jaypinho

ohh yeah

Thank you! Working on some updates too, to make it user-friendlier and likelier to highlight info it doesn't know / can't pull.

Vibe-coding my way to public accountability.

You know, you could always just read the review.

We have different definitions of "vision." My version implies some level of internal coherence.

This is quite literally already explained in the review but I'll repeat it here. I used Andreessen's essay as a microcosm for the problem with Abundance: at the level of fuzzy, non-specific exhortations to "build," everyone can agree. Once you get into specifics, that's where the brass tacks are. In Andreessen's case, it means building is fine unless it's near his house. In Klein and Thompson's case, it's not even clear what they're proposing much of the time.

Right. So then what is he offering?

What does his podcast have to do with anything? I'm reviewing his book, not his entire bibliography.

As I stated already, the vision is incoherent. It's fine to cherrypick specific anecdotes as examples of competent governance. But if, for example, one of the stories is about how outsourcing large infrastructure projects led to its demise while doing the same for a vaccine logistics project was the cause of its success, this isn't really much of a vision at all, is it?

You say the point is to show what "an agenda of demonstrated competency would look like and accomplish." So where is that agenda?

It takes no effort at all to see that CA HSR is an unmitigated disaster. It takes much more effort to figure out a coherent policy common denominator that shames CA for outsourcing the project to consultants while praising OWS for doing the same.

I think you'd get near-universal agreement that some regulations somewhere are ineffective and/or counterproductive. If that's all the book is attempting to achieve, it's an extremely modest goal IMO.

The problem is getting that same level of agreement about specific regulations - or, failing that, making a strong case for a specific reason why a regulation that many people think is necessary and good is actually bad. But Klein and Thompson, for the most part, avoid doing this.

This is a weird response - that's not what the review says at all. (I should know. I wrote it.) I'm also a YIMBY - although, as a renter, it doesn't exactly take any moral courage.

As I state clearly in the review, I share Klein and Thompson's view of the housing issue and I called that part the strongest section of the book.

My point is that what the book calls "abundance" is an incoherent mishmash of ideologically incoherent anecdotes. It's not a policy framework and it's not an agenda. So what is it?

Are they though? https://twitter.com/typesfast/status/1700092765798048093

My early (late?) thoughts on the enormous promise of AI, and whether some solutions are still in search of a problem.

I once read an explanation of the Fourier transformation as akin to looking at a fully blended smoothie and being able to calculate exactly how much of each ingredient went into it.

I don't profess to be a DSP expert whatsoever, but the more familiar I've become with Fourier transformations, the more apt that analogy seems. Once you grasp that all sound is just a large addition problem of many, many sine waves, the ability to distinguish between them to a fairly high degree of fidelity feels almost like magic.

Are we there yet?

This might be a weird analogy but this product feels like it recreates the NFT problem -- meaning that it's inherently self-referential and doesn't actually solve the problem it purports to.

NFTs are supposed to be an irrefutable, immutable record of ownership. But the only thing they can actually "prove" is the ownership of the NFT itself. It's like having a receipt that says "I own this receipt."

It's a similar story here: using a QR code is proof that at one point you got this QR code from qrdate.org, but it doesn't prove you didn't manipulate the image or video, in which case what value is it providing?

Spent weeks investigating the mania around web3 and regret to say it does not live up to the hype.