zeeveener

The people / orgs that can actually codify their strong software engineering principles and practices into "a harness"[1] are the people / orgs that find success with these tools.

The rest are just marketers.

[1] Whatever that means to them

If I understand correctly, the argument isn't that it can't _hold_ it's price, but that it's not worth investing in if the goal is _meaningful gains_.

I wonder how white balance is handled across these products.

I recently bought the InkJoy frame which is similar to what's sold at your link and the white balance is _awful_ and grey.

I naively expect these to reflect light like paper photos and be nearly identical in that regard when mounted beside each other on a wall, but I've been disappointed with the results so far.

Colour depth is not _as_ big a deal to me as the image simply looking natural among printed photos.

Like Plague Inc., but with AGI instead of Viruses

I haven't spent any real amount of time looking into this, but from the basic research I did perform, I found that well-written guides that aren't grossly out of date are hard to find.

Also, my understanding is that Google, Outlook and other major email services have been implementing as many roadblocks for self-hosted setups as possible to the point where it's a constant battle and difficult to keep up with.

I use the iCloud custom domain for my personal email and I can confidently say it's worth the cost.

I am definitely engrossed in the Apple Ecosystem™ though so I can't speak to how it would fit any other setup that isn't almost entirely Apple-based.

I could have framed it better through the use of "It's like saying..." or something equivalent. There's clearly a spectrum in how folks handle nuance in a text post online. I should have accounted for that in my original post.

Respectfully I disagree. The purpose of quoting is to present a hypothetical statement that I believe is comparable to what the original person wrote. This is a common and well-known method of communicating such a comparison in a concise way.

As I wrote in my original post, I am not attributing any intent to what the person wrote, and am focusing on how what they are describing is equivalent in nature to the hypothetical statement I presented and can actually be harmful, even if the intentions are pure.

While the scope of the issues being compared is not equivalent, you're excluding from your rebuttal the scores of low-experience developers submitting changes to open source projects with their own pure intentions.

To borrow your own words; those contributors are making a good faith effort to improve the open source project by providing AI-generated change requests that they believe no one else is in a position to provide (time, priorities, etc), and worry less because any issues with their submissions can theoretically be corrected by the maintainers.

Please take some time to understand the nuance in the statements I am making. I assure you I chose my original words with intent.

"I feel more comfortable contributing to huge open source projects through the use of AI because I know that the maintainers will review my code for me and catch the issues I didn't"

I don't want to attribute anything to how you expressed that you feel, but I believe that this is what's known as "Deferral of Responsibility" and it can actually _negatively_ impact the quality of the data you are claiming to want to help curate.

IndyDevDan on Youtube had a really good series for how to prompt models. It's an older series, but still quite relevant in my experience.

It would likely fall on the harness (and possibly local datasets) to encourage that the model reach out for up to date information instead of relying on it's own internal "knowledge".

We already see a lot of that with `web_search` tooling, so I imagine it would just become more essential to have tools like that.

You could easily run any of their 30B-or-less models which is what most people are waiting for.

Apparently the ~30B variant will be released on Friday?

It forces a paper trail of warrants and other "official" pathways that we would normally consider proper policing.

If another district wants to ask a question, they have to follow the appropriate chain of command and use the correct tools.

Flock appears to have been a way for them to work around all of that and just answer any question they had willy-nilly.

I think I've evolved beyond knots and just accepted that elastic laces are my future for all but my proper use-for-high-intensity running shoes.

They attempt to sell it at market-rate which, assuming the previous owner intentionally under-valued the house, would earn them money that they can use to continue the program.

That must be a small percentage of the Steam Deck userbase that's impacted by this as I have the OLED model and it does not flicker or cause _me_ eye strain, even when at the absurdly low brightness levels it can reach.

Isn't this what good commit messages are intended to address? If a person has gone so far as to allow an agent to write all their code, they're likely having it commit on their behalf too.

Writing a skill / set of rules around what makes a good commit message would encourage the LLM to record it's reasoning (however much we truly consider it to be "reasoning").

Personally, guiding junior teammates down the path away from purely "Writer of Code" to "Implementer of Functionality" has been working well for me.

If you get them involved in the design process, they feel heard. Feeling heard is one surefire way to have a person feel involved. Feeling involved fosters a sense of ownership and pride which in turn helps keep a person engaged.

"Huh, this is just an identity function. Cool. Let's move on."

For sure, but that's not what I was referring to in my posts. I'm specifically referring to the callout that the contributions are so low quality they don't even pass linting or compile.

I could have been more explicit on that nuance, I suppose.

You're right. It doesn't solve for all scenarios and doesn't block malicious actors.

I do believe, however, that it would have a meaningful impact on the "drive-by" PRs that keep being used as examples; the thoughtless, throw-spaghetti-at-the-wall PRs that do not have malignant intent behind them.

Many large OSS projects would have the resources to eat that cost with Donors, Sponsors, and OSS hand-outs. That's why I clarified in my original post because I know this is not a general solution.

I'm personally amazed that _Large_ OSS projects don't have the appropriate automation in place to prevent non-compiling or non-linter-passing submissions.

- Hooks (although there's no clean way to enforce they be "installed" on a clone), GHA Workflows (or their equivalents on other forges).

This might be my bias showing, but these are items I would consider table-stakes for a project of a certain size / level of popularity.

It feels like a lot of the "AI is shit at contributing" problems could be addressed in part by better automated checks and balances.

Honestly, I think this is a stepping stone towards replacing industry CAD modeling tools.

AI _can_ work with 3D models already, but it's really bad at it. CAD requires an extra level of control and I think this is where I could see AI companies wanting to get a foot in the door.

e.g "Let's build an adapter between 2in BSP Male and 3/4in NPT Female threads with a third Hose Barb outlet with the following properties..."

So the equivalent of replacing a 5.1 surround with a beefy soundbar?

This is how I was taught by my insurance-recognized course and for the same reason you provided.

I believe wet clutches are semi-designed with this use-case in mind

I believe they're anticipating self-hosters to deploy directly from their Github documentation.

The FAQs in Github also imply that a hosted deployment for single users is on their roadmap, but not prioritized. - https://github.com/thunderbird/thunderbolt/blob/main/docs/fa...

Both groups will operate on a wide spectrum, but if we're already generalizing...

Perhaps there's a matter of competing priorities?

Programmers are usually quite cynical overall, but in this case I see it as a "My CEO is telling me _out loud_ that they want to replace me, so why would I help them speed up that process?"

Investors likely want what they're invested in to appreciate, so I imagine they're likely over-leveraged and are doing what they can to get their bag.

FYI: Your "Notify me when available" is landing on a 404 Not Found for me after I submit my email address

I struggle to understand what the target market is for products like this.

I can't imagine a legitimate market for (in my opinion gimmicky) colour e-readers, and I believe this would be a horrific experience as a daily-use monitor.

Is this intended for some form of advertising or marketing?

For sure. I don't think we are disagreeing on that fact, nor do I believe it hurts the validity of my comment.

Two sides of the same coin. Demand will always exist in a waxing / waning fashion. You've identified an area that will temporarily increase demand in the industrializing countries.

My hope is that the reduction in demand in more established countries will be able to offset that increase in demand somewhat. Probably not enough to net-zero it, but hopefully it has some meaningful effect.