htfu

We have much to learn from canopy latrines. For example, unlike these noble creatures of the rain forest, my dog struggles to properly use a bidet. Maybe if I put it on the roof it might all finally come together.

In all seriousness though, what a life for these researchers, climbing trees and checking shit.

You have to tell it both what and how. That way it's decidedly less shit. Still needs tons of passes just keeping things somewhat coherent, but it mostly works.

But these are the exact kinda mistakes that make me so pissed over the recent discourse that Serious Journalists shouldn't debase themselves with something as silly as basic LLM-performed fact checks. Those things hallucinate, dontchaknow!

A 3B model on a phone would've picked this up ffs.

Very scary stuff. Shame certain details basically discredit the entire thing. "Rohypnol and GHB fall within the benzodiazepine family" is so fundamentally incorrect I'm not sure what to say. And zolpidem is rather strictly a hypnotic, it will in no way entirely sedate you enough (at any dose) that you'd stay passed out if someone forces your eye open. Though you might not remember anything afterwards. This is the same reason z-drugs don't cause proper physical dependency like benzos do, action is much more narrowly targeted.

Anyways, I was sexually assaulted (well molested and woke up before anything more could occur) once and still sometimes basically violently fly out of bed when startled awake. Something about body integrity and how vulnerable one is while asleep gets a bit primal somehow. Can't believe adding drugging and actual rape and it being ones partner to it would do any good...

Even if they actually did work as well as the author wants to believe they could, there's still the matter of utility. Efficient pricing of real assets actually injects something, greases the gears of the market.

What is the utility of knowing the odds of something? Well that depends entirely on the something - it needs to be actionable, affect something that is not merely itself, whereby it can lessen friction. But this "actually valuable?" function is entirely decoupled from the prediction market trade volume and odds! You can make bank contributing to entirely useless odds, and equally make little on something where a clear prediction actually solves problems.

Those who stand to benefit from the output information (if ignoring insider bullshit) don't have to play. Hell if it's something important enough and they really have an edge, why would they play at all, if the information or prediction truly is valuable?

VCs don't exactly make plays on merely doubling their investment, right? Plus who's to say those sitting on valuable modeling powers actually have the capital to meaningfully participate? Even literally knowing the future wouldn't mean much if you're always only betting fifty bucks and spending the proceeds on heroin or tokens or whatever else is fashionable these days.

doesn't matter if it's just some agent using the system in the end, you do understand you still need an actual system for consistency etc, right? Just that instead of cirrent "making something possible" it'll mainly be for restricting what's possible, hence forming a stable format. That will never ever stop being a thing, even if the inputs and possibly outputs are entirely rock n roll it still requires coercion into something suitable for storage and processing.

Other idea: Stay with SaaS, real devs, real core product, closed source, but each customer can (if they want and pay up) literally skip multi-tenant and being on the same codebase as everyone else, and get an interface to actually customize their own version to their liking. Remove unneeded features, change UX, UI, add features. Some dev spends tiny amounts of time ensuring nothing gets too crazy, but apart from that it's basically an autonomous fork of the product, continuously tracking main.

That will probably come a lot sooner.

I think the idea is you'd basically have it take a look at your current system, it would learn what features you're actually using at all, it'd check company emails for past and current pain points or stuff you wish was possible or just simpler, it'd Slack everyone in the company asking what their biggest wish and biggest pet peeves are currently, it'd do a small interview with Joe himself presenting the above to see if it's gotten the right idea, create a very detailed spec and then implement it.

Of course both models and tooling will need to be far more powerful for all this, but it doesn't exactly seem sci-fi to me.

Once system is built it could run detailed analysis on its usage and figure out what parts seem to be confusing or slow for users, and simply refine, deploy, keep analyzing, rinse and repeat.

The biggest upside is probably that workers could also simply request features, have Joe sign off on them (would get messy otherwise) and minutes later they actually roll out.

To me anyways most systems are a PITA because they do so much and your own organization only utilizes a small subset. Good systems actually let you turn off stuff you don't use so that users don't even know it's possible and don't have to drown in menu options, but that's still rare enough. And good luck getting dev focus on your specific requests regarding the parts of the system most important to your specific company, since there are a zillion other things and hundreds or thousands of other customers.

Something literally tailored to what you need will surely be the norm eventually. In five years or whatever I'm sure we'll be plenty on our way towards something like that.

But again just like LLM training in general this all requires having something existing to analyze and work off of. So yeah nobody will be going from paper to custom agent-built system.

Very much normal yes. This is why I've been (so far) still mainly sticking to having it as an all-knowing oracle telling me what I need to know, which it mostly does successfully.

When it works for pure generation it's beautiful, when it doesn't it's ruinous enough to make me take two steps back. I'll have another go at getting with all the pure agentic rage everyone's talking about soon enough.

