a ton of engineering effort.
so this gives a good reason between valkey and redis, but what about dragonfly? some benchmarks show crazy advantage over Redis (and I assume valkey too)
Just off the top of my head, I think the longest they ever got a mouse to live in a study was the C-60 study where they wanted to test whether it was toxic and the mouse lived almost twice their normal lifespan. This paper has been cited over 300 times, so it's not like people haven't taken notice of it. There are a few supplement companies selling c-60 olive oil too:
https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/abs/pii/S01429...
"Here we show that oral administration of C60 dissolved in olive oil (0.8 mg/ml) at reiterated doses (1.7 mg/kg of body weight) to rats not only does not entail chronic toxicity but it almost doubles their lifespan"
No. Originally we sketched out 9 hallmarks of aging, and it has since increased to twelve. We don’t have a full picture of immortality yet, let alone conquering it.
If we count a permanently inflamed organic blob in roughly the shape of a mouse covered by surgical scars constantly pumped with anti-rejection drugs and hooked up to a blood filter we could probably make the mouse immortal now. It might not enjoy living though.
Given that you die, when one vital organ dies it will eventaully hapen in this way or another. I read somwhere and that stuck in my brain, that maxmimal logevity for humans is estimated to be approximetly 125 years.
>> I read somwhere and that stuck in my brain, that maxmimal logevity for humans is estimated to be approximetly 125 years.
Oh, that's just derived from old theology.
Genesis 6:3, 'Then the LORD said, “My Spirit will not contend with humans forever, for they are mortal; their days will be a hundred and twenty years.”'
This kinda got spread throughout the zeitgeist long ago as a "maximal lifespan", but the reality is that only 3 in 10,000 even make it to 100. There's no hard cutoff, but functionally essentially no one gets to 110.
Scientifically, there's no hard reason we couldn't increase our lifespans indefinitely, but we've got a lot of work to do before we'll be able to get a reasonable number of people up to 125.
Probably quite a bit, but some of the hallmarks (decreased intercellular signaling, reduced ATP activity, decreased macroautophagy) seem so systemic I’m not sure we’re even close.
One older balding mouse would hold court in the pantry periodically-- he had a little gold ring that he made the other mice kiss before they conferred with him about various happenings around the apartment. I'm pretty sure he was in it for the long haul.
That would be very dangerous and possibly the plot of some hard sci-fi thriller. If immortal mice were to somehow escape the lab and breed in the wild we could rapidly end up with massive populations of mice that never die of aging, ultimately collapsing entire ecosystems and food chains, leading to the end of humanity.
2. The most common causes of death for wild mice are predation, diseases, and starvation. Theoretically immortal mice have no chance in the real world if not very well-adapted to these conditions.
It’s also not hard to imagine that an immortal organism has higher metabolic needs. Meaning they are more prone to starvation and potentially less fit.
It's my understanding that mice don't live long, because slower aging didn't provide a significant evolutionary advantage (lot's of predators, mainly). Instead the rate of reproduction settled at a very high level [1]. So by that logic, engineered, non-aging mice wouldn't have much of an advantage in the wild.
I don't know, "random" wikipedia articles often pop up on the front-page.
It's been speculated that some groups use random wikipedia articles to test-run their botting. I think a more charitable explanation is often that it's something or relates to something that's going viral on other media, and we get to experience the wash of that, turning up here.
The HN ranking is also very enigmatic. You sometimes get articles whose presence you can't fathom, but by the time you refresh it's disappeared entirely. It feels like the live front-page is built for reactivity, not for stability.
That's perhaps for the best given there's no "recent trending" type page for that.
Edit: This one was submitted 2 days ago, and randomly got front-paged today. It shows "2 hours ago" but mousing over shows the original meta-data of 2 days ago, so this returned via the second chance pool.
I vote up "random" articles if I've found them interesting and learned something new. Occasionally I'll post an article and I've had some great discussions over random things. After all, according to the guidelines:
> On-Topic: Anything that good hackers would find interesting. That includes more than hacking and startups. If you had to reduce it to a sentence, the answer might be: anything that gratifies one's intellectual curiosity.
I think it's cool and weird that there is a hybrid celery/lettuce cultivar out there. I would never have found this otherwise.
While I love a wikipedia spelunk as much as the next person, hitting the random button rarely gets you truly interesting articles. You're more likely to get a random soccer player or an unremarkable neighborhood in India. None of which would end up on the front page.
Another way to detect the odd way HN handles articles it re-pushes to the front-page, the wikipedia submissions page, and the submitter submissions page show the original 2 days ago submission time:
> I see these sorts of comments all the time and I have to say that I don't find they add much to the conversation.
I think it's a valid question—sometimes things end up on the front page just because. And sometimes there's an actual reason that not everyone is aware of—maybe it was mentioned in a popular article, or in a movie, or a viral tweet, or whatever. And in those cases, someone will respond with "here's why people are interested in this right now."
Asking "why is this on the front page" doesn't always mean "this doesn't belong on the front page", it can mean "is there some context here I'm unaware of?"
I won’t say the original poster meant in the sense that I’m talking. Just that, regardless of how it is meant, I often find it a question that gathers useful answers.
I clicked because from the name I thought it would be some new genetically engineered form of lettuce, one with perhaps the capability of destroying our ecosystem as we know it. I am now upvoting because it is funny.
If anyone from Cursor is reading this, we are rolling out MCP server usage analytics where we aggregate (anonymous) usage data across several providers. Would be amazing to include Cursor (reach me at frank@glama.ai). The data will be used to help the community discover the most used (and therefore useful) clients and servers.
reply