The browser it built, obviously the context window of the entire project is huge. They mention loads of parallel agents in the blog post, so I guess each agent is given a module to work on, and some tests? And then a 'manager' agent plugs this in without reading the code? Otherwise I can't see how, even with ChatGPT 5.2/Gemini 3, you could do this otherwise? In retrospect it seems an obvious approach and akin to how humans work in teams, but it's still interesting.
GPT-5.2-Codex has a 400,000 token window. Claude 4.5 Opus is half of that, 200,000 tokens.
It turns out to matter a whole lot less than you would expect. Coding Agents are really good at using grep and writing out plans to files, which means they can operate successfully against way more code than fits in their context at a single time.
The other issue with "a huge token window" is that if you fill it, it seems like relevance for any specific part of the window is diminished - which makes it hard to override default model behavior.
Interestingly, recently it seems to me like codex is actually compressing early and often so that it stays in the smarter-feeling reasoning zone of the first 1/3rd of the window, which is a neat solution for this, albeit with the caveat of post-compression behavior differences cropping up more often.
Get a good "project manager" agents.md and it changes the whole approach of vibe coding. For a professional environment, with each person given a little domain, arranged in the usual hierarchy of your coding team, truly amazing things can get done.
Presumably the security and validation of code still needs work, I haven't read anything that indicates those are solved yet, so people still need to read and understand the code, but we're at the "can do massive projects that work" stage.
Division of labor and planning and hierarchy are all rapidly advancing, the orchestration and coordination capabilities are going to explode in '26.
My wife and I were visiting County Kerry in SW Ireland last summer. We were on Valentia Island and quite by chance walked past the telegraph building where the first transatlantic cable came ashore. Only marked by a (very interesting) plaque describing its significance.
It seems to be like some of the scales slightly off?
If you are looking at the ladybird (ladybug) with the amoeba to the left, the amoeba isn't an order of the magnitude smaller - it would actually be visible by the human eye (bigger than a grain of sand)? Indeed, the amoeba seems the same size as the ladybird's foot?
Similarly, this makes the bumblebee appear smaller than a human finger (the in the adjacent picture), which isn't the case?
I found that jarring as well. There's a toggle in the upper right to switch to metric.
Even with setting it to metric, it progresses through units based on the scale. I realize that scientists love to work in scientific notation, and progressing from nanometers to micrometers, mm, cm, and finally meters sort of follows that kind of logic. I wonder how it would feel if the whole thing was in constant units or at least there was an option for that.
I'm seeing the amoeba as approximately the size of the heel segment of a ladybug's leg. I consider lady bugs pretty small in an intuitive sense, their legs quite small and the smallest end segment to be especially small. I think that leaves an amoeba on the fringes of distinguishable perception which seems right to me, unless I'm overestimating their size.
I came to the comments to express surprise that amoebas were so large. It appears they vary wildly in size (as small as 2.3 micrometers... but up to 20 cm, or nearly 8 inches).
It is not right to call the xenophyophore that is on the last row, and which can have a size of up to 20 cm as an "amoeba".
Only the next row above it, with Pelomyxa, is indeed an amoeba and one that is very frequently encountered and which usually has sizes not much less than 1 millimeter and sometimes it can reach a size of a few mm.
The true amoebas are much more closely related to humans, than to xenophyophores (giant marine unicellular living beings) or to plants.
Besides the true amoebas there are also a few other kinds of unicellular eukaryotes with shape-shifting cells, e.g. foraminifera, radiolarians and others, but already in the first half of the 19th century it was recognized that those other groups change their shapes in a different way than the amoebas, so they were classified separately, even if the term "amoeboid cell" has always been used about any cell with variable shape.
The true amoebas are related to the group formed by animals and fungi, and there are some amoebas that have a simple form of multicellularity, so it is likely that some of the mechanisms needed for the evolution of multicellularity have been inherited from a common ancestor of animals, fungi and amoebae.
The multicellular or multinucleate amoebae that belong to Myxomycetes (one of the kinds of slime moulds) can reach much bigger sizes, e.g. a diameter of up to 1 meter, because they do not have the size limitation that exists for simple unicellular eukaryotes.
On the other side, wasps could be so tiny. like you could put thousands of them inside an amoeba volume.
"Megaphragma mymaripenne is a microscopically sized wasp. At 200 μm in length, it is the third-smallest extant insect, comparable in size to single-celled organisms. It has a highly reduced nervous system, containing only 7400 neurons, several orders of magnitude fewer than in larger insects."
I got surprised by that too, and while comparing its size to the next organism (Tardigrade) I learned that every member of the same species of tardigrades has the exact same number of cells [1], which was even more surprising for me:
> Eutelic organisms have a fixed number of somatic cells when they reach maturity, the exact number being relatively constant for any one species. This phenomenon is also referred to as cell constancy. Development proceeds by cell division until maturity; further growth occurs via cell enlargement only.
Actually the tardigrade used as an example is quite big at 500 micrometers.
Most tardigrades are not much bigger than 100 micrometers.
Tardigrades, together with nematodes, rotifers, mites and a few more rarely encountered groups are among the smallest animals and they are smaller than many of the bigger among the unicellular eukaryotes. That is why they have been discovered only after the invention of the microscope.