Probably the best we can hope for at the moment is a reduction in the back-and-forth, increase in ability to one-shot stuff with a really good spec. The regular human work then becomes building that spec, in regular human (albeit AI-assisted) ways.

Why would external host matter? Your machine, hacked, not your fault. Some other machine under your domain, your fault, whether bought or hacked or freely given. Agency is attribution is what can bring intent which most crime rests on.

Look, everyone in the space is eking out just about all they can. A phone with a bigger battery and larger camera sensors will involve other tradeoffs. Ones Apple don’t want to make. They certainly could, though!

Stability is fine, iOS dev is pleasant which is important, AI stuff is meh (notification summaries are great though) and Siri is getting Gemini. And the thing about the EU isn’t remotely true. Opposite if anything, since EU brought us usb-c and alternative app stores.

And the lock-in thing isn’t to be discounted. Emotional and practical as well. Once your files are on iCloud, photos as well, universal clipboard built in, AirPods automatic transfers, instant MFA fill, some apps lack android versions, the devices just geling… switching would for me mean dropping my watch as well, and losing out on a bunch of Mac side features. Androids can’t merely be “as good” or even slightly better, they would need to utterly kick iPhone's ass for years and years to even get me contemplating a switch.

By your interactions with them. Sure, after-the-fact caring won't result in any external effects, but a lot of caring is expressed in interaction which is indeed left with people. Who in turn have other cares and interactions influenced by those who cared about them. It's a chain.

Your caring will be passed on, that's the point.

Which is why the foundation players must soon take on the additional role of being an ad buyer.

Interactive stuff, within content. A mini game in a game, school homework of course, or "whichever text box the viewer looks at longest by WorldCoin Eyeball Tracker for Democracy x Samsung" for an interstitial turned captcha.

Better hope your taste isn't too bland and derivative!

Amazon and Ali soon lap the field by allowing coupon farming, but somehow eventually end up where they started.

Hey this is much like that tribe from the other day that DID get addicted to porn. What a coincidence.

I've also heard of this one tribe heavily addicted to misinformation. They just can't get enough of it! They weren't even feral and naive to exposure, it somehow just... crept up on them.

The issue with what you write is that it's most all nonsense. Your core thesis doesn't pass the smell test at all.

Because you utterly ignore Finland. It's less that it's not NATO and more that it literally can't be. Why would Putin drive them into NATO if having NATO neighbors (which, besides, was already a fact anyways) is such a threat?

He views it as his rightful property, and that's that.

It's a very powerful autocomplete. "It doesn't generate all the code I need in full and if it does I have to poke at it" is just poor criticism. You don't have to press tab and insert everything it suggests. It will usually generate me half a line after typing the first half - that's pretty awesome in my opinion.

If you stick to using it to merely speed-spell out what you were in fact already in the process of writing, and ignore 90% of the terrible crap it proposes, it's a nice productivity boost and has no way to make code worse by itself.

Basically, instead of writing a big comment and then a function signature and expect it to do the rest, just start writing out the function, tab when it gets it, don't when it doesn't, or (most of the time) tab then delete half of it and keep the lines you intended, likely with some small tweak.

Surely LLMs will be able to go so much more and without constant supervision in the future, but we're not there. That doesn't mean they're bad. Especially copilot since it's just there with its suggestions and doesn't require breaking flow to start spelling out in regular text what you're doing.

That's what makes it bad. A fixed algorithm that soon will spawn pittances would do an utterly miserable job if it ever gained status and usage as actual currency. Deflation is bad. So much worse than inflation. Not having flexibility in the money supply is lunacy. Mild inflation resulting in 100 year buying power going to fuck-all is good. It forces money to be invested, put to work. If sitting on your stash is its own investment the economy is screwed. Reduced circulation means less business means less value added and generally more friction. Why would you want that?

Crypto does some things well (illegal stuff, escaping currency controls/moving lots of money "with you") but in the end that also requires it is only just big enough for reasonable liquidity, but not so big it has an impact on the actual economy. For what it's being pushed for... it's a negative-sum game only good for taking people for a ride. It should stay in its goddamn lane.

Hint: the money comes from redistribution, not blindly printing more, the latter would obviously be completely insane (which is why you'd rather argue that scenario) whereas the former would keep the economy going, which is obviously in the interest of the capitalist class. No point owning and producing if there's no buyer because everyone is starving.

What you seem to think would devalue money will be the very thing that keeps it going as a concept.

And I hope you understand somewhere deep down that Bitcoin is the epitome of monopoly money.

I mean yes, it's unironically better if something that ruins things for everyone is restricted to be a luxury good, because less of a bad thing (congestion, pollution, space, death etc) is a good thing even if some lucky fuckers (not enough to meaningfully impact the larger effect) manage to skirt the spirit of the law.

