Same here. Loved hacking on things from all angles, still do. The only thing lost to me now is the yak shaving, and good riddance. I want to think in systems, solutions, integration, and first and foremost the higher level problem, not nitty gritty implementation details.
Ever since Fable and Sol level LLMs/agents came online, I have ceased to look at the code. I recently launched a project for a client that integrated many many systems, has considerable traffic with low latency requirements and everything just.. works. I've never had to do this little firefighting when launching a project of that complexity and scale. It's been liberating and I was able to focus mostly on polish and QoL improvements of the stack and systems. What a time to be alive for a technical builder.
I mean, wasn’t that the case for most of them? Im not a developer anymore, but to me programming was always a means to an end. Sure you can have preferences (static vs dynamic typing, functional vs OOP, etc.), but in the end they should only be relevant if they make you more productive, makes the codebase more readable and so on.
Since these nuances are progressively getting less and less important, why would you care about the process?
There is such a thing as difficult concepts that code can express elegantly and words cannot. Its far beyond the simple preferences you allude to. Recursion is the simplest example i guess. Perhaps maths is even more elegant, but im among many a non mathmetician for whom code is the only way ive experienced it thus far.
Especially when you combine and mix those concepts in expressive, simple, intuitive ways. Im just not sure what else is like it that our minds can percieve.
This is BY FAR the worst part of LLMs to me. The idea guys were always incredibly annoying but very ignorable. Now they are constantly in your face but providing the exact same 0 value as always.
I have a GPS based PTP server, the antenna is indoors 15 feet away from a south facing window, it locks on pretty well (though this will probably depend on the surrounding buildings)
It's surprising how often I can get an okay-ish GPS signal indoors... it seems to have a lot more to do with building materials than anything else.
Multipath reflections means the location (and thus timing accuracy) wanders a lot, but it's still great down to microseconds if you can get 5+ satellites in view.
if they sell 100 of these per year (which I doubt), with profit of $3000 per unit (which I also doubt), that pays enough to employ like one person (who needs to handle sales, support, marketing, three or four different kinds of engineering, etc.)
I feel like most projects like this must be run by people who are independently wealthy(ish) already and are in it for the long run? Like if this style took off enough to mass produce they could eventually make a lot of money, but if they keep it niche they are never going to make significant money no matter how much they charge.
I could definitely imagine a smaller cheap plasticky version of this being pitched as a more intuitive way for kids to learn piano, maybe that's where they're aiming?
a decent comparison because they both seem like some type of responsibility laundering, and LLMs/PAs are being given continually increasing autonomy for economic reasons
the way you phrase this implies some sort of suppression of LLM interest, but anyone eligible to vote on these could have made their own. The absence of pro-LLM proposals shows nobody wanted one enough to send an email or two about it.
if you absolutely needed a huge multi color/material printer, sure, but a prusa i3 mkwhatever was entirely adequate for normal 3d printing out of the box
I have a Prusa i3 Mk3 and a Bambu P1S and I have to disagree. They are in entirely different leagues. The Prusa was a step change improvement from an Ender 3, and the Bambu is a step change from the Prusa i3 Mk3. It definitely depends on what you're printing, but I personally saw all my print failures on the Prusa pretty much go away overnight with Bambu.
Nope. You will get absolute shite prints if you skip the manual, eyeballed, first layer cals [1]. Bambu manual effort is a few seconds [2] of navigating a menu, then print. But, these cal's are NOT equivalent, with Bambu doing linear advance cal and input shaping (completely manual on i3).
Prusa being "adequate" (and expensive) is partly why Bambu now has 41% of the market, while Prusa has < 3% [3].
Doesn't it make sense to run a small trial before running a big trial?
Also, peppermint oil is unpatentable. Neither Merck nor Novo Nordisk can hope to make billions from it, and without the profit motive, the list of institutions with both the budget and the will to fund a 500+ participant study is pretty short. This might be the best we can get.
And yes, I get that a small trial has less of a value...
From PLOS One as well! I remember in college, I was taking a bio class that taught how to read journal articles...and a psych class that was assigning them. Psych class assigned almost solely PLOS One articles...which didn't survive the criticism I was being taught in the bio class lmao
reply