The tardigrades have evolved towards smaller and smaller sizes very early, already during the Cambrian. It is interesting that they are segmented animals, like their relatives the arthropods and the velvet worms, but they have very few segments, because in order to achieve such a small size they have lost all intermediate segments, so the segments that now form their body were originally the segments of the head, and now they are followed immediately by the original segments of the tail, without the original body that connected the head to the tail. Thus they have been miniaturized by losing their body and becoming a walking head (the legs of the tardigrades are what in arthropods have become appendages of the mouth, e.g. mandibles and maxillae).
Nice! What might be a nice lesser 'clue' to simply revealing a word is highlighting letter(s) on the board that are part of it? Favouring maybe highlighting letters that are contiguous with a blue bit?
Have you not seen some of the replies at the link?
For example:
"You are joking ?!
The commit about source only is 4 days old (9e49d5e)
We are currently paying for a license while using the open source version, you already removed the oidc code from UI console and now docker images. We are not happy by this lock-in. We will discuss this internally, but you may loose a paying customer with this behavior."
I do this frequently. To prevent vendor lock in and allow us to easily pivot if pricing gets out line. We pay to support the project and get technical support when needed. Considering how little we use technical support. It should be a good deal for the company.
For one: Using open source version often is a lot simpler. Commercial versions are hidden behind authentication and other weird systems to download. User experience can be a lot better.
Then there are ideological reasons: Purposly trying to make the open source version sustainable.
And then reduced lockin etc. by not using Enterprise only features by accident/convenience, which leaves the door open to leave the contract.
Because I want to give a project money but also want to make 5000% sure the entire thing is in github, working, the latest, compiling and that we can do all of that all of the time? What is strange about that?
In my experience, you start using the open source version, realize you could benefit from paid support, so you "buy a license" and get your support -- but then you never have a big enough reason to do the lift to the commercial version.
Are you me? Exact same! The problem with dual monitors is either you're sat in front of the gap, or you need to pivot. This way you get a 'normal' monitor and a portrait section to the side, much better.
I did that too for a while, have since switched to Alienware 38" ultrawide, lgs vertical monitor on right ( LG 28MQ780-B) + MacBook pro on the left.
Ultrawide is quiet useful to have - especially with coding. E.g. It's nice being able to look at 2 files and have the project tree + tool window open simultaneously.
$49 seems a surprisingly high amount for something aimed at students and learners - I appreciate the content may be good, but it's effectively 3 times a Netflix subscription.
It's meant to be something you stick with in the "long term" by its nature, and yet an annual subscription is $500 - this is just completely unrealistic for any student. Someone in a lower end job hoping to "up skill" is going to really struggle with this.
I get why some people would not want to pay this, but it’s also not at all unreasonable to pay 50 USD.
It might be 3x a Netflix subscription, but Netflix is, for many, just wasting our time, whereas learning math could mean you can get a better job (higher salary, more interesting projects, future proofing yourself), then suddenly the 50 dollars per month is negligible.
I also get that in the end all this is available for free scattered around the internet and libraries, but having guidance, having a system that helps you actually do the learning is also very valuable.
I believe their rationale is that a private tutor costs more than this per lesson, and they're targeting the people who will pay for a tutor once/twice a week for themselves or their children.
I tend to agree with you, it seems like they could be wayyy more competitive on price but I also understand where they're coming from.
They’re not a private tutor, though. They don’t explain very much and there certainly isn’t a way to ask questions.
As I said elsewhere, to me they’re about twice as expensive as they should be.
That's not really the case.
Each separate step of each lesson is explained and practiced many times. Repeated failures across multiple students are noticed and explanations reworked. If it's not enough, you can report your issues. And there are MA communities to check with if you really get stuck for some random reason.
The explanations are very limited compared to actual maths lessons, though: in my experience they were very often something like "it turns out that the formula for this is...".
IMO it's scaffolded and explained a bit more than an average mathematics lesson, though teachers vary a lot.
There's a whole lot of "here's the formula" and not so much "here's the derivation" in most classrooms.
The math classes that I taught: I tried to do a lot more of the why, either rigorously or using proof by gesticulation. But there were still absolutely times that I just handed something over and was like "do this, for now."
I’m currently doing the Calculus I course and while there are explanations interspersed throughout the problems, these mostly seem to be the bare minimum you need to work the problems. When I compare it to the calculus textbook I keep alongside it (Stewart’s “Calculus Early Transcendentals”) it barely seems enough.
Private tutors are much more expensive and not uniformly effective. Math Academy is an extremely low-risk bet for parents of math students (you'll know before the first usage period whether it's working out). I like the business model here a lot --- I also just think it's like something concocted in a mad scientists lab to annoy HN people, who always have a really hard time intuiting market/pricing segmentation.
There are cases where it's not the student who is paying. Definitely all the younger students, since that's covered by parents by default. I got it covered for a while under work's learning budget. I'm sure there are other groups I can't think of right now.
Having once been poor I understand you, but this is missing the bigger picture. If you're going to improve at mathematics you need to put serious time into it.
Instead of an hour of extra work every day, you're doing math instead. At minimum wage that's around two grand lost over a year. Even if MathAcademy was free.
Also, I recall seeing MathAcademy being free if you can demonstrate financial need.
The latest trend in educational software seems to be relatively high pricing. See e.g., Mentava, which sells for $500 USD/mo (not a typo). AoPS online courses are $28/lesson (though Beast Academy can be had for $100/yr). By comparison, this ($49) is in the realm of reasonable.
If this kind of pricing helps these services be sustainable over the long term, it's probably not a bad thing.
I don't think there's any question about the "probably" - I'm not that involved in the community but the subreddit makes it sound totally disharmonious.
reply