What is the exact reason for a redesign (and to spend public money on that topic)? Is it to introduce new anti-counterfeit measures?
Also having people on a note is dumb when the note has to be designed for a continent. Europe is not US it’s a union, but still a collection of sovereign countries with national pride and centuries of history.
Having the EU bureaucrat offices on the notes are cherry on top like could they be more narcissistic?
One could think that they would steal some ideas from Swiss currency note. They could have put things that were invented or discovered in Europe that changed the course of humans forever and something to be proud of being European, instead they went with some birds
You can right-click and open in a specific container tab but I dislike the extra step, bookmarks really should be able to be set for a specific container.
Reading through the comments here someone said:
> There are some good add-ons to pin bookmarks to specific containers, which helps.
Might have to go hunting for that but IMHO this should be a built-in feature!
This manual has too many AI-isms so I couldn't force myself to read through it. I wish they had just published the text in whatever way they wrote it. Nobody is impressed by walls of text anymore, it's not a sign of quality or effort.
But since we're on the topic: Riot has a lot of incredibly knowledgeable game designers who have spent years sharing much of the reasoning behind various design decisions. The two main ones that stand out to me are Riot August (creator of Jinx and Jhin) and Riot Phreak (previous head of the balance team).
Phreak in particular has been publishing videos on YouTube for years explaining their reasoning for the balance changes in each new patch. I don't even play and I still check out the videos sometimes.
The other one is Riot August. I've occasionally opened up his livestreams where he's answering questions and yapping, but the highlights are usually posted on social media platforms as clips.
There's a lot for which you can criticize Riot, but they're actually pretty transparent about communicating the decision making behind balance changes and listening to the community. Most games updates come in the form of receiving a set of patch notes, where if you're really lucky they might include some explanations for why those changes were made. Don't take community communication for granted.
As for balance, I think they've actually done a pretty great job. League of Legends has 171 champions and in MSI 2026, their latest international esports event, 104 were played. For comparison, DotA2 has 126 heroes and in The International 2025, 107 heroes were played.
Played with it for a couple of hours now, I'd say it's slightly better than Fable for coding and so far I haven't hit any guardrails while I'd hit them all the time with Fable.
If you're planning to put it into production anything you do outside of bringing somebody qualified at this point is likely a waste of time. Highly recommend this recent talk by Kelsey Hightower on the subject - https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=A7WFt2JQ5sg
Honestly, I strongly disagree. I've played a wide breadth of games, and I can't think of a game studio the size of Riot that is as community-engaged and pro-consumer.
Examples range from the quality of their patch notes, dev articles and videos, to their constant presence on reddit, and willingness to walk back decisions based on public outcry (Hextech Chests, League Classic monetization, etc).
Heck, after Riot gave up on Hytale, they were willing to sell the IP and assets back to the original creator while providing extremely generous severance packages for the entire team. I genuinely don't think any of the other companies you listed would have done the same.
> She was a professor in the mathematics of cities (applied spatial mathematics) before that — in her early thirties.
But, that was not at Cambridge, which is what the original post by vgivanovic claimed, right? It was at University College London.
> Public understanding of science has proved to be a valuable field,
I never contested that, assuming that it is done responsibly and well. But that field, as well as a large proportion of her activities and work, as well as the title "Professor of the Public Understanding of Mathematics", seem softer and less hardcore than many other titles for professors regarding mathematics.
A field can be both soft and valuable, assuming the field is handled responsibly and well.
> president of the applicable UK institute
A president is not primarily a researcher, right? More about external relations, strategy, management, etc., as far as I know. Mentioning her being a president weakens your argument, and strengthens my argument, as far as I can tell. There are other former presidents of that institute that likewise have had a more educational focus instead of hardcore research focus, like Celia Hoyles as far as I can tell.
> She is an expert in applied mathematics
She does have a PhD, but apart from that, her research work has been more focused on softer topics as far as I can tell. Do you know of any work after her PhD that was more hardcore research? The publications I found were more soft, like "The Indisputable Existence of Santa Claus (2015)", a few years after completing her PhD.
Do you know if she has been employed in the private sector regarding what one could perceive as more hardcore research or engineering? She seems to be very hardworking and active, and have written a lot of books and worked with a lot of movies and other media, apart from being a president of an institute and being a professor, so it would be impressive if she also found both time and energy for hardcore research. I don't know if other professors would be able to take on that many challenges at once. She cannot be described as lazy by any means.
Yep, it does seem that way. FWIW I was asking Claude yesterday about the relationships between these different "tier" Anthropic models, and it is not aware of any fixed relationship between them, so it's quite possible that Opus 5 and Fable 5 are related (or not), but that Sonnet 5 is not. Claude suggested that Sonnet 5 was just named Sonnet 5 rather than Sonnet 4.7 since this seemed more appropriate given it's performance relative to Opus 4.8.
OpenAI's versioning seems equally opaque. Claude mentioned that there was a tiny bit of clarity from them in that GPT 5.5 was the result of a new pre-training run, which would seem to strongly suggest that 5.6 (following so soon after, and given the choice of naming) is therefore based on 5.5 - but again who knows.
It seems that so much of the model performance is now coming from post-training that this is what is driving inter-version performance differences, and that base models are much less important than they used to be.
There may not be "core" improvements (structural reliability) but there are "emergent" improvements (apparent intelligence). Already the IQ tests from Maxim Lott ( trackingai.org ) show a progressive sliding towards the right side of the curve - which btw translates to a very much non-secondary decline in the user's frustration (and progresses with an increase of usability).
The more they work on it, the more probable the jump becomes - e.g. to achieve the Large Conceptual Models you say you worked on.
Source 1 is a good example here, where licensees of source need to also obtain a havok license before Valve can give them any code.