Private cars will eventually be banned from cities, though, I'm sure of that. But it will take a long time. Congestion pricing and such are baby steps and is just you finally paying for your previously free externalities, and yes the market (in this case society/dominant politics) gets to set the price. Tough luck, welcome to proper capitalism.

This is some kind of a simplified view of how a battery works. It is not how an electric field functions.

Unfortunately only freezing. In a more reasonable world yes they'd be taken and used for restoration (you break it you buy it), nothing political about it either. Nor does it have anything whatsoever to do with this.

Vimium.

gi

I care, and where I work (as a coder) what I care about does matter. Or I make it matter.

You sound depressed. Maybe try find a smaller shop where you have more influence?

> menu system that closes the menu if you click at a submenu?

Mine doesn't do this, unless I'm misunderstanding what you mean by submenu (I'm thinking of the thing that has a > at the end. Also why would you want to click it when it opens automatically on hover?)

> if I opened a dialog

So close it, or look up the thing before you open a modal, a rather common concept across many platforms.

> there is a different shortcut

Granularity is bad... why exactly? But a tip, get HyperSwitch (this is the real reason for writing this comment)

The last one I don't even get how you mean the OS designer would get involved with how exactly applications are made. What would the alternative mechanism be, forcing (how?) them to put everything in menus? What about right-click menus, should they be banned? How is any of this unique to Apple?

I'm not saying they are infallible, but these are some weird ass examples.

Judging by my colleagues (whether more or less experienced than me), "whatever the GUI allows for".

Yes, almost the entire company runs on the subset of git presented by Visual Studio and Azure DevOps. I would guess this is more and more common, and even the more obvious shortcuts available for many things through git itself will become more and more arcane.

Right but that'd actually be one of the benefits. Getting perfect grades in high school for me without spending all my time doing school stuff was a mad juggling of focusing/neglecting classes on rotation, always ensuring to get an A by the smallest possible margin, knowing how to properly front-load and have each teacher thinking of me as the kind of guy who gets an A, so I could get away with performing poorly at times before making a comeback.

A weird dance I happened to be good at, but not a skill to cherish or practice _because real work is rarely overloaded enough to make it necessary_

School should be about learning, not whatever meta bullshit the above was, at least for me.

Having more flexibility over pace would go a long way I think.

Work deadlines, at least where I've worked and with some exceptions for rare hard deadlines, are rather more fluid. In the sense that they might have to be pushed, or the work adjusted, because they were too optimistic or circumstances change. Because your boss knows you know what you're doing and aren't talking out of your ass when you give them a heads up things are not on track. More importantly they're there for some legit reason, not "so you'll learn the importance of hardship". Getting stuff done and having an impact is motivating enough, producing worthless schoolwork of no use to anyone is not.

> lowering the requirements

They're the same requirements, just with a different, looser, time constraint. You couldn't get a better grade without actually learning the material. Performing tasks on time, managing time, etc is incredibly important, obviously. But in an ideal world with more resources there'd be a time and a place for practicing it, reasoning about it, actually studying it, not this "absorbing it by osmosis from a constant grind" where it's all artificial. Work smart, not hard.

Consequences are still there, you still have to perform, it'd just be less time constrained.

Why would a person who has never done homework in their life be more stressed over a huge workload? They're used to working all day, _in school_. Just like how they'll be working all day, at work. Obviously I'm not talking about not having assignments/papers to write (preferably with at least some time allotted during school hours), but the kind of busywork that is the bulk of homework.

> To be clear, the specific policy I just mentioned really is part of the document - allowing students to always redo work for a better grade.

If you've learned the material and fulfill the requirements, and the course is still ongoing, why should it matter you were late? Are you teaching the subject, or is [literally every course all the time] really mostly a study in time management? (hint: it's not for the student's sake, it's about managing teacher time and resources. Which is obviously necessary, but not otherwise positive)

> That reinforces that idea that it's okay to do a half-ass job because you can always "fix it later".

I'd say it might equally mean not pointlessly throwing in the towel and phoning the rest in just because you performed poorly early on and (rightly) feel like it doesn't matter anymore.

> In the real world however, poor decisions can have devastating effects the very first time, and there might not be a chance for a "do-over".

Sure. Exceedingly rarely though, compared to school.

> Homework also normalizes the idea that things will be expected from you in this world if you are to be employed.

Most jobs don't involve additional work after you've finished work. Nor constant artificial deadlines that never let you truly relax. Constant stress is bad for humans, it's not something that hardens you, and pointlessly subjecting people to it "just because" is not just useless but counter productive, because you get blunted. It's important to have something extra to tap into when shit truly hits the fan and it's time to step up, but the contrast gets lost if it's a neverending blur.